Involving children and young people in violence
prevention and protection
Improving children’s
status?
Children as rights
holders? !
We should have
MORE protection
from being hit
and hurt !
Executive summary of regional technical workshop for
Save the Children and partners
Amari Watergate Hotel, Bangkok, 5-6 March 2009
Respect our
human dignity &
physical
integrity…!
Save the Children works for:
A world which respects and values each child
A world which listens to children and learns
A world where all children have hope and opportunity.
Belief in the future since 1919
Save the Children fights for children’s rights.
We deliver immediate and lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide.
Published 2009 by Save the Children Sweden on behalf of
the International Save the Children Alliance.
© Save the Children Sweden
Author: Carolyne Willow
Project manager: Dominique Pierre Plateau
Graphic Design: Manida Naebklang
Cover Design: Manida Naebklang
Save the Children Sweden,
Regional Office for Southeast Asia and the Pacific
14th floor, Maneeya Center, South Building,
518/5 Ploenchit Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel: +662 684 1046/7 Fax: +662 684 1048
Email: scs@seap.savethechildren.se
Website: http://seap.savethechildren.se
2
Prohibiting all corporal punishment in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
Involving children and young people in
violence prevention and protection
Executive summary of regional technical workshop for
Save the Children and partners
Amari Watergate Hotel, Bangkok, 5-6 March 2009
Resourced by Carolyne Willow
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
1
Table of contents
Overview......................................................................................................................................................................3
Background..................................................................................................................................................................5
Style and content of workshop........................................................................................................................7
Participants...................................................................................................................................................................7
Day1: 5 March 2009............................................................................................................................................. 8
Day2: 6 March 2009.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Annexes:
• Appendix 1: Workshop agenda..............................................................................................................19
• Appendix 2: List of participants..............................................................................................................22
2
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
1. Overview
In March 2009, over 35 Save the Children
staff and partners from 18 countries in
Southeast Asia and the Pacific participated
in a regional technical workshop on
involving children and young people in
violence prevention and protection. The
two-day workshop was part of a weeklong workshop on ‘Building effective child
protection’; the theme of the first three days
was ‘Prohibiting all corporal punishment in
Southeast Asia and Pacific’.
The United Nations Study on violence
against children made 12 overarching
recommendations; the seventh urged UN
member states to ‘actively engage with children
and respect their views in all aspects of prevention,
response and monitoring of violence against
them…’ Save the Children Sweden organised
this workshop in order to encourage
wide-ranging and systematic action across
the region in meeting the UN Study’s
recommendation 7. Broadly, the workshop
stressed two points: that the child’s views
and experiences should be at the centre of
all matters affecting his or her protection;
and that effective child protection must be
part of a broader strategy to fully implement
the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC).
There were three objectives for the two-day
workshop:
• Increase participants’ understanding,
knowledge and skills so that they can
effectively involve children and young
people in the design, implementation
and evaluation of legislation, policies
and interventions that seek to prevent
and protect them from all forms of
violence
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
• Demonstrate how child protection
systems can realise the rights of
individual children and young people to
be heard and taken seriously, as well as
the different ways in which children and
young people can be involved collectively
in the design, implementation and
evaluation of legislation, policies and
interventions
• Working within a human rights
framework, provide guidance on ethical
considerations, minimum standards of
practice, and other specific requirements,
including the allocation of resources,
human and financial.
At the closing session, participants were
asked to share their action plans for
their respective countries. A variety of
commitments were made – these are
summarised on page 11.
This was the first time a technical workshop
of this nature had been delivered as
part of the effective child protection
programme. Adjustments were made to the
programme on the second half of the first
day in response to concerns expressed by
some participants – see below. Not every
participant completed an evaluation form
but of the 23 returned:
• 65% of participants believed the
workshop had met the first objective
‘completely’ or ‘above average’ (22%
responded ‘average’, 9% ‘not at all’ and
4% ‘don’t know’)
3
• 52% of participants believed the
workshop had met the second objective
‘completely’ or ‘above average’ (35%
responded ‘average’, 9% ‘not at all’ and
4% ‘don’t know’)
• 56% of participants believed the
workshop had met the third objective
‘completely’ or ‘above average’ (30%
responded ‘average’ and 13% ‘not at
all’).
Feedback on the individual sessions was
more positive, with 83% of evaluation
form responses indicating that the aims of
the sessions were met (11% of responses
indicated the aims were not met and 5% of
responses were ‘don’t know’).
4
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
2. Background
The UN Secretary-General’s Study on
violence against children uses Article 19
of the CRC as its framework for defining
violence:
… all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment
or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in
the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other
person who has the care of the child.
The World Health Organization’s definition
also informs the Study:
… the intentional use of physical force or power,
threatened or actual, against a child, by an
individual or group, that either results in or has a
high likelihood of resulting in actual or potential
harm to the child’s health, survival, development or
dignity.
The question of how to effectively involve
children and young people in violence
prevention and protection straddles three
major areas of law, policy and practice –
child protection, children’s participation
and children’s rights. This workshop set out
to challenge traditional approaches to child
protection and to make the case for new
ways of understanding and working, where
children’s views and experiences are always
centre-stage and child protection is part of
a broader strategy to fully implement the
CRC.
Child protection is typically understood as
action taken to prevent or stop child abuse
– significant (and measurable) harm caused
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
to children on purpose or through neglect.
The most common categories of abuse
are physical, sexual, emotional and neglect.
The CRC, ratified by all UN member states
in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, is much
broader in its recognition of the harm that
can be done to children. The child is entitled
to full protection from all forms of violence
in inter-personal relationships as well as
from damaging aspects of wider society –
harmful work, media and school discipline
for example.
