Truly, history had been made... Letter from Geneva 
June 5, 2000 

Chris Mulford 

The meeting of the Maternity Protection Committee at ILO is under way, undertaking the debate that will lead to a revision of Convention 103 and Recommendation 95 concerning maternity protection at work.  The committee must finish its debating by Friday, June 9.  Then the following week, the ILO Conference, meeting in plenary session, must approve the Committee report and then at last there will be a new Maternity Protection Convention and Recommendation. 

The committee leadership from the 1999 meeting was re-elected.  The Chair is Agnete Andersen, legal advisor to the Danish Ministry of Labour, a woman with an extensive background in equal opportunity work on the Equality Council of Europe.  Vice-chair speaking for the Employers is Anne Knowles, Chief Executive of the New Zealand Employers' Federation. Speaking for the Workers is Ursula Engelen-Kefer, Vice-president of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB).  Looking around the room we see many other familiar faces from last June's meeting, so in general this is a seasoned group. 

The meetings are held in a big round room.  The Chair sits at a raised table in front, flanked by advisors from the ILO Secretariat.  Curved tables are arranged in concentric semi-circles facing the head table, and the room is divided into wedge-shaped sections where the Workers Group sits to the left, the Employers Group to the right, and the Governments in the middle.  There is a gallery for observers, NGOs, press, and visitors at one side, but many seats are also open for NGOs in the tripartite sections too.  You can go upstairs and watch from above, near the interpreters' booths.  This allows you to see faces better, but limits your ability to meet with delegates. 

Wednesday's meeting (May 31) opened with statements by the Chair and Vice-chairs.  Then governments were invited to give general statements.  Of great interest to NGOs was a period set aside at the end of the day for statements from UNICEF and the NGOs.  We were especially happy to hear Ketsella Bendow from UNICEF propose a new standard for the Recommendation, of one daily half-hour breastfeeding break for working mothers of children between the ages of one and two years. 

The NGO interventions (that is what they call a speech at the UN) were scheduled at a time when Director-General Juan Somavia could attend.  Four NGOs made interventions: Marie-Claire Seguret spoke for the Working Group on Women's Educational and Economic Development of the Geneva branch of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, representing about 30 women's NGOs; Mirelle Kingma spoke for the International Federation of Nurses; Amal Omer-Salim and Ines Fernandez spoke for the Maternity Protection Coalition; and Solveig Francis spoke for the International Women Count Network.  

On Thursday, June 1, an NGO forum was held, with a panel of Ms. Andersen, Ms. Knowles, and Ms. Engelen-Kefer, joined by Canadian delegate Ron Saunders, and chaired by Conchita Poncini of the Working Group on Women's Educational and Economic Development.  This was an opportunity for people to make questions and comments from the floor.  Arun Gupta from Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India and Chris Mulford of International Lactation Consultant Association made short statements about breastfeeding. 

Delegates from government, the workers, and the employers have submitted a stack of amendments about a centimeter thick, and now they are working their way through the stack.  There are 29 amendments on Article 5 alone, which covers cash and medical benefits!  Seventeen amendments have been proposed about breastfeeding breaks and facilities in the workplace. 

Here are the principle decisions of the committee so far. 

1. Statements to support promoting women's equality in the workplace and the health and safety of mother and child were added to the preamble. 

2. References to CEDAW, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Beijing Platform for Action, and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles were also added to the preamble. 

3. More women were covered by the new convention by adding a phrase about "women in atypical forms of dependent work," such as temporary workers, home workers, and workers under fixed-term contracts. 

4. Member states are still allowed to exclude certain categories of workers from coverage by the convention, but they may not exclude categories of enterprises (businesses under a certain size, for instance). 

5. A new section on health protection, proposed by Canada and many of the industrial countries, won easy acceptance.  Pregnant and breastfeeding women may not be obliged to perform work that poses a significant risk to the health of mother or child. 

6. Most exciting was the decision to raise the minimum maternity leave to 14 weeks, the first time it had been changed in 81 years!  

The Latin American countries led the move to increase maternity leave by proposing 17 weeks.  Brazil introduced the amendment, supported by Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela.  Next came Croatia's amendment for 16 weeks.  Then a group of Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, joined by the Workers' Group, proposed 14 weeks.  The Workers' spokesperson said it was time to remember why delegates were here: not to water down the standard or to stay the same.  She quoted an ILO report from 1993 on why the maternity protection convention should be revised; "it would seem reasonable that a new convention should incorporate slightly improved standards." Then she pointed out that the standard for maternity leave had been 12 weeks since 1919. 

Croatia spoke in support, recalling that the committee had been urged during the opening remarks to bring the maternity protection convention into the 21st century, and she has noticed that "men's instruments advance, but when something applies only to women, we are still one hundred years back!"  Zimbabwe gave eloquent support, reminding her listeners that we have come a long way since 1919.  She hoped that the statements of WHO and UNICEF would not fall on deaf ears, and that delegates would remember that their vote could affect the lives of a sister, a daughter, a wife. 

Then came the show of hands, and after the vote result was announced (52% yes, 45% no, 3% abstaining), there was long applause.  Truly, history had been made.