Report on Breastfeeding Decisions in Geneva 
June 9th  

The International Labor Organization (ILO) debate about keeping breastfeeding support as an element of maternity protection at work ended Wednesday evening, with high drama.  

In its final revision of the 1952 Maternity Protection Convention, the Maternity Protection Committee has now upheld a woman's right to have time for breastfeeding or expressing milk during her working day.  The details of how this time will be provided---the number and length of breaks, how the work day can be shortened, and the number of months after birth for which this right will be recognized---are all to be determined at national level.  The time women take for breastfeeding will be counted as working time and they will be paid for that time. 

Latin American countries proposed an amendment to require the provision of facilities for breastfeeding or milk expression at the workplace.  This was a new element for a Convention; previously, breastfeeding facilities at the workplace were part of Recommendation 95.  This amendment passed at first by a show of hands, but because the vote was very close, the Employers insisted on a roll call.  This roll call vote was held at the very end of a long afternoon session, with only a half-hour break planned before the upcoming evening session.  After the show of hands, some government delegates left the room before the roll call was requested. Perhaps others could not go on record in favor of adding a new provision to the Convention.  Whatever the reason, enough votes changed between the show of hands and the recorded vote to give a final result of exactly equal numbers for and against the amendment, with twice as many abstentions as in the show of hands.  Under ILO rules, a tied vote means the amendment is not adopted.  

However, a similar provision for workplace facilities is also part of the draft Recommendation, which will be debated on Friday.  After missing inclusion in the convention by a single vote, chances are excellent that the facilities provision will fare well in the Recommendation debate. 

So, now the draft Convention reads as follows on breastfeeding breaks: 

A woman shall be provided with the right to one or more daily breaks or a daily reduction of hours of work to breastfeed her child. 

The period during which nursing breaks or the reduction of daily hours of work are allowed, their number, the duration of nursing breaks and the procedures for the reduction of daily hours of work shall be determined by national law and practice.  These breaks or the reduction of daily hours of work shall be counted as working time and remunerated accordingly. 

This is a significant victory, considering the major effort that has been mounted over the last two years to water down protection for breastfeeding in the Convention.  The Employers' spokesperson has said many times during this year's debate that the International Labor Office, having made an analysis that pointed to breastfeeding breaks as an obstacle to ratification, made the decision on its own to remove them from the first draft for a revised Convention in 1999.  

As the breastfeeding advocacy team (this year organized as the Maternity Protection Coalition) prepared for the 1999 ILO meeting, we found that over eighty countries have provisions for breastfeeding breaks, many of them paid as working time, while only 38 countries had ratified the previous maternity protection conventions.  Thus, we did not agree that breastfeeding breaks actually do present a major obstacle to ratification.  

The ILO Secretariat is supposed to be neutral, but it is hard to believe that their decision to weaken breastfeeding protection, a decision that so seamlessly intersects with the wishes of the employers and with multinational corporations in opposition to breastfeeding, was taken in the best interests of women and children.  In 1999 our objective at ILO in 1999 was simply to rescue breastfeeding for the Convention.  That success was won with support from African, Latin American, and Arab countries, as well as Austria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. 

For the 2000 meeting, breastfeeding began in a stronger position.  Job protection for nursing mothers, non-discrimination against nursing mothers, and paid breastfeeding breaks were already part of the text of the proposed Convention that resulted from the 1999 discussion, and facilities for breastfeeding were included in the draft Recommendation.  Still, there was always a danger that breastfeeding protection could be weakened.   The first amendment on breastfeeding breaks to be debated, for instance, was proposed by Canada and seconded by Australia.  This amendment would have left it to each nation to "adopt appropriate measures to support the return to work of women who are breastfeeding and ensure that employers take reasonable steps to enable a woman to tend to her breastfeeding needs without discrimination."  The Canadian amendment, which was defeated by a show of hands, omitted the right or entitlement to breastfeeding breaks that has been part of ILO's maternity protection since 1919. 

Another amendment proposed by the Employers would have left payment for breaks up to national law and practice.  Counting breaks as working time was entirely omitted from their proposal.  That amendment failed, but the Employers did win one of their objectives, which was to leave it to national law and practice to determine how long after birth women will be entitled to breastfeeding breaks, and how long and how frequent the breaks will be.  From the Employers' point of view, this concession will make it easier for some countries to ratify the new Convention.  This new feature opens an opportunity for breastfeeding advocates to teach labor ministries, unions, and employers' groups how they can organize breastfeeding breaks to help mothers sustain optimal breastfeeding. 