A human rights approach to child protection
has three overriding concerns – to promote
and protect the child’s human dignity,
physical integrity and self-respect. The most
relevant provisions in the CRC are:
• The child’s right to survival and maximum
development (Article 6)
• The right to protection from torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment (Article 37)
• The child’s right to be protected from
all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and
exploitation (Article 19)
• The right to protection from sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse (Article
34)
• The right to protection from abduction,
sale and trafficking (Article 35)
• The right to protection from traditional
practices prejudicial to the child’s health
(Article 24(3))
5
• The obligation on States Parties to
ensure the recovery and reintegration
of children who have been subject to
violence1, with priority given to the
child’s health, self respect and dignity
(Article 39)
• The child’s right to express their views
and to have these views given due
weight in accordance with their age and
maturity in all matters affecting them
(Article 12)
Other relevant rights in the CRC are: the
right to an adequate standard of living
(Article 27); the right to the highest attainable
standard of health and health care services
(Article 24); and the right to information
(Article 17) and education (Article 28). The
availability and quality of assistance offered
to parents (see, for example, Articles 18
and 23) and arrangements for determining
separation from parents, as well as the
provision and review of alternative care are
also critical (see Articles 9, 20, 21 and 25).
• The child’s right to protection from
unlawful interferences with his or her
privacy, family, home or correspondence,
as well as with unlawful attacks on his or
her honour or reputation (Article 16)
• The obligation on States Parties to
take action to protect the child from
information and material injurious to his
or her well being (Article 17)
• The obligation on States Parties to
ensure school discipline is administered
in a manner consistent with the child’s
human dignity (Article 28(2))
• The obligation on States Parties to
ensure children in contact with the
criminal justice system are treated in a
manner consistent with their dignity and
worth
• The child’s right to protection from
work that is harmful to his or her health
or development (Article 32).
The article does not use the term violence but refers to child victims of ‘any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture
or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts’.
6
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
1
3. Style and content of workshop
The workshop had one facilitator throughout
the two days, with ongoing support from
Dominique Pierre Plateau and colleagues
from Save the Children Sweden. A range of
methods were used, including:
• Short lectures accompanied by
PowerPoint slides and handouts
• Small and large group discussions
The aim was to create an informal and relaxed
environment, where participants could share
their own knowledge and experience, as well
as critically engage with the ideas and tools
in the workshop materials. The workshop
would help build the knowledge and skills
of participants whilst contributing to the
preparation of a forthcoming publication
on involving children and young people in
violence prevention and protection.
• Group activities, including practice
sharing
• Question and answer sessions.
4. Participants
The vast majority of participants were Save
the Children staff performing a variety
of children’s rights roles. Civil servants
from several countries also participated, as
did representatives from other children’s
non-governmental
organisations
and
human rights bodies. In all, there were 39
participants from 18 countries in Southeast
Asia and the Pacific.
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
7
5. DAY 1: 5 March 2009
Session 1 began with small groups of
participants identifying five words they most
associate with the terms ‘child protection’,
‘participation’ and ‘children’s rights’. Each
table had only one of the terms and they
were asked to either be themselves or to try
to answer from the perspective of children.
Adult descriptions
Child protection
Abuse, system, prevention,
empowerment, response
Safe, love, respect, belonging,
care
Participation
Boys, interactive, engaged,
respect, well informed
Hearing, play, friend, authority,
knowledge, housework
Children’s rights
Entitlement, needs, access to What?! Power, food, playtime,
privacy, safety
services, freedom, voice
There were clear differences in the
emotional content and language used by
adults imagining themselves as children and
those speaking for themselves. The starkest
differences were in the words associated
with child protection: all five words put
forward by the adults were professional
process words, whereas the words put forward
by the “children” were all feeling words.
There followed a lecture on ‘Why involve
children in violence prevention and
protection’. Four main reasons were put
forward:
• To considerably improve protection and
rehabilitation
• To demonstrate respect to children
• To support children in exercising their
rights
• To meet our human rights obligations.
2
3
8
“Child” descriptions
Only children can tell us about their lives –
who and what is important to them, their
hopes and fears, whether they feel safe
and who or what might help them. Once
intervention has occurred, children are
usually the only ones who can say whether
the intervention has worked.2 More broadly,
research is now undertaken on children’s
views and experiences in violence prevention
and protection, and this shows interventions
are often lacking. Only by engaging with
children on an ongoing basis can we find
out what works and what does not work.
Furthermore, children’s testimonies and
analysis help us to better understand the
causes and consequences of violence.
Children frequently relate their experiences
of violence as an abuse of adult power; they
speak directly and with emotion.
Not involving children in violence
prevention and protection is disrespectful
– ‘the child is a person and not an object
of concern’.3 Despite strong socialization
Babies and some young disabled people will rely on others to observe and communicate the impact of interventions.
Statement made by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 (UK child
abuse public inquiry).
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
that trains us to believe that adults have
superior knowledge and wisdom, and that
children are unfinished human beings that
have little themselves to contribute to
decision-making, adults do not have all the
answers and we do get things wrong. In the
area of child protection, adults have made
cataclysmic mistakes in not listening to
children – we have doubted their testimony
and left them in abusive situations, we have
created interventions that are inaccessible
to them or make them feel even more
unsafe, and we have added to their feelings
of powerlessness and invisibility. Violence
is a denial of the child’s human dignity: we
should not compound this. Putting children
at the centre of all interventions is not only
the right thing to do for individual children;
it also helps to create wider social change
and is consistent with human rights values
and principles.
Violence against children is culturally
acceptable in most, if not all, societies.
This reflects the low status of children.
Ensuring full legal protection from all
forms of violence, including corporal
punishment, and involving children in
violence prevention and protection are the
strongest ways of asserting children’s equal
status as human beings with the right to
human dignity, physical integrity and self
respect. Children’s self-advocacy helps raise
awareness of children’s rights – among
children and adults alike; it gets information
into family homes, schools, communities
and the media. Children are very powerful
and effective children’s rights defenders /
activists. There is a great deal that adults in
the children’s rights movement can do to
support children in bringing about change
– from lobbying for effective legislation
to making available resources in our own
organizations (training and information,
office space, computers, telephones) to
ensuring child protection interventions
place children’s views and experiences at the
centre. Children speaking for themselves
can help break the culture of silence around
violence against children, just as women and
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
other groups have spoken out about their
mistreatment and demanded change.
These are all compelling reasons to involve
children but really there is no choice.
States, organizations and all those working
with children must uphold the CRC, and
acknowledging the personhood of children
and supporting their free expression is
central to this. Two Articles in the CRC
stand out: Article 12 which grants all
children the right to have their views given
due weight in all matters affecting them; and
Article 39 which requires that children who
have been subject to violence can recover in
an environment which fosters their health,
self-respect and dignity.
