Top on the agenda:Health and safetyin agriculture

Labour Education 2000/1-2Nos. 118/119

Editorial V

The ILO Programme on Safety and Health in Agriculture: The challenge forthe new century – providing occupational safety and health services to workersin agriculture, by Valentina Forastieri 1

Health, safety and environment in agriculture: There must be dramaticimprovements in standards of protection both with regard to waged workersand farmers as well as public health and the environment before agriculturecan become socially and environmentally sustainable, by Peter Hurst 17

Trade unions must assist rural workers’organizations to represent rural workersand defend their right to freedom of association by providing their leaderswith enabling education and training as well as the necessary resourcesto ensure their participation in development, by Anna J. Pouyat 26

Occupational safety and health for women workers in agriculture:Public health issues in the agricultural sector call for specific technical inputsand for addressing the issues of deprivation and imbalances of power ,by Rene Loewenson 35

Uganda: Training, education and information on health, safety and environment –National Union of Plantation and Agricultural Workers (NUPAW),by Omara Amuko 46

Pesticides in agriculture: the extent of the problem in Asia, by Annie Rice 57

Prevention must be the guiding principle with respect to accidentsand occupational diseases: Workers must be informed as to hazards and be trainedto incorporate preventive measures into the performance of their activities,by Heloísa Farza 67

Panorama of accidents and diseases in rural work in Brazil,by Eduardo Garcia Garcia and Rosa Yasuko Yamashita 75

The role of worker representation in health and safety in agriculturein Western Europe, by David Walters 84

Eastern Europe: Occupational health services are remote from workersand have not yet become an integral part of primary health care,by Yuri I. Kundiev 96

A summary of findings on the basic minimum age for employment andthe exceptions for light work, hazardous work, work in family undertakings,and in agriculture 102

Annex I. ILO Conventions and Recommendations of direct relevanceto safety and health in agriculture adopted since 1919 105Ratifications of ILO Conventions of direct relevance to safetyand health in agriculture 106

III

Contents

IV

Annex II. Other existing ILO Conventions and Recommendationsrelevant to agriculture adopted since 1919 109Ratifications of other existing ILO Conventions relevantto agriculture adopted since 1919 110

For time immemorial, workers on the land have tilled the soil inpain. They have been among the last to organize and, even when orga-nized, their interests in promoting their own welfare in terms of safetyand health have suffered through a general lack of attention to the needsof this group of workers. If the agenda of the June 2000 Session of the Inter-national Labour Conference carries an item on safety and health in agri-culture (first discussion), no doubt ILO constituents have selected thisitem in order to bring to the fore, once and for all, the gravity of the safetyand health problems of rural workers in the hope of arriving at a commonstrategy internationally.

The following articles all portray a grim picture of poorly remu-nerated labour, usually unorganized, supported by six-digit figures ofaccidents and deaths around the world. All the articles are variants of thesame sad story: inclement conditions; poor accommodation; working andliving on the same sites; no protective clothing or equipment or, even whenavailable, not well adapted to climatic conditions; farm machinesimported from industrialized countries which are not ergonomicallysuited to the functionality requirements; bites and stings from animalsand insects; and, not least, the ill effects of pesticides on workers’ healthand the environment. The demands of agricultural work also take theirtoll on children: they drop out of school to assist their parents in the fields,many falling victims to the risks and hazards of fieldwork.

In the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, for example,Kundiev makes a strong case for immediate intervention and assistancein the area of occupational safety and health in rural areas. Less spectac-ular, no doubt, than war victims, the workers who fall prey to the risksand hazards involved in their work none the less undergo forms of suf-fering and neglect which are just as obscure, just as unspeakable. The sta-tistics call for rapid action in this sphere, starting with appropriate poli-cies which could be implemented without undue delay.

The first discussion of safety and health in agriculture next June inGeneva will hopefully tie some loose threads together, but it suffices todemonstrate against no scarcity of available evidence, as do the follow-ing articles, that concerted international action could go far towards reduc-ing the incidence of accidents and mortality among rural workers. Forworkers’ organizations, this edition is principally a means to assist themin the ongoing discussion in the instances of the International Labour Con-ference as well as in their own organizations’ work: the names of the dif-ferent international institutions are provided by a number of authors aswell as their areas of specialization. International cooperation agencies arealso referred to so that workers’ organizations could consider developingprojects and requesting guidance and assistance for addressing safety andhealth problems among workers.

V

Editorial

Training, too, for rural workers’ representatives and general aware-ness raising have been stressed. The experiences of trained worker repre-sentatives within countries of the European Union are well worth emu-lation: Walters perceives the problem of accident prevention in agricultureas one which is more related to the actual management of hazards thanthe technical nature of either the hazards themselves or their control, aswell as the difficulties involved in communicating to the owners and man-agers of small enterprises the benefits of good health and safety manage-ment. Of no less key relevance in terms of training requirements isAmuko’s account of NUPAW’s application of the methodology of thestudy circle. Loewenson, in an in-depth analysis of health and safety prob-lems of women workers in agriculture in selected African countries, notonly highlights their dual burden but forcefully calls for an integration ofhealth and safety education into services and markets as a sensitizationthrust. As a broader canvas, Forastieri and Hurst respectively provide anoverview of the ILO’s SafeWork Programme and the IUF’s policies andactivities with regard to health and safety in agriculture.

The two main challenges identified, however, are, firstly, to developa comprehensive workers’ education and training policy, and, secondly,for the social partners with the support of other interest groups to engagein a full onslaught to combat the abuse of pesticides and to shape nationaland international policies so as to ensure the common pursuit of sustain-able agriculture and development.

Since its inception in 1919, the ILO has adopted 12 Conventions (allwith their accompanying Recommendations) of direct relevance to safetyand health in agriculture. In addition, 17 other instruments are also rele-vant to the protection of workers in agriculture, covering such areas asright of association, workmen’s compensation, holidays with pay, pro-tection of migrant workers, indigenous and tribal peoples, to mention onlya few (see Annexes I and II). To cite the report Safety and health in agricul-ture1 which will be presented to the International Labour Conference inJune 2000, there is worldwide recognition that agriculture is a particularlyhazardous sector – alongside mining and construction – in both develop-ing and industrialized countries. Although agricultural wage workers arecovered by the Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110), and agriculture isalso generally covered by the ILO’s framework Occupational Safety andHealth Convention, 1981 (No. 155), which applies to all branches of eco-nomic activity, there is no comprehensive Convention dealing with thesafety and health problems of workers in agriculture. The report con-cludes that there is a need for a more holistic approach to occupationalsafety and health standards: a Convention containing basic principles ofsafety and health in agriculture, supplemented by a Recommendation,would provide a sound basis upon which subsequent national legislationcould be built, and could be usefully complemented in the future by thepreparation of a code of practice.

VI

Within this general thrust, the ILO Bureau for Workers’ A c t i v i t i e sattaches special importance to this edition devoted to the theme of safetyand health in agriculture. Alongside the Conference debates in June andin preparation for the second discussion of the item next year, it is ourwish that the following articles nurture and enrich the proceedings ofthese instances, on the basis of which new instruments will be shaped,vital not only to the future of workers in this sector but to social pro g re s su n i v e r s a l l y.

Manuel Simón VelascoDirector

ILO Bureau for Workers’Activities

VII

Note

1 ILO: Safety and health in agriculture, Report VI (1), International Labour Conference, 88th Session,Geneva, 1999.

An estimated 1.3 billion workers are activein agricultural production worldwide. This fig-ure represents half of the world labour force.Although the proportion of agricultural work-ers is under 10 per cent in the more developedregions, almost 60 per cent of the agriculturalworkforce is concentrated in developing coun-tries where a big proportion of them are to befound in waged labour.

Measuring the challenge

In developing countries, too, a large num-ber of people below the poverty line live in arural environment (World Bank, 1997). Accord-ing to data from the Food and AgricultureOrganization and the United Nations, the num-ber of people living in poverty in Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean rose by 60 millionbetween 1980 and 1990 (FAO, 1997; ECLAC,1993). Even if the majority of poor people livein cities, the incidence and severity of povertyare greater in rural areas.

Temporary workers: more exposedand less paid

Agricultural workers are underprotected ascompared to workers in other sectors. The mostvulnerable groups are found in subsistenceagriculture: as waged workers in plantations;landless daily paid labourers; temporary andmigrant workers; and as child labourers. Tem-porary work in agriculture is characterized bycasual forms of labour, precarious working con-ditions and little or no social protection. It islargely prevalent in Asia and Central America.Around 45 per cent of rural workers in CentralAmerica are temporary workers and 56 per centof those are landless wage workers. Temporaryworkers are more exposed to occupational haz-ards than other agricultural workers and are

lower paid. Migrant workers may also havelanguage and cultural difficulties at work andin their daily lives. Mobile and seasonal work-ers may suffer from multiple physical andchemical exposures that accumulate from dif-ferent workplaces.

No injury benefit or insurance scheme

Agricultural workers suffer markedlyhigher rates of accidents and fatal injuries thanother workers, with very few resources avail-able for compensation. In many countries, agri-cultural workers are excluded from anyemployment injury benefit or insurancescheme. Self-employed farmers are rarely cov-ered by any recording and notification system,nor do they enjoy access to social security ben-efits except on a voluntary basis on the groundsof their own contributions.

Women to till land and raise families

Recent economic and technological changesare having an impact on the employment andworking conditions of agricultural workers andtherefore on the quality of their work and life.In the less developed countries, the situation isoften worse because most men emigrate tourban centres seeking a job and women are leftbehind to till the land, produce and harvest thecrops, while at the same time raise a family.Their workload is heavy and their incomes arelow as they depend on the sale of primary prod-ucts, the prices of which are usually outsidetheir control. Therefore, the proportion ofwomen and children in agricultural employ-ment is also increasing to complement the fam-ily’s income. Women now account for 20 to 30per cent of total agricultural waged employ-ment. In Asia, over 80 per cent of the workforcein agriculture is represented by women.