The debate about breastfeeding breaks took more than eight hours, which is a significant portion of the time allotted for the maternity protection committee.  The proceedings were lengthened by two roll call votes, taking about an hour each.  However, these roll call votes give NGOs an opportunity to see just how government delegates are representing the people's interests and to hold them accountable when they return home. 

Latin American and African countries led the campaign in support of breastfeeding, along with the Workers group.  European support has been divided, with Eastern and Southern Europe strongest in support of breastfeeding provisions.  We miss the unified support that the Arab states gave to breastfeeding in the 1999 debate.  

The first successful amendment, recognizing women's right to breastfeeding breaks, was introduced by Belgium, Finland, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Sweden and amended by the workers.  The amendment ensuring payment for breaks and letting nations determine their timing was introduced by Belgium, Greece, Italy and Portugal. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Venezuela put forth the workplace facilities amendment.  In addition, the representatives of Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, Netherlands, Croatia, Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago, Libya, and Ghana have been strong speakers in support of breastfeeding.  The African caucus and Cote d'Ivoire in particular proposed many alternative amendments that were ready in reserve in case the early ones had failed. 

What comes next?  By the end of the week, the debate will be finished, including the difficult issues of paying the costs of maternity protection.  The Maternity Protection Coalition's position there is that, as everyone benefits when babies are breastfed, the costs should be shared among workers, employers, and governments.  Next week the ILO plenary will vote whether to approve the Committee's report, formally adopting the Convention and Recommendation, the first of the new millennium.  This approval will open the Maternity Protection Convention 2000 for ratification. 

The Maternity Protection Coalition, made up of WABA, IBFAN, ILCA, the LINKAGES Project, and the IMCH of Uppsala University, has agreed to put its support behind the proposed Convention.  Although it is not ideal, many provisions are stronger than those of the previous Maternity Protection Conventions 3 and 103.  Yes, we would prefer a minimum of four months maternity leave in the Convention and 26 weeks in the Recommendation, enabling exclusive breastfeeding in line with the optimum length of about six months. However, the step up to 14 weeks maternity leave and the entitlement to paid breastfeeding breaks or a shorter workday in the new Convention give crucial support for sustaining exclusive breastfeeding when mothers go to work.  In addition, the new Convention offers several improvements over Convention 103. 

• The scope is enlarged to cover more women in the new categories of work that a globalized economy is bringing. 
• The definitions of "woman" and "child" are broader.
• Health protection of the pregnant and breastfeeding woman and her child is included for the first time.
• There is improved job protection, so that women can return to the same job or one at the same level after maternity leave.
• Pregnancy tests are not allowed as a condition of employment, except in very specific circumstances. 
• Anti-discrimination measures are increased.
• Breastfeeding protection remains in the convention, and national action can play a role in making it stronger.

How can you be involved? 

1. This week, communicate with your national ministry of labor.  A telephone call is probably the best way.  Tell them that you support the revised Maternity Protection Convention and that you want them to vote for its approval next Thursday at the ILO.  If your country is on the list of especially helpful governments above, thank them for the support they have given for breastfeeding in the Maternity Protection Committee debate. 

2. Work with your local WABA or IBFAN group or your local breastfeeding coalition to organize a national effort to ratify the new convention.  Make alliances with women's groups, trade unions, and employers' groups.  The Child Labor Convention passed in 1999 had 26 ratifications in its first year, and eight more are pending.  Can the Maternity Protection Convention 2000 do as well? 

3. Find out just how your national government will determine the items that are left up to "national law and practice," such as the period of entitlement to breastfeeding breaks.  Breastfeeding advocates must insist on being included in the process!  You can begin by reaching out to your Ministry of Labor or your national trade union movement. 

4. In cooperation with public health agencies, offer to supply breastfeeding training for unions or employers' groups or for labor policy-makers.  Breastfeeding training for trade unions has already begun in Malaysia. 

5. Women workers need training too.  Women often do not know their rights to maternity protection and breastfeeding breaks.  It's our job to help them find out and use those rights.