Contributions from participants included a
question about whether the statement that
‘only children can tell us what is happening
to them’ applies to young children (under
5s). There was some doubt as to whether
this is plausible; indeed, much legislation
and practice is predicated on the view that
young children are unable to form credible
views. There followed a discussion about
ways in which babies communicate their
needs and feelings to parents and other
caregivers and research with very young
children about corporal punishment (in the
UK and Vietnam).
Session 2 introduced 12 overarching
principles for involving children in violence
prevention and protection:
1. Protection from all forms of violence
is a fundamental human right - for all
children in all settings
2. Violence hurts inside and outside; it is
never justifiable
3. Violence degrades individual children and
is demeaning to children collectively
4. Violence prevention and protection is
key to asserting children’s personhood
and status as rights holders
9
5. Each child is an individual person with
his or her own feelings, personality,
views, ideas and beliefs
6. Every child is an expert on their own
lives; children know more about being a
child today than adults do
7. It is not possible to adequately protect
children from violence without hearing,
understanding and acting on their views
and experiences
8. It is not possible to determine the child’s
best interests without understanding his
or her views and experiences
9. All children have the right to have their
views given due weight in all matters
affecting them
10.Violence prevention and protection
must not further diminish a child’s
human dignity, physical integrity or selfesteem
11.Children are never to blame for violence
inflicted upon them
12.Children are not responsible for ending
violence, though their meaningful and
effective involvement is vital.
Following the introduction, several
participants raised some contextual points
about child protection in their countries,
including:
• The child protection system in Timor
Leste is very weak; it receives little
government assistance. Staff are
threatened and the Government does
not support them. There is no guarantee
that children will have a safe place to go
once they have disclosed violence
• When disasters happen in the region,
local organisations assist governments
with child protection but this is not a
systematic approach. For example, they
10
set up a shelter – and then children stay
there forever. What is the solution to
this problem?
• In Papua New Guinea (PNG), a girl
who was sexually assaulted revealed this
during a children’s right session. Her
case was referred to the Government,
but there is no alternative care in PNG.
After several volunteer placements, a
paid carer was found but the adult was
stigmatised because she was being paid.
This impacted negatively on the child.
In addition, the police did not want to
prosecute and the case is still ongoing
two years later. This is not an isolated
case
• An example was given of a positive
resolution occurring without having to
involve the police or other authorities
in the Solomon Islands. A child revealed
abuse by his father to a Save the Children
worker who spoke to the chief about it.
The abuse then stopped.
Some participants asked for information
on the positive impact of participation
on children’s development. This kind of
information was seen to be critical in
encouraging government action. Participants
were reminded of the Save the Children
Sweden positive discipline programme
for parents which can be downloaded
here: http://shop.rb.se/Product/Product.
aspx?ItemId=4917759
The facilitator urged caution in advocating
developmental arguments for participation,
as these do not challenge adult power and
decision-making or children’s low status.
Involving children simply because it helps
brain or social development participation
denies the fact that participation is an
inalienable human right. It maintains
traditional attitudes towards children and
leaves adult power intact: participation
simply becomes another thing adults do to
children for their own good.
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Some queries and comments were made
about specific principles, including:
Comments on point 7
• Child protection and participation are
sometimes thought, wrongly, to be
incompatible. In Europe, social workers
usually take children away from families
if they are being subject to serious
violence. One participants asked: ‘how
old does a child have to be to have their
opinion given due weight in a social
work context?’
• Some expressed concern upon hearing
that the facilitator, when a child
protection social worker, had left a
sibling group in their family home
alone overnight rather than immediately
removing them to foster placements.
This was done to respect the wishes of
the children who needed time together
to prepare for the major upheaval of
living apart.
Comments on point 11
• Revealing the social constraints on
children not to hit, a child in Lao PDR
said to an adult ‘If everyone hit people
when they are unhappy, I would hit you
just as much as you hit me.’
Comments on point 12
• There was some debate about whether
children do in fact share responsibility
in seeking to end violence: if we are
drawing parallels between children and
women and other oppressed groups,
we should consider that liberation
movements are defined by oppressed
people taking action for themselves; on
an individual level, children’s personal
protection often relies on them taking
action – for example, in Timor Leste
the police refuse to investigate child
marriage unless the child reports;
children can be very strong and effective
advocates for change; also, children can
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
be perpetrators of violence too. One
person explained that Save the Children
programmes say that all people are
responsible for ending violence. Another
asked if the UN definition of violence
includes violence between children
• There was general consensus that children
have a right to help end violence, but not
a responsibility or duty. Conversely, the
State has clear legal obligations under
the CRC for ending violence against
children.
The different roles children take in violence
prevention and protection were outlined in
session 3, including: campaigners, counsellors,
educators, evaluators, investigators, reporters,
researchers, trainers, witnesses, writers. There was
discussion about children’s campaigning
activities. One participant from China
explained that children involved in a
committee are fulfilling all these roles: there
are lots of ways to achieve participation
and change. A participant from Indonesia
shared her experiences of supporting childled research in alternative care settings.
Two particular issues stood out – the
need to prepare decision-makers (in this
case, managers of institutions) to respond
appropriately to children’s views and
experiences; and the importance of offering
appropriate support to children. One
participant explained that Samoa ratified
the CRC in 1994, but not in full – because
some articles are seen to be culturally
unacceptable. The facilitator confirmed
that no State Party has made a reservation
to Article 12 of the CRC.
In session 4 participants were asked to
indicate on flipcharts posted throughout
the workshop room the extent to which
their country’s legislation and policies fully
support children’s involvement in violence
prevention and protection. The framework
for this was included in the session 1 and
2 handout: ‘review of current legislation,
policies and interventions’.