1

The ILO Programme on Safety and Healthin Agriculture: The challenge for the new century –providing occupational safety and health services

to workers in agriculture1

Valentina ForastieriSafeWork Programme

ILO

Children working in fieldsat the age of five

According to the new ILO estimates, thereare at least 250 million children between 5 and14 years of age working in developing coun-tries, where child labour predominates. Foralmost one-half of them (120 million), this workis carried out on a full-time basis. According toa survey recently carried out by the ILO in 26countries, participation rates of children in eco-nomic activities are much higher in rural areasthan in urban centres. The rate of childrenbetween the ages 5 to 14 who are economicallyactive in agriculture may be as high as 30 percent of all working children (ILO, 1996a). Ruralgirls tend to become economically active evenfrom the age of five. In Latin America and theCaribbean, out of 15 million children involvedin the labour market, 56 per cent work in theagricultural sector, between the ages 5 and 7(Ashagrie, 1998). They work long hours and avery high proportion of them are injured atwork. The most common injuries include: cutsand wounds, eye infection, skin troubles, fever,thermal stress caused by excessive heat andfatigue, and intoxications caused by exposureto pesticides while working in agriculturalfields (Forastieri, 1997).

Overlapping categories of workers

Inequalities in the economic development ofdifferent countries, or of regions within thesame country, have resulted in the coexistenceof a number of forms of production in agricul-ture which can, in broad terms, be reflected bytwo main agricultural sectors: one is character-ized by low-skilled subsistence farming inwhich a big proportion of the rural populationis engaged; the other is often based on highlyautomated production processes and, as aresult, achieves high productivity with rela-tively few workers. Important skill differencesexist within the two sectors: on the one handare to be found skilled market-oriented farm-ers and specialized agricultural workers, andon the other, workers engaged in temporarywork and subsistence farming (ILO, 1990).

Numerous types of labour relations

A peculiarity of the agricultural sector is thelack of clear-cut distinctions between differentcategories of workers, and size and types oflandholdings. The wide range of land owner-ship patterns and of methods of cultivation give

rise to numerous types of labour relations anddifferent forms of labour force participation.This situation will also vary among developedand developing countries. The different cate-gories of workers found will also vary withineach country, and in certain cases a singlefarmer can be grouped in more than one cate-gory. For example, in developing countries,many smallholders complement their subsis-tence farming income with wages on large com-mercial farms during harvesting periods.

Associated operations

In most countries, agricultural work is oftencarried out on a family basis, involving to agreat extent the worker’s whole family (chil-dren, women and the elderly). A wide varietyof jobs are performed by agricultural workers,especially among the self-employed inmedium-size and small-scale farming. Itshould not be overlooked that “agriculture”covers not only farming but many other asso-ciated operations, such as crop processing, stor-age and packaging, construction and irrigation,pest management, poultry, piggery, fish-farm-ing, livestock breeding and associated servicesincluding domestic tasks.

In industrialized countries, most farmersare small-scale landowners operating farmswith varying technical and financial means andproducing for the domestic and/or the exportmarket. In Europe, small and medium-sizedlandholdings are usually family farms with ahigh level of productivity. They tend to employseasonal workers at times of high demand forlabour, particularly when they specialize invegetable, fruit and grape production, wheremechanization is not highly developed.

As in Europe, small-scale farmers predomi-nate in Asia and Africa. However, their work-ing and living conditions differ substantiallyfrom those in the industrialized world. Certainsmall landowners in developing countriescombine small-scale agriculture with cattle-raising or waged labour in commercial plan-t ations.2 For example, the farming sector inSouthern Africa is composed of smallholdersgenerally under communal tenure and usingfamily and non-waged labour (Loewenson,1998). In Malaysia, there are up to one millionsmallholders of whom half are involved inholdings of less than 40.5 hectares (HarminderSingh, 1986).

In Latin America, the distribution is some-what different: wage earners constitute themajority of the economically active population

2

in agriculture. For example, in Central Americathey represent 49 per cent of the agriculturaleconomically active population, of whom 27per cent are permanent employees, 10 per centare partially small owners and partially tem-porary workers, and 12 per cent are temporarylandless workers. In Brazil there are 12 millionlandless peasants out of a rural population of23 million (Salgado, 1997; Gómez and Klein,1993; ILO, 1996a).

Technological developmentand agriculture

One of the distinguishing characteristics ofagricultural work is that it is carried out in anessentially rural environment where workingand living conditions are interwoven. Agricul-tural work is also subject to the health risksinherent to a rural environment and at the sametime to those deriving from the specific workprocesses involved. Agriculture is a sector tra-ditionally neglected as a result of the emphasisplaced on industrial development. This situa-tion may be partially explained by the fact thatagriculture is a very heterogeneous and multi-faceted sector and there are difficultiesinvolved in dealing with its various safety andhealth problems.

Safety and health measuresdifficult to apply

Due to the characteristics of the rural envi-ronment and the nature of agricultural work, thed i ff e rences between the various kinds of agri-cultural tasks are far more marked than thosebetween the operations of other productive sec-tors, such as mining, construction or manufac-t u re. The application of safety and health mea-s u res in agricultural work and agriculturalworkplaces is more difficult than in industry:many agricultural jobs involve multiple dutiesand multiple locations both on a daily and sea-sonal basis. Agricultural workplaces and equip-ment are widely varied and usually specific tothe crops involved. Agricultural methods canrange from those used in highly-mechanizeda g r i c u l t u re in large-scale farms and commerc i a lplantations to the traditional intensive methodsused in small-scale and subsistence agriculture .Working conditions will also vary from countryto country and among developed countries, andf rom countries with economies in transition anddeveloping countries, depending on the work-ing methods applied, available infrastru c t u reand environmental conditions.

Specific features

Some of the specific features of agriculturalwork which can be mentioned are:• most tasks are carried out in the open air,

exposing workers to climatic conditions;• the seasonal nature of the work and the

urgency of certain tasks in specific periods;• a wide variety of tasks are performed by the

same person;• the type of working postures and the length

of the tasks performed;• contact with animals and plants exposing

workers to bites, poisoning, infections, par-asitic diseases, allergies, toxicity and otherhealth problems;

• the use of chemicals and biological pro d u c t s ;• the considerable distances between living

quarters and workplaces.

Dependent on weather changes

Most of the work is done in the open air andconsequently workers are exposed to all typesof weather, according to the season. Althoughthe introduction of new equipment and newforms of work organization have made consid-erable progress in agriculture, dependence onweather changes to perform agricultural workproves to be an obstacle to more efficient oper-ations and may completely modify workingconditions, making them difficult and some-times dangerous (e.g. a rainstorm while har-vesting, a sudden gust of wind during theapplication of pesticides, or lack of rain, etc.).

Safety measures and training outof step with technology

Technological change in agriculture has notalways been accompanied by investment in theprotection and improvement of workers’ safetyand health. Although it has brought about areduction in the physical drudgery of agricul-tural work, it has also introduced new risks tothe sector mainly associated both with the useof more sophisticated agricultural machinerywithout adequate safety measures, informationand training, as well as the intensive and indis-criminate use of chemicals in agriculture. Theoutcome has been not only an increase in thenumber of serious injuries and death but alsothe destabilization of the ecosystems of largeareas of the world due to a non-sustainableapproach to agricultural development.

3

Lack of supportive technology

As international trade intensifies, the agri-cultural sector is obliged to modernize the tech-niques used in the planting, care, treatment andharvesting of crops, as well as in animal hus-bandry. The introduction of even more complexmachinery and numerous chemical com-pounds, each with harmful human and envi-ronmental effects, takes place without the pro-vision of either appropriate information orappropriate training, as the supportive tech-nology found in other industries is likely to bemissing. In addition, traditional techniques inagriculture often obstruct the application ofmodern techniques, since the agricultural sec-tor suffers from a certain technical backward-ness as compared with industry.

Most new technology designedfor industrialized countries

C u r rent ergonomic re s e a rch and its appli-cation in developing countries are mainlyfocused on the industrial sector. Little re s e a rc hhas been conducted in agriculture and evenless at the small-scale farmer’s level. There islimited information on the extent to whiche rgonomics may alleviate the constraints onmanual operations for crop cultivation. In mostdeveloping countries, the problems encoun-t e red due to the transfer of technology havee rgonomic implications. Most new technologycomes from industrialized countries and canr a rely be expected to be appropriate either tothe climate or the body size, physical stre n g t h ,working and cultural habits of workers indeveloping countries. In many cases, theequipment and tools have been designed for apopulation which differs from the actual users.T h e re are also great variations in body mea-s u rements within developing countries whered i ff e rent ethnic groups are present. These vari-ations may either have limited erg o n o m i cimplications or lead to serious erg o n o m i cp roblems both in terms of the equipment andthe users, causing accidents and injuries. F u r-t h e r m o re, through the increase of technologytransfer in developing countries, imported orsecond-hand machinery often comes withdilapidated or missing safety guards and themaintenance of machinery is usually poor.Farm implements, suitable for a particularoperation, are used for others for which theya re inadequate, or are used even when badlydamaged. Unsafe, unhealthy and uncomfort-able situations which are also inefficient, usu-

ally occur because the equipment, enviro n-ment and organizational factors are not pro p-erly matched to those who use them.

Occupational accidents and injuries

Agriculture is one of the most hazardousoccupations worldwide. In several countries,the fatal accident rate in agriculture is doublethe average for all other industries. Accordingto ILO estimates, from a total of 335,000 fatalworkplace accidents worldwide, some 170,000agricultural workers are killed each year (NSC,1995). Contrary to mining, where fatal acci-dents have decreased in a number of countries,agriculture mortality rates remained consis-tently high in the past decade both in industri-alized and developing countries.

Inadequate training and safetysystems in developing countries

Machinery such as tractors and harvestershave the highest frequency and fatality rates ofinjury. Exposure to pesticides and other agro-chemicals constitutes one of the major occupa-tional risks causing poisoning and death and incertain cases work-related cancer. Other haz-ards are due to multiple contact with animals,plants, poisonous animals and biologicalagents which may give rise to allergies, respi-ratory disorders and lung diseases, zoonoticinfections and parasitic diseases. Severeinjuries such as wounds and fractures are alsooccasionally caused by animal bites and kicks(Choudhry, 1989). Noise-induced hearing loss,musculoskeletal disorders (repetitive motiondisorders and back disorders), stress and psy-chological disorders are also frequent. This sit-uation is particularly evident in developingcountries where education, training and safetysystems are largely inadequate to provide cov-erage to the sector.

