PRESS CONFERENCE ON BRAZILIAN CHILDREN'S PROGRAMME

Education was key to the eradication of child labour, Cristovam Buarque, founder of "Bolsa Escola", told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.   

Bolsa Escola was a programme designed to eradicate child labour and reduce school drop-out rates by providing poor families with scholarship money for their children, Professor Cristovam Buarque said.  As the former Governor of Brasilia, Professor Buarque launched the programme six years ago.  Some 

3 million school children in Brazil were now under the Bolsa Escola umbrella.  The programme had also been successfully developed in other Latin American countries, including Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia and Argentina.  In Mexico, some 5 million children had been educated through Bolsa Escola scholarships.

Bolsa Escola was also the subject of Professor Buarque's meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan this morning, Professor Buarque said.  The Secretary-General was familiar with the Bolsa Escola programme and had encouraged education ministers to consider using similar programmes at the Education for All Forum in Dakar, Senegal last year. 

Bolsa Escola was not only effective in reaching out to needy families, it was inexpensive, Professor Buarque said.  In Brazil, the average monthly cost of Bolsa Escola was some $40 dollars per family.  In Ecuador, the cost for the programme was about $10 dollars per month.  The programme was based on the premise that providing parents with money would allow them to keep their children in school.  Without an education, children's opportunities were limited.

While Bolsa Escola had been funded from Government money, Professor Buarque said that he was now seeking to finance the programme though private funding.  He had recommended to the Secretary-General that he use his Global Compact with the private sector to secure private funding for similar scholarship programmes.

Besides reducing child labour, Bolsa Escola had made many other positive contributions, Professor Buarque said.  The programme had empowered mothers to become decision-makers within the family.  Mothers, not fathers were entrusted with the responsibility for placing their children in school.  Such empowerment led to greater self-esteem.

Education also had long-term advantages for both the child and the family, Professor Buarque added.  Health standards improved with education.  Education also increased the child's ability to successfully enter the work force and to secure more fulfilling jobs.  Education was perhaps the greatest way to battle poverty, he said.

As a programme, Bolsa Escola was easy to administer, Professor Buarque said.  Stipends were given to families in cash with few conditions.  Families had to live in the same city for at least five years and had to fall below

established poverty lines.  Families with school-aged children had to prove that their children attended some 90 per cent of classes.

The concept behind Bolsa Escola could also be used in other regions of the world, Professor Buarque said.  For example, some 93 million children in Africa did not attend school.  

What was the total number of children under the Bolsa Escola programme in Brazil? a correspondent asked.  Some 3 million children were currently enrolled in schools under the programme, Professor Buarque said.  The Government had already appropriated funds in its 2001 budget for some 8 million children to receive scholarships.  About 22 million children did not attend school in Latin America.  Financing scholarships for those children would require about

$3.6 billion per year.  That amount corresponded to 3 per cent of external debt servicing of Latin American and Caribbean countries.  Financing the cost of education for children in Africa would require about 28 per cent of external debt servicing.

Financing education through external debt servicing would serve as a kind of Marshall Plan for Africa, he said.  After the Second World War, the Marshall Plan had been designed to help European economies recover.  Africa needed a similar plan to further social progress.  The plan did not require a great initial amount of money.  To begin, small amounts of funds could be focused on the children in one country, one city or even part of a city.  War-affected children in Angola, for example, could be the focus of the programme.  Bolsa Escola also reduced immigration from poor to rich countries and from small to big cities.  "Bolsa Escola reduced migration in a more dignified way", he said.  

In response to a question, he said that Bolsa Escola started in 1995 in Brasilia, when he was Governor of that district.  In 1998, when the Government changed, an attempt to do away with the programme failed.  Support for Bolsa Escola was so strong that it was impossible to stop it.  The present Government had said that with some changes to the programme more children would be able to receive funding.

Bolsa Escola in Mexico had been particularly successful, Professor Buarque said.  Parents had to bring their children to the doctor once a month in order to receive stipends.  Programme follow-up was a priority in Mexico.  Also, stipends were received for each child in a family.  Brazilian families received the same amount of money per month, regardless of the number of children in that family.  Because of high drop-out rates of girls, girls in Mexico received more money.

Was public money being used in Mexico and Brazil? a correspondent asked.  Public money was used, he said.  The non-governmental organization which he headed, Missao Crianca, provided funding for some 5,000 children.  While private funding could not cover the entire cost for Bolsa Escola in Brazil, it could help a lot.  The cost of one United States border patrol guard could send some 1,000 children in Honduras to school. 

How much did families in Brazil get paid per month? a correspondent asked.  The amount varied, he said, according to other local, State and federal

programmes.  When he was Governor of Brasilia, families were paid the minimum wage, which was the equivalent to around $80.  On average, however, families were paid about $40 per month.  Education in small cities was not as expensive as in larger cities.

This was a programme with little risk of corruption, Professor Buarque said.  The money went directly to families.  Governments did not spend the money.  The only risk of corruption was having non-existent families on the programme's list.  The programme was also easy to supervise. 

* *** *