11
Legislative framework for
participation snapshot
CRC fully incorporated into domestic law
5
All violence against children prohibited by law
4
Children have right to access free
legal advice and assistance
11
Children have rights to access rights
based programmes and intervention
12
Law requires child’s view given due weight in
all judicial and administrative proceedings
3
School curriculum included information
about right to protection and seeking help
2
Parental responsibility difined
in law rights-based
4
All those working with childrenrequired
by law to promote and protect their rights
2
Child’s right to privacy fully protected
Children themselves can seek remed
for rights violations
6
1
Child-led programmes and
organisations supported by law
4
0 2
4
6
8 10 12 14
Policy framework for participation - snapshot
8
Violence against children is treated as a rights violation
Children’s views and experiences underpin national and local
strategies to end all violence against children
1
Children’s involvement is the dominant feature of individual
interventions as well as policy development
Child’s views and experiences are at the
centre of all interventions
Individual pfractitioners are required to get to know the individual child and
promote his or her human dignity, physical integrity and self-respect
Training is provided to all those working with children on respecting
children’s views and supporting self-advocacy
3
Children are involved in staff recruitment,
appraisal and performance management
complaints and whistle-blowing are promoted as a means
of protecting children’s rights
Programmes are routinely “child-proofed” and children are
engaged in monitoring and evaluation
ongoing data collection ensured children’s views and experiences
inform policy development
1
0 2
As the charts above show, most countries in
Southeast Asia and the Pacific do not have
an adequate legislative or policy framework
for involving children in violence prevention
and protection. The vast majority of
children in the region (actually less than
the legislation chart suggests) do not
enjoy full legal protection from violence,
including corporal punishment, and only
a small minority of countries require
decision-makers (judges, social workers,
12
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
teachers) to give due weight to the child’s
views. Very few countries require schools
to raise awareness of the CRC and parental
obligations in relation to the CRC are rarely
set out in domestic law. Less than a third of
countries have fully incorporated the CRC
into domestic law, though this on its own is
no guarantee that children can enjoy all of
their rights – as demonstrated by the policy
snapshot.
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
The policy snapshot revealed very little
mainstreaming of children’s rights – not one
country/participant indicated that children’s
participation is at the forefront of individual
interventions and policy development; that
children’s views and experiences are at the
centre of all interventions; or that individual
practitioners must get to know the child they
are seeking to help. Children’s involvement
in staff recruitment was overwhelmingly
judged as lacking, together with children’s
role in monitoring and evaluation.
Lunch on the first day was cut short so
we could show a video made by children
and young people in Mongolia for the UN
Committee of the Child’s forthcoming
State Party examination. The video was
very well received – see page 11. A group
of 28 children came together in June 2007
and worked throughout the summer. They
divided themselves into smaller groups,
met every day and evaluated their work
daily. The work was sometimes stressful
– because the children were dealing with
difficult issues – so social workers were
Setting
available and fun activities were arranged.
Children organised their own budget. They
documented the process as well as made
the film itself. Project workers encouraged
parental support.
There was some discussion about the
programme and workshop style, which was
not meeting everyone’s expectations. There
were three types of suggestions:
• Give more attention to the practicalities
(the “how to”) of participation
• Give more attention to how to advocate
for and sustain participation
• More practice sharing – between
participants and from the facilitator.
Session 5 gave participants the opportunity
to share their knowledge and experience
of positive participation in five different
settings – the home, school, alternative care,
the workplace and wider community.
Discussion points
Home
• Child helplines are important in supporting and empowering
children
• Supporting participation takes a lot of time and effort; this is not
always appreciated by decision-makers
• There are examples in North Thailand of children educating and
supporting other children who are used for illegal child labour
• In Lao PDR children were asked in a survey how they should be
disciplined and some supported corporal punishment.
School
• There are opportunities in schools for children to take on leadership
roles – for example, head boy/girl, students’ president etc (though
this is not necessarily indicative of a broader respect for children’s
human rights)
• A punitive / strict school culture obviously impedes the realisation
of children’s human rights
• In Mongolia there is a social worker in every school. There are also
comment boxes in schools, where children can make comments on
teachers, including on those who use corporal punishment. These
are then discussed at teachers’ meetings
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
13
Setting
Discussion points
• In Chinese schools, children learn about how to set up and maintain
children’s centres.
Alternative care
• In Vietnam, children aged 9+ years can legally make decisions about
their care, though in practice this doesn’t happen. There is no training
or capacity for staff to counsel children and help them to decide –
children are often coerced into adoption. There is no State foster
care; only NGOs. The Government gives some money to relatives
of orphans, so children can stay in their own communities
• Children have undertaken research on alternative care settings in
Indonesia.
Workplace
• In Timor Leste and Vanuatu, children are on the board of workplace
organisations. Resources are needed to enable active participation.
Also, meetings are scheduled in working hours – problematic for
children.
Community
• In the Philippines, children sit on village council for protection of
children – they can influence village officials.
General discussion points:
• It is essential to prepare family members,
village, community etc for participation
– not just children – ‘otherwise
participation will only be words’
• Must consider ethical / political issues.
For example, at the Congress on Sexual
Abuse in Brazil, the children participating
were exhausted – the congress opened
14
at 11pm. There are other examples
of children working very hard and
becoming too tired. Some participants
felt strongly that children should not be
exploited whilst others considered that it
was important that children understand
the responsibilities of their roles and are
able to undertake them (e.g. where they
are selected by their peers to represent
other children)
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
6. DAY 2: 6 March 2009
Session 6 re-introduced the framework
for systemic change covering legislation,
policies and interventions. Children’s rights
advocates must review their countries’
legislative and policy framework and
seek legally enforceable rights relating
to children’s’ involvement in violence
prevention and protection. This is not only
about Article 12 being reflected in law –
though this is of utmost importance and
is usually lacking – it is also about other
human rights, such as the child’s right to
privacy and the obligations of parents and
policy makers and those that work with
children being reflected in national law. The
legal and policy snapshot conducted the
day before revealed major gaps, including
in the policy knowledge of some children’s
rights advocates. Participants were asked to
reflect on the framework and point out any
omissions and raise any queries:
• Continuing discussions from the day
before, one participant stressed that
policy makers should be required to
assess the consequences of participation
on individuals and groups of children.
Need to ensure that children don’t
suffer from their participation – e.g.