Injury and mortality in non-chemicalaccidents

The Brazilian Institute on OccupationalSafety and Health, FUNDACENTRO(Meirelles, 1994) conducted a study on occupa-tional accidents in the rural sector in the eightstates where there is a higher concentration ofagricultural activities for the period 1987 to1990. The study showed that 39.45 per cent ofthe total injuries were due to manual tools, 88per cent of which were cutting tools, and that12.68 per cent of all injuries were caused by acci-

4

dents with machinery of which 38.56 per centwere tractors. The rest were minor injuries dueto different causes. In Chile, the labour inspec-torate reported in 1993 that injuries due tomachinery and tools accounted for over one-third (35 per cent) of all cases of occupationalinjury (Ministry of Labour, 1993). In SouthAfrica, according to an assessment of theannual reports of the Workmen’s Compensa-tion Commissioner (1987-89), mortality infarming due only to non-chemical occupationalaccidents was twice that of other industries(London and Myers, 1995; Myers, 1990).

Death rates still high in Australiaand the United States

Agriculture is a particularly hazardousoccupation even in the industrialized countries.The National Safety Council of the UnitedStates and the Australian Occupational SafetyInstitute, WorkSafe Australia, have rankedagriculture as one of the three most hazardousindustries. Work-related agricultural fatalitieswere examined as part of a larger population-based study of all work-related fatalities in theperiod from 1982 to 1984 in Australia (Erlich etal., 1993). A total of 257 farm-related fatalitieswere identified, of which 223 came from thewaged-labour force (19.4 deaths per 100,000 peryear) and 34 deaths were registered for childrenless than 15 years of age. Mobile mechanicalequipment (particularly tractors) were the mainfatal agent, and roll-overs accounted for manyof the fatalities. Although farmers and farmworkers in the United States comprise only3 per cent of the workforce, they suffered 7.4percent of work-related deaths for the period 1990-95, according to the US National Safety Coun-cil (NSC, 1990 and 1995).

Nitrogen dioxide in silos

In farms where silos are used to store grain,there is a significant risk of death by asphyxia.In the newly filled silo, various very toxicoxides of nitrogen begin to accumulate in thehead-space of the silo within hours of filling itand may persist there for a week or more. Lev-els of nitrogen dioxide that are hundreds oftimes higher than industrial standards havebeen documented (Lowry and Schuman, 1955).Falls followed by asphyxia arising from theinhalation of grains have also been reported.3Many countries have long lists of recommen-dations concerning the risks of working in silos,but they are usually not properly followed.

Agrochemical exposure

E x p o s u re to pesticides and other agro c h e m-icals constitutes one of the major occupationalrisks, accounting in some countries for as muchas 14 per cent of all occupational injuries in theagricultural sector and 10 per cent of all fatalinjuries (ILO, 1996a). The magnitude of healthdamage caused by agrochemical exposure willvary according to the type of crop cultivated, thetype of agrochemical used, the mode of appli-c a t i o n / e x p o s u re, individual susceptibility andclimatic conditions. Some of the widely usedsubstances are highly toxic according to the haz-a rd classification of the World Health Org a n i z a-tion (WHO), and many are banned or severe l yrestricted in industrialized countries. There arelimited reliable data on the extent of pesticide-related illness both in developed and develop-ing countries, due to difficulties in the accuratereporting of cases, which lead to undere s t i m a-tion. For example, the United States Enviro n-mental Protection Agency estimates at between20,000 and 300,000 the annual number of acutepesticide poisoning cases among agriculturalworkers, and the WHO places the total cases ofpesticide poisoning at between 2 and 5 millioneach year, of which 40,000 are fatal (ILO, 1994).

In Costa Rica 4 kg of pesticidesper capita

Developing countries consume more than20 per cent of the world production of agro-chemicals and are responsible for approxi-mately 70 per cent of the total number of casesof acute poisoning occurring in the world,which corresponds to more than 1.1 millioncases. During the 1980s, the importation anduse of agrochemicals in the Central Americanregion reached an annual average of 53.6 mil-lion. In Costa Rica alone, as much as 4 kg of pes-ticides per capita was used annually during thelast decade, eight times the 0.5 kg estimated forthe whole world population and twice the aver-age use for the total Central American region.In Central America alone, 27,745 cases of acutepoisoning were registered between 1980 and1987 and this rate corresponds to more than2,000 cases per year (Wesseling, 1994).

In Panama 25 per cent of permanentdisabilities in agriculture

According to a national survey on occupa-tional safety and health in agriculture carriedout in Panama, the rural population exposed to

5

pesticides in 1993 was 574,757, of whom only 5per cent had access to compensation from theSocial Security System (Díaz Mérida, 1992). TheSocial Security records refer to only 15 per centof the total cases. Up to 20-25 per cent of all per-manent incapacities entitled to compensationoccurred within the agricultural sector in thesame period. In another study undertaken bythe National University of Panama for theperiod 1980 to 1989, the rate of acute poisoningdue to occupational exposure was 26.2 per cent(Díaz Mérida and Tristan, 1996) . According todata from the Ministry of Health of Panama, therate of intoxications due to pesticide exposurewas 7.7 per 100,000 in 1990 and 5.6 per 100,000in 1995. According to estimates from the SocialSecurity Institute, the rate for 1995 should havebeen 3,000 per 100,000 (Díaz Mérida, 1996).

During 1994, 237 cases of pesticide poison-ing were registered by the Social Security Insti-tute of Guatemala (Ruano Meléndez, 1995)with three occupational fatalities. Anotherstudy conducted by the Faculty of Medicinefrom the National University of Guatemalabased on data from the Ministry of Health andthe Social Security Institute showed that in theperiod from 1986 to 1990, there were 5,571 casesof intoxications from pesticides with a fatalityrate of 3.23 per cent. In 1994, a survey on theuse of pesticides undertaken by the Ministry ofHealth concluded that it was not possible tohave an accurate estimation of the number ofintoxications from occupational exposure in thecountry due to under-reporting.

Under-reporting

Although the fig u res provided above give anidea of the magnitude of the problem, off i c i a ldata on the incidence of occupational accidentsand diseases are imprecise and notoriouslyu n d e restimated in agriculture, irre s p e c t i v eo f the level of development of the country.T h i s situation is more acute with re g a rd to oc-cupational diseases. There are diff e rent arrange-ments for the reporting of occupational acci-dents and for occupational diseases: accidentscan be readily identified at the momentt h e y o c c u r, while occupational diseases re q u i remedical diagnosis.

Chronic conditions moredifficult to evaluate

Information on workplace accidents isderived from statutory reporting and fromsocial security claims, and thus does not reflect

the numerous unreported non-fatal and minorinjuries since only a small proportion of acci-dents in the workplace are fatal. Such informa-tion, however, is relatively reliable becausealmost all fatal occurrences come to the noticeof the enforcement authorities. In the case ofagriculture, this situation may be explained bythe fact that particularly hazardous work islikely to leave visible and immediate effectssuch as serious accidents and acute poisoning,whereas other hazards are more difficult toevaluate. The latter would apply in the case ofchronic ill-health, conditions due to exposuretonoise, vibration, organic dusts or cumulativelow exposure to pesticides, which all lead to dif-ficulties in the diagnosis and therefore to under-reporting of occupational and work-related dis-eases in most countries.

Under-reporting is also partially explainedby the difficulties involved in establishing theemployment status of agricultural workers:piece-rate, full-time or part-time work, sea-sonal or migrant worker, etc. In many countriestoo, agricultural workers are excluded fromany employment injury benefit or insurancescheme. Furthermore, the administrativemachinery for collecting injury records and theincentive to report injuries are also insufficient.Nevertheless, agricultural workers suffermarkedly higher rates of accidents and fatalinjuries than workers in other sectors with verylittle resources for compensation. Fewer than 20per cent of the world’s agricultural wage earn-ers are covered by one or more of the nine con-tingencies of the ILO’s Social Security (Mini-mum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102).4

Occupational andwork-related diseases

There is a considerable variation worldwidein the range of diseases arising from agricul-tural work. In turn, they are produced by a widearray of features peculiar to each country orregion: climate, fauna, population density, liv-ing conditions, eating habits, standards ofhygiene, levels of education, occupationaltraining, working conditions, technologicaldevelopment, and the quality of and access toservices, etc. The major diseases occurring inagricultural work are infectious disorders suchas those transmitted by contact with domesticor wild animals (zoonosis), respiratory infec-tions, dermatosis, allergies, cancer, illnessesarising from working in the open air, poison-ings, as well as musculoskeletal disorders aris-ing from repetitive work or working in unsuit-

6

able positions, carrying heavy loads, exces-sively long hours, and noise and vibrations.Such diseases lead to a significant expenditureof energy, premature ageing, absenteeism,declining productivity and high social andhealth costs at the national level.

Infectious and parasitic diseases

Zoonosis constitutes a serious public healthproblem, especially in developing countries. Itincludes some of the most widespread and seri-ous diseases in the world. Past experience indi-cates that in the future they will play a growingrole in the pattern of human morbidity(Choudhry, 1989). Diseases originating fromanimals are often unnoticed, either becauseanimals themselves do not develop the illnessor because there is a long interval before symp-toms begin to appear in humans. Contamina-tion can occur through direct hand contact withthe animal or with substances derived from it(such as hair, meat, carcasses, bones, and theproducts of rejection, abortion or slaughter) aswell as by contact with contaminated environ-ments. These illnesses can be extremely seriousin humans, and their care burdensome. Treat-ment can often be complex, requiring pro-longed periods in a hospital, as in the case ofbovine tuberculosis, tetanus, and tularaemia.5

Some of those diseases need surgical treatment,such as hydatidosis,6 as well as intensive post-surgical care on account of the sensitive organsaffected, such as the lungs, the liver, and thecentral nervous system. Other diseases arehighly contagious and can lead to epidemicssuch as malaria, brucellosis (undulant fever),salmonellosis,7 or Newcastle virus disease ,8

and even if their treatment is relatively simple,the social cost of such epidemics is very high.Listerioses9 are the cause of miscarriages or, ifcontracted at an advanced stage of pregnancy,of serious congenital defects.