Significant
challenge
miss education, become at greater risk
of violence. Another suggested that
‘preventing negative consequences of
participation’ could be added to the list
of outcomes for the individual child
• There were requests to use existing
Save the Children frameworks for the
forthcoming publication, for example
‘The 5 dimensions of change’
• Some participants expressed frustration
that in their countries there is virtually
no child protection system (there were
also examples of new systems being
developed which are more rights-based
than established welfare-based child
protection systems).
The next session gave participants the
opportunity to discuss the main challenges
they face in achieving systemic change, and
how to overcome these. Before dividing into
smaller groups, the facilitator shared the
PowerPoint slide indicating the challenges
facing children in speaking out about
violence (individual and societal factors).
Highlights of the “challenges” discussion
are included below.
Action that has / can be taken to overcome challenges
Children not used to
speaking out
• Inform children about their rights and what they can do
• In Korea, children often use YouTube videos to speak out.
Government
resistance to child
participation
• Save the Children staff need to really believe in child
participation – if they’re not convinced, they’ll give up easily
• Training for government officials; also identify and maintain
relationships with supportive officials
• Include participation in national and local child protection
plans
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
15
Significant
challenge
Action that has / can be taken to overcome challenges
• Forge partnerships with young people’s organisations. In Lao
PDR, Save the Children staff use the slogan of the Lao Youth
Union: ‘Children should participate in the development of
countries and communities’
• Children’s participation in international high-level meetings can
have an impact on domestic ministers and officials – take every
opportunity to bring together decision-makers and children.
Lack of common
understanding
about what child
participation is
• It can be difficult to persuade government to use CRC
framework because it already has its own framework (example
given of Samoa). However, we need to push the CRC as the
international framework for all actions concerning children.
Adults’ response /
negative culture of
schools and other
institutions
• Traditional attitudes and cultural obstacles are often very
strong, for example in Indonesian families, a child cannot call
his or her parents by their first names (they have to say “Mrs”
or “Mr”). Here, the full implementation of the CRC is crucial
– bringing changes in values and attitudes and inter-personal
relationships as well as in law, policy and practice.
No resources (human
and financial)/
services:
• Advocacy organisations like Save the Children can raise money
and lobby for adequate financial investment as well as provide
technical expertise to governments on CRC implementation.
Police not responding
• Save the Children in the Solomon Islands has produced a guide
for police officials on child protection, which is underpinned
by child participation.
Negative
consequences of
child participation
• Hold meetings outside school hours
• Provide enough resources for travel, support etc.
• Consult and involve the child’s carers wherever possible. One
example shows the extreme pressures children face: in Timor
Leste, a child living in an orphanage became very involved in a
project, spent lots of time on it, and didn’t have enough time
to do the chores she was required to do. She was subsequently
thrown out of her orphanage.
16
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Session 8 focused on the features of
a rights-based child protection system
(see PowerPoint slides). One participant
raised a question about the definition of
violence. The facilitator explained that
the framework for the whole workshop –
and the forthcoming publication – is the
CRC, though not exclusively focused on
Articles 19 and 39 (see session 1). Another
participant asked that respect for others, as
well as self-respect, be emphasised.
Session 9 gave participants the opportunity
to share information about law and practice
(preparatory exercise ahead of workshop).
Examples included:
• In Australia, the law says that children’s
views on where they live when their
parents divorce must be taken into
consideration – there is no minimum
age. This is the same in Fiji
• In 2008, Save the Children in Fiji
conducted a baseline survey on child
participation, which included children’s
views on future legislation. This will be
enacted later this year
• Save the Children in the Philippines
works with a core group of children in
the capital city. There were only three
young people to begin with – now there
are about 50 involved from two villages
– they have created an organisation.
Children’s knowledge and skills have
grown – they can write proposals and
reports, monitor and evaluate activities
and run the organisation. They are now
working on corporal punishment and sit
on village councils for child protection.
Some have seats on the village youth
councils. Also, different children formed
themselves into groups following the
UN Violence Study and did awarenessraising work on corporal punishment,
including work with parents in 2006.
There have been changes in their family
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
relationships since. Some of this has
been documented on a video
• Save the Children in Vietnam tries
to integrate child participation into
programmes. There is good co-operation
with government, which consulted
children for its CRC implementation
report. The right to participate is about
to be formalised in law
• There is no law on child participation in
the Philippines, but the Government’s
National Child and Youth Participation
Framework should guide all agencies.
Also the Local Government Code states
that every village, town and city must have
a youth council – the members are local
government officials. The chair of the
youth council sits on the village council
for child protection. There is a law on
children who travel with their parents
– they must fulfil some Department of
Social Welfare conditions in order to
leave the country
• Child participation is protected by
law in China – through the Law on
the Protection of Minors. Children
are encouraged to make decisions on
running children’s centres (as young
as five years old). Save the Children is
seeking to make a child-friendly version
of the Protection Law
• In Indonesia, the National Action Plan
on the Elimination of Violence Against
Children 2007 – 2012 includes ‘To
encourage children participation in all
the process and actions of the ending of
the violence against children’ as one of
its four objectives.
At the end of day 2, participants gave
country presentations summarising their
personal action plans for the next 3, 6 and
12 months. There were a variety of pledges,
including:
17
• Against Child Abuse Ltd in Hong Kong
is organising a “Spank Out Day” on 30
April 2009 and a summit on banning
corporal punishment and increasing
children’s participation in January 2010.
They will be conducting a survey with
children to find out their views and
recommendations, and will support
children to speak directly with the
media
• Participants from Lao PDR intend
to focus on prohibiting corporal
punishment in schools and aim to support
the creation of a new form of school
committee. Children’s participation
will be included in a new joint Save the
Children Australia and Save the Children
Norway proposal on developing a child
protection programme. In the longer
term, they hope to support child-tochild activity
• Participants from Papua New Guinea
aim to establish a Kids Link similar to
that supported by Save the Children Fiji
• In Vanuatu, child participation
workshops will be arranged with the
Ministry of Justice and Social Welfare –
including police – and it is hoped children
will become members of the National
Children’s Committee, established by
the Government in 2001. Support will
be given to children to establish their
own children’s rights group offering
educating and training to others.
Children will be encouraged to join Save
the Children and women’s rights NGOs
18
advocacy relating to a “no drop” policy
(all cases that come to the attention of
the police must be taken forward even if
the complaint is dropped by the victim)
on domestic violence and sexual assault
of children. Save the Children will lobby
for child-friendly court practices –
awareness-raising of child development
and child questioning techniques among
judges; judges in civilian clothes; separate
children’s court; closed court; screens
to separate child from perpetrator for
direct evidence etc
• Several participants pledged to review
their country’s legislative and policy
framework in relation to children’s
involvement in violence prevention
and protection and to make detailed
recommendations for law reform where
necessary. Participants from Vietnam
included government officials who can
act quickly on this. Participants from
Papua New Guinea pledged to have
the Constitutional and Law Reform
Commission undertake a law review. In
Mongolia, family law is being revised and
there are plans for a new child protection
law – these are major opportunities to
ensure children’s views and experiences
are understood and acted on
• Several participants said they were
motivated by the work of children and
young people in Mongolia and would
explore ways in which they could
support similar initiatives in preparation
for their State Party examinations.
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Annexes:
Appendix 1:Workshop agenda
DAY 1:Thursday 5 March 2009
Morning
0900-1030
90 mins.
Session 1: Why involve children in violence prevention
and protection
Plenary presentation by Carolyne Willow, followed by group activities
AIM: To make the case for children and young people’s effective partici
pation in violence prevention and protection; and to introduce overarching principles and a basic framework
1030-1100
Break
1100-1230
Session 2: Review of current legislation, policies and interventions
90 mins.
Group activities facilitated by Carolyne
AIM: To encourage participants to reflect on the extent to which children and young people’s views and experiences are already integrated into their child protection legislation, policies and interventions; and the challenges they face in achieving this
1230-1400
Lunch
Afternoon
1400-1500
Session 3: Features of a rights-based child protection system
60 mins.
Plenary presentation by Carolyne
AIM: To review the minimum standards relating to child protection systems set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, emphasising the child’s human dignity, physical integrity and self-respect
1500-1530
Break
1530-1630
Session 4: Review of current legislation, policies and interventions
60 mins.
Group activities
AIM: To encourage participants to reflect on the extent to which their child protection legislation, policies and interventions serve to enhance or diminish the child’s human dignity, physical integrity and self-respect; and the challenges they face in achieving this
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
19
1630-1700
Session 5: Testimonies of children and young people
30 mins.
Plenary presentation by Carolyne
AIM: To use the powerful testimonies of children and young people obtained through the UN Secretary General’s Global Study on Violence against Children and other sources to inspire and motivate participants to lead change in their own countries
1700-1800
Session 6: Group / individual work on national strategies to involve children and young people in violence prevention and protection
60 mins.
AIM: To encourage participants to use what they have learnt so far (including through their preparatory work) to begin to identify key actions and actors for making change happen
DAY 2: Friday 6 March 2009
Morning
0900-1030
Session 7: Eliciting children’s views and experiences
90 mins.
Plenary presentation by Carolyne followed by case study discussions
AIM: To describe the factors which inhibit children and young people from seeking help and to provide practical guidance on how to sensitively elicit children and young people’s views and experiences
1030-1100
Break
1100-1230
Session 8: Responding to children’s views and experiences
90 mins.
Plenary presentation by Carolyne followed by case study
discussions
AIM: To consider the needs and rights of individual children and young people who have been subject to violence; and to describe in practi
cal terms how these needs and rights can be met effectively
1230-1400
Lunch
Afternoon
1400-1530
Session 9: Group / individual work on national strategies to involve children and young people in violence prevention and protection
90 mins.
AIM: To assist participants in developing detailed strategies for building effective child protection systems; and to encourage public pledges on outcomes to be achieved within the next 3, 6 and 12 months
20
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
1530-1600
Break
1600-1730
Session 10: Involving children and young people in violence prevention and protection: the way forward
90 mins.
Group presentations on action to be taken following the workshop
AIM: To encourage positive action following the workshop, including ongoing sharing of progress between workshop participants and Save the Children Sweden SEAP RO
1730-1800
Workshop evaluation and closure
30 mins.
Facilitated by Dominique
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
21
Appendix 2: List of participants
Name
Position
Address
Email
Tel/Fax
Regional Level - Bangkok
Dominique Pierre
Plateau (Mr.)
Regional Advisor Child
Protection Save the Children Sweden
dominiquepp@
14th Floor, Maneeya Center, South seap.
Building,
savethechildren.se
518/5 Ploenchit Road,
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 664
1046/7
Fax: 662 684
1048
Noppadol
Regional Assistant
Manachaiyarak (Mr.) Programme Officer
Child Protection and
Education
Save the Children Sweden
noppadolm@
14th Floor, Maneeya Center, South seap.
Building,
savethechildren.se
518/5 Ploenchit Road,
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 61 2 9211
8800
Fax: 61 3 9211
8866
Sophapan
Ratanachena(Ms.)
Programme Officer:
Tsunami Response/
CLDRR
Save the Children Sweden
sophapanr@seap. Tel: 662 664
14th Floor, Maneeya Center, South savethechildren.se 1046/7
Building,
Fax: 662 684
518/5 Ploenchit Road,
1048
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Pariphan
Uawithya(Mr.)
Programme Officer for
Child Rights and Civil
Society
Save the Children Sweden
pariphanu@seap. Tel: 662 664
14th Floor, Maneeya Center, South savethechildren.se 1046/7
Building,
Fax: 662 684
518/5 Ploenchit Road,
1048
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Pathamapond
Yiamsudhisopon
(Ms.)
Child Rights Advisor
Save the Children Australia
Suite 205, Level 2, 410 Elizabeth
Street Surry Hills NSW 2010
AUSTRALIA
(PO Box 36, STRAWBERRY
HILLS NSW 2012)
pathamapondy@ Tel: 662 664
seap.
1046/7
savethechildren.se Fax: 662 684
1048
Child Rights Advisor
Save the Children Australia
Suite 205, Level 2, 410 Elizabeth
Street Surry Hills NSW 2010
AUSTRALIA
(PO Box 36, STRAWBERRY
HILLS NSW 2012)
holly.
doelmackaway@
savethechildren.
org.au
Tel: 61 2 9211
8800
Fax: 61 3 9211
8866
liping@
savethechildren.
org.cn
Tel: 8610
85323225-527
Fax: 8610
65006554
Australia
Holly DoelMacaway(Ms.)