Tetanus, typhus, malaria,amoebiasis, Lyme disease

Parasitic diseases present in the workplacestem from a variety of causes: the ingestion ofparasitic eggs (such as hydatidosis, amoebi-ases)10 as a result of the contamination of foodor of hands through dirty tools or from animalsand animal derivatives is one source. Certainlarvae present in the soil in hot and humid areascan enter the body through exposed healthyskin and the lining of the nose, mouth and con-junctiva when working in rice fields, mush-

room areas and other terrains infested withthese parasites. The risk of such contaminationis increased in areas of high temperature by theproblems posed in wearing protective clothingand boots which may themselves increase bodytemperature and provoke excessive perspira-tion. Several parasites can penetrate the bodiesof workers through biological vectors, as is thecase of insects carrying malaria, leishmaniasisand sleeping sickness. Other infectious diseaseswhich can be contracted in the agriculturalworking environment have a serious progno-sis: tetanus, rabies, typhus, Q fever and Lymedisease are telling examples. In France, 75 percent of recognized occupational diseases inagriculture are infectious or parasite-borne,leading frequently to partial or total occupa-tional disability.

Skin disorders

Skin disorders can result from the entry ofpathogenic agents into the body, either thro u g ha lesion (a bite, a scratch, a sting) or through ahealthy skin surface. Fungal infections may bed i rectly contracted from infected animals ordeveloped in areas of skin maceration. Thismaceration results from humidity and heat,contact with sugar from fruit, and excessive per-spiration due to the use of waterproof clothingsuch as rubber boots and gloves. Such lesionsa re often difficult to treat, take long to cure anda re contagious. Other agents cause acute, suba-cute or chronic dermatosis. Contact dermatitisis the most common occupational dermatolog-ical infection in agriculture and is caused by theaction of solvents and other products present inpesticides and in certain vegetables. A l l e rg i cdermatitis can be caused by certain flowers pro-duced in ornamental flo r i c u l t u re; chrome con-tained in rubber boots or gloves; veterinaryantibiotics; pesticides (fungicides of the dithio-carbamates group (Koch, 1996)); and by disin-fectants and soaps. They produce lesionst h rough local and occasionally airborne contact.Occupational acne is due to the handling ofmotor oil and grease or the moving parts of agri-cultural machines. Certain photosensitive sub-stances, such as mineral oils and greases andantibiotics, can produce acute infla m m a t o r ycutaneous lesions when exposed to the sun.

Respiratory disorders

Respiratory disorders in agriculture cover awide range of clinical manifestations, frombenign disorders to serious respiratory insuffi-

7

ciency including occupational asthma. The var-ious organic allergens can, furthermore, be car-riers of bacteria, moulds, toxins and pesticides,and transport them into the respiratory tract,thus creating even more serious lung difficul-ties. Working in confined spaces such as glass-houses and silos can expose workers to highconcentrations of allergenic dusts. Gases usedas pesticides or produced by a reaction whenpesticides are applied (such as hydrogen sul-phide, phosgene, chlorine, etc.) affect directly,through irritation, the walls of the respiratorytract, provoking asthmatic reactions amongpeople suffering from bronchial hyperactivity.

Occupational cancer

Occupational cancer in agriculture can pre-sent as a delayed complication of certain dis-eases whose origin is occupational, or it canarise through direct exposure to a variety of riskfactors. Numerous biological agents have beenimplicated in the development of cancer inhumans and some of them are closely relatedto working conditions in agriculture. Urinarybilharziasis, contracted through work inflooded areas is a cause of cancer of the blad-der, while the intestinal cancer leads to hepatic,oesophageal, gastric and colorectal tumours(Meeting of Experts, 1994). Faciolosis inducescancer of the bile ducts among cattle workerswho are in contact with surface waters (such aslakes, water-channels and swamps) contami-nated by flukes from the stools of infected cat-tle, goats and sheep. Pesticides and fertilisershave been associated with the appearance ofgastric and bronchial cancers (Cocco, Ward andBuiatti, 1996) (e.g. arsenical fungicides), as wellas to non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (phenoxy-acetic herbicides (Zhong and Rafnsson, 1996;Folsom, 1996; Persson, 1996).

Lifting and carrying of loads:musculoskeletal disorders

The adoption of awkward and uncomfort-able postures and the carrying of excessiveloads cause numerous but largely unreportedmusculoskeletal disorders in agriculture. Thecarrying of heavy loads can cause serious mus-culoskeletal disorders, such as chronic backpain, chest pain and miscarriages. Carryingloads is one of the major chores of rural womanworkers in developing countries. They canspend over 20 hours a week on trips for col-lecting water, firewood, laundry, livestocktending and marketing goods, carrying weights

of more that 35 kg on their heads and backs overconsiderable distances.

Back injuries and low back pain are mainlyassociated with heavy physical work andrepeated lifting and twisting as is the case withagricultural activities. Human effort providesmore than 70 per cent of the energy required forcrop production tasks in developing countries(FAO,1987), and weeding utilizes about 20 percent of the total human energy used in crop pro-duction in India (Gite and Yadav, 1990). Tradi-tional tools and methods require high humanenergy input. Knee lesions often appear wherework is undertaken while kneeling and whenit involves walking on uneven surfaces. In agri-culture, a number of operations originallydesigned to be carried out in a sitting positionare actually performed standing. Seats are usu-ally uncomfortable either due to poor design orto damage caused by misuse or age. Benchheights for manual work should be related tothe manual work being carried out and theelbow height of the worker. If not, the result isexcessive strain and fatigue, increasing the pos-sibility of an accident.11 Chronic musculoskele-tal disorders are the type of injuries that arevery likely to develop cumulatively in time andmost of them can lead to permanent disability.

Impairments due to noiseand vibration

Noise in agriculture is the result of high fre-quency vibrations produced by machines. Atfull power the motor produces far more thanthe 85 dB(A) established as the limit for hear-ing loss prevention (Darabont, 1983). The usuallevel is 95 and even 100 dB(A) for long periods,both in cabinless tractors and in those with cab-ins where there are additional resonance phe-nomena (Márquez Delgado, 1986). The effectsof noise are auditive and extra-auditive. Audi-tive effects bring about reduced awareness ofother simultaneous noises; e.g., cries warningof a danger, auditive fatigue during which aworker temporarily presents a higher hearingthreshold, and occupational deafness. Extra-auditive effects appear after several hours ofexposure and consist of irritability and psy-chological stress. To these should be added areduced speed of reaction in psychomotortasks, especially when simultaneous monitor-ing of several different elements is required, asobtains in the case of agricultural machine dri-vers who need to adapt the machine trajectoryto the irregularity of the ground, or during spe-cific operations with tractors and trailers, or

8

when the driver is carrying out operationsjointly with other workers (Desoille, Scherrerand Truhaut, 1992).

Relation between general diseasesand work-related diseases

Socio-economic, cultural and environmen-tal factors also determine the working and liv-ing conditions of farmers and agriculturalworkers. Environmental pollution causes occu-pational health and public health hazards to theworkers, their families and the communities,farm and domestic animals, as well as theecosystem. Local and global environmentalchanges related to the degradation of naturalresources can have a long-term impact on theavailability of food.

The interaction between poor living andworking conditions determines a distinctivemorbidity – mortality pattern among agricul-tural workers. Such a pattern is due to the com-bination of malnutrition with diseases preva-lent among the rural population (such asmalaria, tuberculosis, gastro-intestinal disor-ders, fluorine intoxication, endemic goitre,anaemic deficiencies, etc.), occupational disor-ders, and complications arising from undiag-nosed or untreated diseases.

Reduced life expectancy

Closely related to workers’ malnutritionand poor health is working capacity. Even if cer-tain developing countries have reached higherlevels of economic development, nutrition andhealth constitute an important problem areacharacterized by the vicious circle of low pro-ductivity, low salaries, malnutrition, diseases,and low working capacity. These problems areespecially important in the agricultural sectorwhere a great deal of the work is manual orsemi-mechanized and is closely related toworking capacity. General diseases affect theworking ability and further decrease workingcapacity when associated with other occupa-tional-related conditions such as heat stress.Working capacity (maximal aerobic capacity) isreduced in proportion to body size, but sus-tained working capacity is further decreased bythe effects of disease and malnutrition.12 Thissituation leads to an intense expenditure ofenergy on individuals who do not have theopportunity to recuperate, reducing their lifeexpectancy as compared with other workers.

Work in the open exposes workers to wind,rain, cold, heat and ultraviolet radiation. These

agents can lead to a series of health problemswhich, even if they cannot strictly be classifiedas occupational health problems, cause absen-teeism, low productivity and a lowering of theorganism’s resistance to well-known disorders.Rain and cold can lead to respiratory infectionsas well as to frostbites which leave skin lesionsliable to become infected. Exposure to the suncan cause burning, diffuse redness on theexposed parts of the skin, associated with cuta-neous atrophy which may lead to localizedthickenings after several years and varyingdegrees of sunstroke. Heat causes a dilation ofsuperficial blood vessels and thus dehydrationthrough excessive perspiration (sometimes ren-dered more severe by excessively protectiveand waterproof clothing), as well as leg oede-mas, cramps and fainting, and facilitate poi-soning through cutaneous absorption and thespread of pesticides inside the organism. Thewind carries bacteria, parasites, mineral andvegetable dust and fungal spores. The negativeeffects of long hours of work may be increasedby the effect of extreme climatic conditions.Malnutrition, hot and humid weather, andendemic diseases are all contributing factors tothe capabilities and performance of agriculturalworkers. Studies on the effect of heat exposureon workers’ health have shown that tempera-tures that differ even minimally from the com-fort zone tend to increase the risk of accidents.

Access to health services

Technological development in the last 50years has greatly improved urban living con-ditions, although this does not apply to ruralcommunities. With economic development,health resources have been oriented mainlytowards the improvement of secondary andtertiary levels of attention, focusing on thedevelopment of medical technology (for surgi-cal procedures, tests and specialized medicaldisciplines, genetic screening, research andhospital facilities, etc.). Limited funds are avail-able in those areas where more impact could bemade among the rural populations such as pre-ventive and primary health care. Specializedhealth services and big hospitals tend to belocated in large urban centres and it is often dif-ficult for rural communities to have access evento essential health services. The drift of the pop-ulation to urban centres has contributed to aconcentration of services for those who workand live in large urban centres with the result-ing imbalance in the distribution of healthresources between urban centres and rural

9

communities to the detriment of the rural sec-tor. This is particularly true in developing coun-tries as compared to industrialized countries.Small rural health centres or rural hospitals can-not offer the same services as their large urbancounterparts and often find it difficult to attractand retain staff.

No voice in decision-making

In consequence, health status in rural areasis below that found in urban centres in bothdeveloped and developing countries. Agricul-tural workers may live in extremely primitiveconditions, in areas where roads are non-exis-tent or inadequate and where transportation isdifficult. A majority of the rural population indeveloping countries have an inadequate dietand are exposed to both endemic and occupa-tional diseases. The high prevalence of epi-demic and endemic diseases in most rural areasfurther aggravates rural communities’ poorhealth and misery. This situation is reflected inthe numerous communicable and vector-bornediseases, including diseases and health impair-ments which arise from poor sanitation, inade-quate housing, malnutrition and a wide varietyof parasitic and bacterial infections affecting theentire population. The mortality rate is alsohigher in rural areas (ILO, 1995). Rural work-ers often lack information on the health hazardsthey face. In many countries, rural workers’organizations do not always have the opportu-nity to participate actively in policy-making,nor do they have any influence on the decisionstaken on their behalf. The environment inwhich rural people work and live, their stan-dard of living and their nutrition are as impor-tant to their health as the services availableto them.

Coverage of agricultural workersin national legislation

An overview carried out by the ILO onnational legislation in member States showed awide diversity of national approaches to legis-lation addressing safety and health in the agri-cultural sector. According to available informa-tion, comprehensive legislation is limited. Onlya few countries have developed such a set ofstandards applicable to agriculture.13

Due to legislative developments in a num-ber of industrialized countries, industry-spe-c i fic safety and health legislation is being pro-g ressively repealed and replaced by aframework statute covering all industries

t h rough a principal enactment, generallya c ross a wide range of economic sectors,including agriculture. Safety and health issuesrelated to specific hazards or industries arebeing addressed in regulations and codes ofpractice promulgated under this frameworkenactment. Most of the specific regulations ord e c rees related to agriculture, which are alls u b o rdinated to Safety and Health Acts ord i rectly to Labour Codes, concern safety ofmachinery and equipment (mainly tractorsand harvesters) and chemicals (in particularpesticides) or biological agents used in agri-c u l t u re. Other regulations relevant to agricul-t u re refer to the prohibition of the employmentof certain categories of workers, pro h i b i t i o n swith re g a rd to the operation of certain types ofequipment for those under 18 years of age,maternity protection provisions, social secu-rity measures and working conditions (wages,hours of work, etc.).

Self-employed, family members,seasonal workers not covered

Agriculture tends to be omitted or specifi-cally excluded from the general labour lawsand the occupational safety and health regula-tions of many countries. In certain cases, gen-eral laws such as Occupational Safety andHealth Acts give a marginal reference to the sec-tor; in others there are few specific regulationsor decrees. The general labour laws of a num-ber of countries exclude agricultural workerscompletely or partially, and in certain countriesthere are no safety and health laws applicableto the agricultural sector at all .14

While in some countries safety and healthlegislation does not apply to the agriculturalsector as a whole, there are others where itapplies only to certain categories of agriculturalworkers.Even though a small number of coun-tries specifically exclude agricultural workfrom the coverage of their labour codes, inmany others there are few if any provisions thatare applicable to workers who are not workingunder full-time contracts of employment. Inmany countries, only those employed undercontracts of employment are entitled to thecomplete protection offered by the statute. Forexample, rights, such as the right to be trained,to elect a health and safety representative andto be medically examined periodically are gen-erally only available to “workers” under thistype of legislation. As a large number of thosewho work in the agricultural sector are familymembers and temporary and seasonal workers,

10

legislative protection will generally have lim-ited or no effect on them. The legislation inmany countries does not cover the self-employed as it is restricted to those employedunder “contracts of service”. However, it has tobe mentioned that certain countries extend thescope of the protection offered by their labourlaws beyond the full-time waged employmentrelationship.15

It is very common for labour codes andsafety and health laws to make special provi-sion for women workers, particularly whenthey are pregnant or nursing. In most legisla-tion, pregnant and nursing women are pro-tected against certain forms of hazardous work,such as those involving heavy lifting or expo-sure to hazardous chemicals and ionizing radi-ations. Employers may be required to transferwomen from such work to other work that doesnot involve such safety and health risks. How-ever, these provisions are of general applicationand do not specify agricultural work. In somecountries, only permanent agricultural work-ers are covered by these provisions. Often thecoverage is provided by separate legislation.For example, in some Asian countries agricul-tural workers employed in plantations arespecifically covered. However, in many coun-tries agricultural workers are not covered andare specifically excluded from maternity pro-tection regulations.

Regional standards

Regional initiatives by the European Unionconcern mainly market relations and essentialeconomic re q u i rements for the implementa-tion of common agricultural policy mecha-nisms. The Council’s Directive on Safety andHealth at Work of 1989 (EEC, 1989) applies toall sectors of economic activity, including agri-c u l t u re, without prejudice to more stringentE u ropean Union provisions to be adoptedi n the future. A number of safety and healthd i rectives based on this Framework Dire c t i v ehave been adopted since. However, existingCouncil Directives on safety and health atwork, addressing specifically agriculture, dealmainly with pesticides, machinery safety ande rgonomic design of agricultural and fore s t r ymachinery (Manos, 1997). On a number ofoccasions, the need for a directive on the pro-tection of workers in agriculture has been dis-cussed within the European Commission andits Agricultural Committee. However, an ini-tiative on the subject has not been off i c i a l l yp roposed to date (Vogel, 1997).

Workers’ and employers’ participationin health and safety through collectiveagreements

Collective agreements are an importantsource of employers’ and workers’ labourrights and responsibilities. In the area of safetyand health, however, the major source of rightsand responsibilities tends to be statutory andquasi-statutory instruments and standards.This is particularly the case in the agriculturalsector in many countries, where low rates ofunionization make collective bargaining theexception rather than the norm.16

An examination of both national laws relat-ing to collective labour agreements and theagreements themselves has revealed little infor-mation as to the way in which safety and healthin agriculture are covered. Generally speaking,collective agreements make reference to certainsafety and health issues such as protectiveclothing, safety equipment, transport in theevent of accidents, first aid, safety procedures,safety committees, medical examinations, acci-dent insurance and certain allowances. Com-petent authorities in the area of safety andhealth in a number of countries have producedguidance material to help employers and tradeunions reach agreement on safety and healthissues in the process of collective bargaining.Negotiated agreements can be very detailed,covering wages, working time, rest days, leave,conditions of transport of workers, health andsafety at the workplace, occupational injurybenefits, etc. However, many collective agree-ments in agriculture do not cover health andsafety issues. At most they are likely to refer tothe legislation on the subject.

In France, a “pool of employers”

In general, collective bargaining agreementsare concluded in those sectors and enterpriseswhere permanent employment is significantand tend to reflect the concerns of permanentworkers. Temporary and seasonal workers,who are often in the majority, may not be cov-ered at all or only partially. Their frequentchange of employers is considered a majorobstacle. An attempt to overcome this compli-cation has been made in France with an amend-ment to the Labour Code (section 127/1) whichintroduces the notion of a “pool of employers”.Such a pool can legally contract with one ormore workers under one collective agreementwhich specifies the terms and conditions ofemployment; details regarding times and

11

periods of work are subsequently agreed uponby the respective employers. Several agricul-tural enterprises can thus share one or moreworkers, the full employment of whom mightbe beyond the capacity of any one enterprise(Bourquelot, 1987).

The participation of workers, employers andtheir re p resentatives in occupational health andsafety varies greatly from country to country. Indeveloped countries, legislation does generallyimpose a responsibility to involve workers andemployers in safety and health committees inagricultural enterprises as well as in nationalp rogrammes of prevention of work-related acci-dents and illnesses, but in most cases their activ-ity is very limited in this fie l d .

Repercussions of agriculturalproduction processes onthe environment

Environmental pollution caused by theinadequate selection and excessive use of agro-chemicals can have widespread negative reper-cussions, such as the destruction of biologicalspecies and changes in the natural biologicalbalance. Unfortunately, this may be the resultof methods adopted by some large plantationsmainly concerned with producing to meet thestandards of international markets rather thanadopting a sustainable approach to agriculturaldevelopment.

The methods used in these cases involveintensive and extensive monoculture whichreduces the variety of vegetable species over alarge area and makes a selective destruction oflocal pests. The reduction of the variety of floraand fauna breaks the cycle of in-built pest con-trol and leads to the need for increased chemi-cal controls. However, commercial pesticidesremove the most vulnerable pests, leavingbehind the resistant ones. Therefore a treadmilleffect is set in motion requiring ever moreharmful pesticides leading to renewed sec-ondary effects. Intensive agriculture alsoexhausts the specific elements present in thesoil which are necessary for crop cultivation. Asthe soil becomes less fertile, it requires moreregular and concentrated doses of chemicalssuch as fertilizers to develop the crops. Avicious circle takes hold, increasing both pro-duction costs and the costs of maintaining agri-cultural workers in good health. It also causeschanges in the geographical relief and in river-beds. It destroys plants whose deep and abun-dant roots sustain the soil, thus allowing thewind and the heat to erode the soil and dry it

out or causing flooding through land drift andthe destruction of river banks.