China
Li Ping (Ms.)
22
Director of Child Rights, Save the Children UK China
China Programme SC
Programme
UK
Apartment 051, Entrance 2,
Building No.2 Jianwai Diplomatic
Compound, Changyang District
Beijing, P.R. CHINA
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Name
Position
Address
Email
Tel/Fax
China
Nan Fang (Ms.)
Child Rights Officer,
China Programme SC
UK
Save the Children UK China
Programme, Apartment 051,
Entrance 2, Building No.2
Jianwai Diplomatic Compound,
Changyang District Beijing, P.R.
CHINA
nanfang@
savethechildren.
org.cn
Tel: 8610
85323225-531
Fax: 8610
65006554
He Yunxiao (Ms.)
Advocacy Officer, China Save the Children UK China
Programme SC UK
Programme, Apartment 051,
Entrance 2, Building No.2
Jianwai Diplomatic Compound,
Changyang District Beijing, P.R.
CHINA
Heyunxiao@
savethechildren.
org.cn
Tel: 8610
85323225-582
Fax: 8610
65006554
Child Rights Manager
Save the Children Fiji
25 Pender Street,
Suva, FIJI
iris@
savethechildren.
org.fj
Tel: 679 3313
178
Fax: 679 3302
214
Social Worker
Against Child Abuse Ltd.
Room 407-409, Ting Cheung
House, On Ting Estate,
Tuen Mun, N.T., HONG KONG
yupo@aca.org.hk Tel: 679 3313
178
Fax: 679 3302
214
Advocacy and Research
Specialist
Save the Children Indonesia
Jl. Pejaten Barat No.8,
Jakarta Selatan 12550
INDONESIA
tsudrajat@
savechildren.org
Tel: 62 812
1010519
Fax: 62 217
8835665
Yasumichi Mori
(Mr.)
Attorney at Law
Committee on the Children’s
Rights, Japan Federation of Bar
Associations
Takaoka Bldg.2nd Floor,2-621,Ichibancho, Matsuyamacity,Ehime 790-0001 JAPAN
mori0529@
hotmail.com
Tel: 81 89 947
1788
Fax: 81 89 947
2018
Shigeyuki Tazawa
(Mr.)
Program Coordinator,
Save the Children Japan
Division of Child Rights Head Office
and Protection
Yamada Buidling 4F
2-8-4 Uchikanda,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0047
JAPAN
tazawa@
Tel: 81 3 6859
savechildren.or.jp 6869
Fax: 81 3 6859
0069
Researcher and Program The child rights center
Officer
of SC/Korea
364 Sinchonno Mapo-gu Seoul,
121-881, KOREA
hyun.ryu@sc.or.
kr
Fiji
Iris Low Mckenzie
(Ms.)
Hong Kong
Lee Yu Po (Ms.)
Indonesia
Tata Sudrajat (Mr.)
Japan
Korea
Hyun Ryu (Ms.)
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Tel: 82 2 6900
4454
Fax: 82 2 6900
4499
23
Name
Position
Address
Email
Tel/Fax
Lao PDR
Chittaphone
Santavasy (Ms.)
Thematic Manager,
CRC/Child Protection
Save the Children Norway,
LAO PDR
338 Thaphalanxay village,
Sisatthanak District,
PO.Box 7475, Vientiane,
LAO PDR
chittaphone@
scn.laopdr.org
Lalongkone
Chantamaly (Mr.)
Project Officer
Save the Children Australia Laos
Save the Children Australia
Sub-office Sayaboury
P.O. Box 155 LAO PDR
lalongkone.
Tel: 856 74
chanthamaly@
211959
savethechildrenlaos.
Fax: 856 74
org
Save the Children Australia Laos
Save the Children Australia
Sub-office Sayaboury
P.O. Box 155 LAO PDR
Chanthaboulouth. Tel: 856 74
boualaphanh@
211959
savethechildrenlaos. Fax: 856 74
org
Jargal Chuluuntulga Child Protection
(Ms.)
Programme Manager
Save the Children UK,
Mongolia Programme
4th Floor, Arizona Centre, 1st
Khoroo, Chingeltei District,
Ulaanbaatar City
Central Post Office, Box 1023,
Ulaanbaatar-13, MONGOLIA
jargal@
savethechildren.
mn
Tel: 976 11
329371
Fax: 976 11
329361
Dulamsuren
Capacity Vuilding and
Erdennebileg (Ms.) Child Participation
Project Officer
Save the Children UK,
Mongolia Programme
4th Floor, Arizona Centre, 1st
Khoroo, Chingeltei District,
Ulaanbaatar City
Central Post Office, Box 1023,
Ulaanbaatar-13, MONGOLIA
dulamsuren@
savethechildren.
mn
Tel: 976 11
329371
Fax: 976 11
329361
Chanthaboulouth
Boualaphanh (Mr.)
Education Programme
Manager
Tel: 856 21
314813-8
Fax: 856 21
351001
213160
213160
Mongolia
Oyunchimeg
Naimaldai (Ms.)
Director of the Capacity Implementing Agency of the
Building Department
Government - National
Authority for Children
Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar City-48,
Bagatoiruu-48
MONGOLIA
ncc@magicnet.
Tel: 976 11
mno_naimaldai@ 322048
yahoo.com
Undrakh Galjav
(Ms.)
Child Protection Officer National Authority for
Children of Mongolia
Baga toiruu – 44A,
Ulaanbaatar 48, MONGOLIA
enkh_und@
yahoo.com
Altantsetseg
Tserenjav (Ms.)
Otgontenger University, Otgontenger University,
Director of Law School, Association of Mongolian
Advocate
Advocates
Otgontenger University,
Jukov Street 51-35, Peace Avenue,
Ulaanbaatar MONGOLIA
tse_Altai@yahoo. Tel: 99150170
com
Fax: 976 11
458635
24
Tel: 976 51
262814
Fax: 976 11
322048
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Name
Position
Address
Email
Tel/Fax
Mongolia
Orkhon Sukhbaatar Officer of the Strategic
(Ms.)