O rganochloride pesticides (DDT, aldrin,etc.) are extremely stable compounds and,even if many countries have now pro h i b i t e dthem, they can remain in the soil for 30 yearsand more. They are gradually absorbed byc rops and accumulate there before the conta-mination moves along the entire food chainfinally reaching the consumer. The mains o u rces of contamination are synthetic fertiliz-ers containing nitrates which contaminate thesoil and gro u n d w a t e r. Nitrates in drinkingwater and food have important health impli-cations such as haemoglobin disorders ininfants which can provoke occasional mortal-ity (blue baby syndrome) and in someinstances birth malformations, as well asc h ronic effects including blood cancer (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and stomach cancer.Other sources of contamination include animalm a n u res, human wastes, nitro g e n - fixing bac-teria, plants and other geological sourc e s .

Challenges in providing safety andhealth services to agricultural workers

In order to achieve sustainable agriculturalgrowth, the productivity of agricultural work-ers should be raised by supplying them withthe means to meet their basic needs, providingthem and their families with adequate workingand living conditions, protecting their healthand welfare, as well as the environment inwhich they work and live. Investment on occu-pational safety and health is an added valuewhich provides for improved working condi-tions, higher labour productivity and healthierlabour relations. Product quality standardsshould go hand in hand with improvements inworking conditions. In turn, working condi-tions in agriculture can be significantlyimproved in a viable and cost-effective waythrough safety and health measures.

An emphasis on prevention

Occupational safety and health in agricul-t u re needs to be addressed with a well-defin e dstrategy and must be integrated into a ru r a ldevelopment policy involving both big com-m e rcial plantations and small-scale farming.The pro g ressive extension of occupationalhealth services to workers in agriculturere q u i res the implementation of eff e c t i v enational policies, targeted programmes andstrategic plans of action with an emphasis on

12

p revention. The delivery of occupationalhealth services for the rural sector should beintegrated into the primary health care stru c-t u re. The adoption of adequate labour legisla-tion and the introduction of social pro t e c t i o nm e a s u res are major steps in that dire c t i o n .Such an approach should provide flexibility inthe implementation and support for theempowerment of the ILO social partners inparticular rural workers and their org a n i z a-tions. The long-term impact and success of theinterventions should be based essentially onjoint national responsibilities of governments,employers and workers and their org a n i z a-tions in order to guarantee sustainability. Thei d e n t i fication of new opportunities for action,the creation of alliances among social partners,their mobilization and empowerment thro u g hthe promotion of a sense of commitment andownership, are crucial for trade unions andtheir members.

Technical cooperation activities:The ILO’s Central American Projecton Agriculture

The purpose of technical cooperation activ-ities is to encourage national action to improveworking conditions for the protection of work-ers’ health and to provide assistance to mem-ber States in the implementation of specific pro-grammes and projects in the field ofoccupational safety and health on a requestbasis. Technical cooperation may take variousforms. Such projects may deal with the promo-tion of occupational health and safety policies,the updating of legislation, the establishment ofnational safety and health institutes, theimprovement of safety and health inspectionservices, the promotion of training pro-grammes and in-service training, the provisionof ad hoc expert services, and direct support toenterprise-level action.

In order to respond to the need for a sus-tainable approach to agriculture, a model strat-egy for occupational safety and health in agri-culture was developed and tested within theframework of an ILO Central American Projecton Occupational Safety and Health in Agricul-ture, launched in September 1993. This pilotproject has demonstrated the need for an inte-grated approach of occupational, public andenvironmental health, consistent with currenttrends at national and international levels. Thelessons learnt in this pilot phase will be used todevelop similar projects in other regions of theworld, mobilize international cooperation and

promote network arrangements in order toelaborate progressively an international pro-gramme on occupational safety and health inagriculture in the context of the new InFocusProgramme SafeWork.

The target beneficiaries of the project wererural workers and their families (women andchildren) including rural temporary workers.Special attention has been paid to the partici-pation of rural women in the project. A numberof them were trained as trainers and wereactively participating in the project. Aware ofthe need for a holistic approach to deal with theagricultural sector, the ILO project promotedinter-institutional coordination involving allthe relevant institutions at a national level: Min-istries of Labour, Agriculture, Health and Envi-ronment, social security institutions, rural tradeunions, employers’ organizations and NGOs.There was a close involvement of the Ministriesof Education and other training institutions inthe development and implementation of train-ing materials.

The project strategy was oriented towardsthe implementation of a national policy for theprotection of the safety and health of ruralworkers, the prevention of occupational acci-dents and diseases in agriculture and the pro-tection of the environment. It carried six maincomponents:• a legislative framework;• a national policy on occupational safety and

health (OSH) in agriculture;• a system of classification of chemicals;• a preventive health surveillance system;• the strengthening of national capacity

through information and training; and • an environmental protection approach to

deal with agriculture.

The activities carried out by the project sup-ported the improvement and strengthening ofthe institutional capacity and establishment ofa Tripartite National Committee on Agriculturefor an integrated management approach inorder to develop a national programme on OSHin agriculture.

Aw a reness, information and training onOSH for rural workers, inspection services,health care personnel and extension workersw e re used as the main tools. A focal point ateach information centre has been trained in theuse of the database. The project placed anemphasis on the development of a sustainablea p p roach to agriculture which foresees the use

13

of diff e rent and complementary agriculturalmethods which should be safe for the workerand his or her family, safe for the consumer,p rotect the environment and be productive atthe same time. There f o re, safety in the use andmanagement of agrochemicals, alternativemethods of pest control, integrated pest man-agement, organic farming and other agro - e c o-logical methods were introduced as part of thetraining programme. As a high proportion ofoccupational hazards among agriculturalworkers in Central America is due to exposureto agrochemicals, the training included safetyin the use and management of agro c h e m i c a l sin agricultural work, alternative methods ofpest control, agrochemical waste manage-ment, organic agriculture and enviro n m e n t a lp rotection measures. Safety data sheets for thea g rochemicals most frequently used in theCentral American Region were developed inSpanish, based on IPCS (International Pro-gramme on Chemical Safety) criteria. This alsoincluded the creation and support of informa-tion systems/databases on OSH in agricultureat the local level in the inspectorates and healthc e n t re s .

Close cooperation exists between the ILOand other UN Agencies such as WHO (WorldHealth Organization) and FAO (Food and Agri-culture Organization) in this field. In 1995, theILO/WHO Joint Committee on OccupationalHealth identified a number of areas for intensi-fied cooperation. Concerning agriculture, itwas suggested to develop “joint or coordinatedactivities at the international, national andregional levels, to improve the health of agri-cultural workers which would also coordinatethe delivery of existing agricultural health-related programmes such as chemical safety(including pesticides), injury prevention, man-ual handling and the prevention of zoonosis,utilizing primary health care structures andfunctions supplemented with requisite expertsupport.” For example, the ILO has collabo-rated with the Pan-American Health Organiza-tion (PAHO)/WHO Programme on Environ-ment and Health in the Central AmericanIsthmus (MASICA/PLAGSALUD) from 1996to 1998 in this area in order to avoid the over-lapping of activities and with the purpose ofachieving a better impact through combinedefforts. A number of successful joint activitieshave been carried out in those areas where theprojects have common objectives.

ILO new standards on agriculture

T h e re is worldwide recognition that agricul-t u re is a particularly hazardous sector togetherwith mining and construction. Internationals t a n d a rds and up-to-date codes of practicea l ready exist for the latter two. Although the ILOhas also shaped and adopted a series of codes ofpractice and guides of direct concern to occupa-tional safety and health in agriculture andrelated issues since the 1950s, some of them needto be revised. More than 20 ILO Conventions andRecommendations concern OSH issues re l e v a n tto agriculture or deal with aspects of agriculturalworkers’ working conditions (ILO, 1999). How-e v e r, in spite of the multitude of related stan-d a rds, and although agriculture is covered alongwith other sectors by the ILO’s framework Con-vention on Occupational Safety and Health, 1981(No. 155), which applies to all branches of eco-nomic activity, there is no Convention dealingc o m p rehensively with the safety and healthp roblems of agricultural workers. The Govern-ing Body of the ILO there f o re, in its 271st Ses-sion, decided to include in the agenda of the 88thInternational Labour Conference (2000) the dis-cussion of a proposed convention and re c o m-mendation on safety and health in agriculture .

The promotion of the new standards onagriculture would provide the impetus for thedevelopment of national programmes on agri-culture. The ILO’s past experience both at inter-national and national level has been taken intoaccount for the development of an internationalprogramme on agricultural safety and healthunder the umbrella of the new InFocus Pro-gramme SafeWork (ILO’s Global Programmeon Safety, Health and the Environment). Alsoenvisaged within the programme is the estab-lishment of networking arrangements amongdeveloping countries and among countrieswith economies in transition and industrializedcountries to support one another in dealingwith policy-making in rural development,safety and health and environmental manage-ment in agriculture. The purpose would also beto allow those in charge of OSH programmes inagriculture to upgrade their skills, update theirknowledge, and have contacts at a national andinternational level, including tailor-made train-ing programmes. A prerequisite for such aglobal network would be the identification ofresource persons, key institutions and socialpartners all of whom could be involved in themobilization of an integrated managementapproach to safety and health interventions inthe field of safety and health in agriculture.

14

References

Ashagrie, K. 1998. Statistics on working children and hazardouschild labour in brief, Bureau of Statistics, InternationalLabour Office, Geneva, (revised), April.

Bourquelot, F. 1987. “De quelques tendances sur l’emploi dessalariés dans la production agricole”, Economie rurale,Paris, No. 178-179.

Choudhry, A.W. 1989. “Occupational health in agriculture”,East African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety:Agriculture, Vol. 3.

Cocco, P.; Ward, M. H.; Buiatti, E. 1996. ”Occupational risksfactors for gastric cancer: An overview”, EpidemiologicReview, Vol. 18, No. 2.

Darabont, A. 1983. “Noise, measurement and control”, inEncyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Parmeg-giani, L. (ed.), 3rd (revised) edition, ILO.

Desoille, H.; Scherrer, J.; Truhaut, R. 1992. Précis de Médecinedu Travail, 6th edition, Masson, Paris.

Díaz Mérida, F. 1996. Diagnóstico sobre la salud de los traba-jadores en Panamá con énfasis en el sector agrícola y en el usode plaguicidas (efectos para la salud humana y ambiental),WHO, March, mimeo.

—; Tristan, L. 1996. Intoxicaciones agudas por plaguicidas enPanamá, Programa Regional de Plaguicidas del CSUCA,Universidad de Panamá, September, mimeo.

EEC. 1989. “Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the intro d u c-tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safetyand health of workers at work”, 89/392/EEC, Official Jour-nal of the European Communities, L183 ,Vol. 12, 29 June.

Erlich, S.M. et al. 1993. “Work-related agricultural fatalitiesin Australia 1982-1984”, Scandinavian Journal of WorkingEnvironment and Health, No. 19, pp. 162-7.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1987. African agri-culture: The next 25 years, Rome.

—. 1997. The state of food and agriculture. The agroprocessingindustry and economic development , Rome, and EconomicCommission for Latin America and the Caribbean(ECLAC). 1993. Panorama social de América Latina, UnitedNations, Santiago, Chile.

Folsom, A. R. 1996. “Cancer incidence among women livingon farms: findings from the Iowa women’s health study”,Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol.38, No. 11.

Forastieri, V. 1997. Children at work. Health and safety risks, ILO,Geneva.

Gite, L.P.; Yadav, B.G. 1990. “Handle height for a push-pulltype manually operated dryland weeder”, Ergonomics,Vol. 33, No. 12.

Harminder Singh, I. 1986. Occupational health and safety in theplantation sector, proceedings of the National Seminar onEffective Labour Inspections in the Plantation Sector,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

ILO. 1970. Health, welfare and housing of workers. Asurvey ofeffect given to four ILO Recommendations, ILO, Geneva.

—. 1990. International standard classification of occupations:ISCO-88, I L O, Geneva.

—.1994. “Chemicals in the working environment”, WorldLabour Report, Ch. 5, Geneva.

—. 1995.World Labour Report, Geneva.—. 1996a. Wage workers in agriculture: conditions of employment

and work, Sectoral Activities Programme, Report for dis-cussion at the tripartite meeting on Improving condi-

tions of employment and work of agricultural wageworkers in the context of economic re-structuring.TMAWW/1996, ILO, Geneva.

—. 1996b. Yearbook of Labour Statistics. National Safety Coun-cil: International Accident Facts (Illinois, United States,1995); J. L. Murray and A. D. Lopez (eds.): The global bur-den of disease (WHO Global burden of disease and injuryseries. World Bank, Harvard School of Public Health,Washington DC, 1997); FAO: The state of food and agricul-t u re, op. cit.

—. 1997. Statistics on occupational wages and hours of work andon food prices: October inquiry results, Geneva.

—. 1999. Safety and health in agriculture, Report VI(1), AnnexesI and II, International Labour Conference, 87th Session,Geneva.

Koch, P. 1996. “ Occupational allergic contact dermatitis andairborne contact dermatitis from five fungicides in avineyard worker. Cross-reactions between fungicides ofthe dithiocarbamates group?”, Contact Dermatitis, Vol.34, No. 5.

Loewenson, R. 1998. Occupational health and safety in agricul -ture in Southern Africa, Report prepared for the ILO,Harare, Zimbabwe, unpublished.

London, L.; Myers. J. E. 1995. “Critical issues for agrochemi-cal safety in South Africa”, American Journal of IndustrialMedicine, No.27, pp. 1-14, New York.

Lowry, T; Schuman, M. 1956. “Silo-filler’s disease – a syn-drome caused by nitrogen dioxide”, Journal of the Amer-ican Medical Association, No. 162.

Manos, J. 1997. “Occupational safety and health directives ofthe European Union: an overview”, in Brune, D.; Ger-hardsson, G.; Crochford, G.W. and D’Auria, D. (eds.): TheWorkplace, Vol. 1, CIS/ILO/Scandinavian Science Pub-lishers, Oslo and Geneva.

Márquez Delgado, L. 1986. “Seguridad en la maquinaria agrí-cola”, Salud y Trabajo, No. 56.

Meeting of experts on carcinogenicity of some biologicalagents, African Newsletter on Occupational Health andSafety, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1994.

Meirelles, C. 1994. Report on occupational accidents in the ruralsector in Brazil, paper presented at the Tripartite Work-shop on OSH in A g r i c u l t u re held in Costa Rica, 16-18 Feb-ruary, mimeo.

Ministry of Labour. 1993. Informe Central, Seminario Nacionalpara la formación de fiscalizadores/as de trabajo einspectores/as de salud en la agricultura y en las indus-trias agroalimentarias, Dirección del Trabajo, Santiago,Chile.

Myers, J. E. 1990. “Occupational health of farm workers”,South African Medical Journal, No. 78.

NSC (National Safety Council). 1990. International AccidentFacts, Itasca, Illinois.

—. 1995. International Accident Facts.Persson, B. 1996. “Occupational exposure and malignant

lymphoma”, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Envi-ronmental Health, Vol. 9, No. 4.

Ruano Meléndez, F.L. 1995. Diagnóstico de las condiciones ymedio ambiente de trabajo de la agricultura en Guatemala, ILOCentral American Project on Occupational Safety andHealth in Agriculture, December 1995, mimeo.

Salgado, S. 1997. “Mouvement des paysans sans terre(Brésil)”, Terra. L’enjeu politique des brésiliens, Frères desHommes (Europe), Paris. See also Gómez, S. ; Klein, E.

15

1993. Los pobres del campo. El trabajador eventual,FLACSO/PREALC, ILO, Santiago, Chile, and ILO. 1996.Wage workers in agriculture: conditions of employment andwork, Sectoral Activities Programme, Geneva.

Sekimpi, D.K. 1992. “Occupational health services for agri-cultural workers”, in Occupational health in developingcountries, Jeyaratnam, J. (eds.), Oxford University Press,United Kingdom.

Vogel, L. 1997. Un premier bilan. L’environnement du travail dansl’Union européenne: le difficile passage du droit à la pratique,Observatoire du Bureau Technique Syndical (BTS) surl’application des directives européennes, EuropeanTrade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety,TUTB, Conference 1997, Brussels, 1-2 December.

Wesseling, C. 1994. Uso de plaguicidas en América Central y elimpacto en la salud de los trabajadores, background docu-ment, ILO National Tripartite Workshop on Occupa-tional Safety and Health in Agriculture, Programa dePlaguicidas (PPUNNA), Escuela de Ciencias Ambientales,Universidad de Costa Rica, February.

World Bank. 1997. Atlas of the World Bank,Washington, DC.Zhong, Y.; Rafnsson, V. 1996. “Cancer incidence among Ice-

land pesticide users”, International Journal of Epidemiol-ogy, Vol. 25, No. 6.

Notes

1 This paper is drawn from Safety and health in agriculture,Report VI (1), prepared for the discussion of new standardson the subject, placed as an item on the agenda, InternationalLabour Conference, 88th Session, Geneva, June 2000.

2 Accounting for 85 per cent of the agricultural econom-ically active population in Uganda, according to Sekimpi,1992.

3 Nitrogen dioxide industrial standard is 5 parts per mil-lion. See Lowry.and Schuman, 1956.

4 Namely medical care, sickness and maternity benefits,family benefits, unemployment benefits, employment injury,invalidity and suvivor’s benefits, and old-age benefits.

5 Bacterial disease transmitted by rabbits.6 Parasitises contracted from dogs contaminated by

sheep and camels’ viscera, and due to the development oflarval cysts.

7 Infectious diarrhoea causing dehydratation in childrenand older persons.

8 Human viral encephalitis transmitted by birds.9 Bacterial disease transmitted by sheep and goats.10 Bacterial disease reaching the liver and transmitted by

contaminated water or food.11 See Forastieri, V. Ergonomic problems in agriculture in

developing countries, to be published in electronic form:www.ilo.org/public/english/90travai/sechyg/..., Interna-tional Labour Organization.

12 See note 11.13 Such as Argentina, Australia, Austria, Hungary, Fin-

land, France, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, SouthAfrica and the United Kingdom. Some are more compre-hensive that others. For example, in the case of certain fed-eral States, a number of specific standards have been enactedat the state level in provinces with a strong agricultural sec-tor but do not cover the whole federation as in the USA(Cal-ifornia) and Australia (Victoria). Argentina approved in 1997an Occupational Safety and Health Act for the agriculturalsector (Reglamento de Higiene y Seguridad para la Activi-dad Agraria). France has a very comprehensive set of rele-vant regulations deriving from the labour code, including alist of occupational diseases specifically for agriculture andregulations on occupational medical services for agriculturalundertakings.

14 Since 1970, the Committee of Experts on the Applica-tion of Conventions and Recommendations noted the exclu-sion of agriculture from the safety and health laws of manycountries. See ILO, 1970.

15 For example, the Chilean Labour Code 1994 makes spe-c i fic provisions for seasonal, subcontracted and temporaryworkers, labour relations among tenants and share c ro p p e r s .Mexican and Australian law contains similar pro v i s i o n s .

16 For a general discussion of collective bargaining in therural sector, see ILO, 1996.

16

Waged agricultural workers

Some 440 million waged agricultural work-ers, 20-30 per cent of whom are women, accountfor 40 per cent of the global agricultural labourforce, and their numbers are growing in allregions of the world (ILO, 1996a). The agricul-tural workforce at over 1.1 billion is still thelargest workforce in the world. Child workersalso form part of that labour force. These work-ers are the women and men who work in thecrop fields, orchards, glass-houses, livestockunits, and primary processing facilities to pro-duce the world’s food and commodities. Theyare employed on everything from small andmedium-sized farms to large industrializedfarms and plantations.