Planning Department
Ministry of Social Welfare and
orkhon2000@
Labourm, United Nation Street-5, yahoo.com
Ulaanbaatar-210646 MONGOLIA
Tel: 976 51 262
691
Fax: 976 11
328634
New Zealand
Dennis Uba (Mr.)
Pacific Programme
Manager
Save the Children New Zealand
National Office, 3rd Floor,
204-210 Willis Street, PO Box
6584, Marion Square,
Wellington 6141,
NEW ZEALAND
dennis.uba@
savethechildren.
org.nz
Tel: 644 381
7583
Fax: 644 385
6793
Debbie Jack (Ms.)
Programme Director
Save the Children New Zealand
National Office, 3rd Floor,
204-210 Willis Street, PO Box
6584, Marion Square, Wellington
6141, NEW ZEALAND
dennis.uba@
savethechildren.
org.nz
Tel: 644 381
7583
Fax: 644 385
6793
Elizabeth Wood
(Ms.)
Spokesperson
EPOCH New Zealand
20A Ngaumatau Rd, Pt Howard,
Lower Hutt, NEW ZEALAND
bethwood@xtra.
co.nz
Tel: 644 568
3221
Fax: 644 568
6276
Hennie Kama (Ms.) Senior Project Officer
- Child Rights Resource
Team
Save the Children in Papua New
Guinea
P.O. Box 667, Goroka,
Eastern Highlands Province, 441,
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
hkama@
savethechildren.
org.pg
Tel: 675 732
2473
Fax: 675 732
2767
Esther Gaegaming
(Ms.)
Team Leader - Anti
Discrimination and
Human Rights Unit
Ombudsman Commission of
Papua New Guinea
P.O. Box 1831, Port Moresvy,
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
esther.
gaegaming@
ombudsman.
gov.pg
Tel: 675 308
2684
Fax: 675 320
3267
Raka Raula (Ms.)
Legal Officer
PNG Constitutional & Law
Reform Commission
P.O. Box 3439, BOROKO,
National Capital District
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
raka.raula@clrc.
gov.pg
Tel: 675 325
2840
Fax: 675 325
3375
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Wilma Banaga (Ms.) Programme Officer
Save the Children Sweden
wilmab@seap.
3/F OTM Building, 71 Scout
savethechildren.se
Tuazon St.,
Barangay, South Triangle
1103 Quezon City, PHILIPPINES
Tel: 632 372
3483
Fax: 632 372
3484
Mapusaga o Aiga(SAMOA) Inc.
(Family Heaven) Suite J, Nia Mall,
SALEUFI, SAMOA
Tel: 685 22 640
Fax: 685 22 549
Samoa
Kalolo Sene Liuliu
(Mr.)
Child Rights Officer
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
moa@samoa.ws
25
Name
Position
Address
Email
Tel/Fax
Solomon Islands
Donald Raka (Mr.)
Child Advocacy Project
Manager
Save the Children Australia
P.O. Box, 1149, Honiara
SOLOMON ISLANDS
cpm@
savethechildren.
org.sb
Child Protection
Programme Officer
Naiyanat@seap.
Save the Children Sweden
14th Floor, Maneeya Center, South savethechildren.se
Building, 518/5 Ploenchit Road,
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 664
1046/7
Fax: 662 684
1048
Save the Children UK
Southeast and East Asia Regional
Office, 14th Fl., Maneeya Center
Building, 518/5 Ploenchit Road,
Lumpini, Patumwan Bangkok
10400 THAILAND
ratjai@
savethechildren.
or.th
Tel: 662 652
0518 ext.304
Fax: 662 684
1289
Program Manager & Co- Ba Futuru
Founder
Rua Vila Verde
Suco Haksolok
Dili, TIMOR-LESTE
sierrajames@
bafuturu.org
Tel: 670 724
6022
Child Rights Manager
Save the Children Australia in
Vanuatu
cro@sca.org.vu
Tel: 678 22794
Fax: 678 25214
Tran Ban Hung
(Mr.)
Head of Sector: Child
Protection
Save the Children Sweden
No.6 Dang Van Ngu Street,
Dong Da District,
Hanoi, VIETNAM
hungtb@
savethechildren.
org.vn
Tel: 84 4 3573
5050
Fax: 84 4 3573
6060
Nguyen Khan Hoi
(Mr.)
Project Officer
Save the Children Sweden
No.6 Dang Van Ngu Street,
Dong Da District,
Hanoi VIETNAM
hoink@
savethechildren.
org.vn
Tel: 84 4 3573
5050
Fax: 84 4 3573
6060
Antonia Luedeke
(Ms.)
Project Officer
Italian Association for Aid to
Children (CIAI)
No.18, Lane 31/46, Xuan Dieu
Street, Hanoi, VIETNAM
luedeke@ciai.
com.vn
Tel: 84 4 6296
1820
Fax: 84 4 3719
1464
Dang Hoa Nam
(Mr.)
Ministry of Labour,
Vietnam Television
Invalid and Social Affairs 43 Nguyen Chi Thanh, Bandinh
Distric,
Hanoi, VIETNAM
Tel: 677 22400
Fax: 677 25920
Thailand
Naiyana
Thanawattho (Ms.)
Ratjai Adjayutpokin Thailand Cross-border
(Ms.)
Project Manager
Timor-Leste
Sierra James (Ms.)
Vanuatu
Elizabeth Emil
(Ms.)
Vietnam
dangnam@yahoo. Tel: 84 80 48217
com
Resource Persons
Carolyne willow
(Ms.)
c.willow@ntlworld.com
Elinor Milne (Ms.)
elinor@childrenareunbeatable.org.uk
26
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
Executive summary of regional technical workshop, 5-6 March 2009
27
Save the Children works for:
A world which respects and values each child
A world which listens to children and learns
A world where all children have hope and opportunity.
Belief in the future since 1919
Save the Children fights for children’s rights.
We deliver immediate and lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide.
Save the Children Sweden, Regional Office
for Southeast Asia and the Pacific
Bangkok, Thailand
Tel: +66 2 684 1046
Fax: + 66 2 684 1048
http://seap.savethechildren.se
Email: scs@seap.savethechildren.se