They are waged workers because they nei-ther own the land on which they work nor thetools and equipment they use. In these respects,they are a group distinct from farmers. Theywork in an industry that is not sustainable asmeasured by the loss of human life, injury andill health. In 1997, the ILO estimated that I70,000fatalities occurred in agriculture out of a totalof 330,000 fatal workplace accidents (ILO,1999). Agricultural workers also suffer dispro-portionately among the 250 million and moreworkers injured each year (ILO, 1996b), and the160 million and more who fall ill due to work-place hazards and exposures (Helmer andCorvalán, 1999).

The high levels of fatalities, accidents, andill health have a considerable negative impacton agricultural productivity. The InternationalUnion of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associ-ations (IUF) sees a safe, healthy and environ-

ment conscious workforce as essential to a prof-itable and sustainable agricultural sector.

Agricultural work – and this is one of itsmost distinguishing characteristics – is carriedout in a rural environment where there is noclear distinction between working and livingconditions, unlike the case of the factory oro ffice worker (ILO, 1979). As a result, agricul-tural workers and their families face added dan-gers, such as exposure to pesticides. However,agricultural workers – who continue to re g i s t e ramong the highest levels among the global poor– are generally excluded from effective forms ofhealth, safety and social pro t e c t i o n .

Globalization

Global trade and economic pre s s u res aree roding the already low levels of protection ofthis group of workers in terms of wage levels,employment security and health and safety stan-d a rds. The worldwide trend towards work fle x-ibility and the pre s s u re to reduce labour and pro-duction costs are leading to an increase in dailyand seasonal contracts. Permanent employmentcontracts are increasingly being replaced by tem-porary labour on short-term contracts with lowerlevels of pay and poorer levels of health, safetyand social protection. The employment re l a t i o n-ship is undermined as employers incre a s i n g l yrely on labour contractors, creating a “grey are a ”a round the employer’s responsibilities and con-tributing to a disre g a rd for labour legislation.

The most acute problem remains that ofmigrant contract labour. The agricultural work-force is already based on a large number ofmigrant workers, whether from differentregions of a country or hired from abroad.

17

Health, safety and environment in agriculture:There must be dramatic improvements in

s t a n d a rds of protection both with re g a rd to wagedworkers and farmers as well as public healthand the environment before agriculture can

become socially and environmentally sustainable

Peter HurstCoordinator/Health, safety and environment

IUF

Women workers

Another major change in the composition ofthe agricultural workforce, with importantimplications for health and safety questions inagricultural health and safety, is the growingnumber of women waged agricultural workers.They constitute 40 per cent of the workforce, forexample in Latin America and the Caribbean.These workers and women farmers account fora considerable proportion of the agriculturalworkforce in developing countries. Women areestimated to be responsible for half of globalfood production, but most women agriculturalworkers and women farmers still have no voicein key issues concerning their societies andtheir livelihoods. For the most part, their workis seen as unpaid family labour. They face hugelegal and cultural barriers to rights to own landand to receive loans, technical assistance andoften even a basic education. Even whenwomen function effectively as heads of theirhouseholds, they are often denied full legalrights. Their problems are compounded whenresources are scarce, and an aggravation ofrural poverty leads to an increase in domesticviolence and other social problems such as alco-holism. Ensuring equality of rights for womenagricultural workers and farmers is not only amatter of justice, but of food security for all.

Child labour

Another special feature of agriculture is theextent to which child workers form a major partof the workforce in many countries. The ILOestimates that at least 90 per cent of economi-cally active children in rural areas in develop-ing countries are employed in agriculture. A1996 ILO report from 20 developing countriesput the proportion of economically active chil-dren aged 5 to 14 years in farming, animal hus-bandry and related work at 74 per cent (ILO,1996). As this report emphasizes: “The impli-cation of these figures is clear. If the majority ofworking children are located in developingcountries and a large proportion of these chil-dren are employed in agriculture, then theexclusion of agriculture from national legisla-tion represents the exclusion of large numbersof children from the ambit of protective legis-lation” (ILO, 1996b; Helmer and Corvalán,1999). Many child workers are killed, injured,or fall ill as a result of their work.

Collective bargainingagreements secured

Children work because their parents do notearn enough to support the family. The IUFbelieves that its efforts to improve conditionsfor waged agricultural workers will in the longterm reduce child labour. However, moreimmediate action is required. Currently, theIUF is working with international institutionslike the ILO to eradicate the most hazardousforms of child labour in the short term. In 1999,the IUF signed an agreement with the Interna-tional Tobacco Growers’ Association to worktogether to eliminate child labour in thetobacco-growing industry. Through its trainingand education programmes, the IUF hasenabled its affiliates to secure collective bar-gaining agreements which commit employersto no use of child labour.

Low levels of trade union organization

Waged agricultural workers are still poorlyo rganized into trade unions compared to otherg roups of workers. This situation is due to anumber of social and historical factors, not theleast of which are denial/suppression of basictrade union, democratic and human rights in anumber of countries. Raising the level of org a-nization and enhancing agricultural workers’b a rgaining power are the challenges to whichthe IUF and its affiliates are re s p o n d i n g .

Sustainable agricultural production,collective bargaining, and health,safety and environment (HSE)

Work on improving health, safety and envi-ronment standards has to be viewed in the con-text of promoting sustainable agriculture. Agri-cultural workplaces have to be sustainable bothin terms of protecting the workers employedthere, and in reducing any negative impact ofproduction on public health and the generalenvironment. This is important in winningbroad public and political support for shapingand adopting a forceful ILO Convention onhealth and safety in agriculture.

The trade unions and their members in thesector have a vested interest in promoting theirindustry and ensuring its long-term profitabil-ity and sustainability. To ensure the long-termfuture of the agricultural industry, trade unions

18

wish to see collective bargaining agreementsextended to cover the promotion of sustainableagriculture, including clauses on workplacehealth, safety and environment issues.

How trade unions organizeon HSE in agriculture

Safety representatives and safety commit-tees are the backbone of trade union organiza-tion on health and safety at work. They are theeyes and the ears of trade unions on workplacehealth and safety issues and play crucial rolesin reducing fatalities, accidents and ill health atwork. Many deal with workplace environmen-tal issues as well. These representatives andcommittees help protect worker and publichealth, and the general environment. Safetyrepresentatives and committees are legallyappointed with rights and powers under healthand safety laws covering the workplace. Insome countries, trade unions have won theright to nominate and appoint workplace safetyrepresentatives and committee members. Inothers, they have to be appointed but theemployer can decide who shall carry out suchfunctions.

Safety committees seldom legal

Safety committees are joint management-union bodies that negotiate on HSE issues in theworkplace, often drawing up HSE collectivebargaining agreements. Safety representativestypically investigate HSE complaints fromworkers, fatalities, accidents and cases of illhealth.

However, few countries have legal work-place safety representatives and committees inagriculture, owing to a variety of reasons: insome cases, agriculture is simply excludedfrom HSE legislation; in others, the number ofworkers on a farm is too low for the employerto be legally required to have safety represen-tatives and committees. There are also practicaldifficulties, e.g. empowering safety representa-tives with the right to visit farms where theythemselves are not employed, as in the case ofSweden and the United Kingdom which haveinstitutionalized roving, regional safety repre-sentative programmes to ensure that agricul-tural workers, and the community as a whole,receive the same HSE services as other groupsof workers.

The problems agricultural workersface in improving HSE standards atthe workplace and helping protectcommunity health and the generalenvironmentFatalities, accidents and ill healthin agriculture

Waged agricultural workers earn their liv-ing in an industry ranked as one of the threemost hazardous (the other two being miningand construction). Waged agricultural workersrank high among the 1.2 million people who dieannually in all industries from workplace acci-dents and work-related diseases, according toILO and World Health Organization (WHO)estimates (ILO, 1996a; Helmer and Corvalán,1999). In the United States, for example, thedeath rate among agricultural workers nation-wide was an estimated 20.9 per 100,000 work-ers in 1996 compared to the average for allindustries of 3.9 per 100,000 workers (Hallwardet al., 1999).

The most vulnerable groups are workers infamily subsistence agriculture, daily labourersin plantations, seasonal and migrant workers,women workers, and child labourers. Tempo-rary workers are especially vulnerable. In addi-tion, many children who are not workers die orare seriously injured on farms and plantationseach year. Accident and disease reporting sys-tems, and incentives to report them, are gener-ally inadequate for all sectors of industry. TheUnited Kingdom Health and Safety Executive(1997), for example, estimates that of legallyreportable injuries, only 30 per cent involvingemployees, and 10 per cent the self-employed,are reported. In agriculture, it estimates thatonly 2,000 of the estimated 10,000 reportable(i.e. the most serious) non-fatal injuries eachyear are reported (HSC, 1999).

Furthermore, in many countries, agricul-tural workers are excluded from any employ-ment injury benefit or insurance scheme, eitherbecause no such insurance scheme exists forthem or because, directly or indirectly, agricul-tural workers are excluded from generalschemes. In 1996 in the United States, forinstance, farmworkers were covered by work-ers’ compensation insurance in only eight statesand specifically excluded in 24 states.

Causes of fatalities and accidents

In horticulture and forestry in the UnitedKingdom, where there were 675 fatal injuries

19

between 1986–87 and 1997–98, the most com-mon causes of death were the following:• being struck by a moving vehicle (18 per cent);• being trapped by something falling or col-

lapsing, e.g. a tree (14 per cent);• falls from a height (15 per cent);• contact with machinery (14 per cent);• being struck by a moving or falling object,

e.g. bales (13 per cent); and• contact with electricity (9 per cent) – usually

overhead lines.

The most common causes of non-fatalinjuries in 1996/97 were as follows:• handling, lifting or carrying (19 per cent);• being struck by a moving object (18 per cent);• slipping, tripping or falling on the same

level (13 per cent);• contact with machinery (10 per cent);• being injured by an animal (8 per cent); and• being struck by a moving vehicle (3 per cent).

Health/disease is a major problemin agriculture. Figures for the UnitedKingdom (HSC, 1999) read as follows:• 80 per cent of workers suffer from some

form of musculoskeletal injury (aches,sprains or strains). Workers doing repetitivetasks on crop/commodity/flower gradinglines, on inspection tables, root harvesters,or processing poultry, may suffer fromrepetitive strain injuries (RSI). Driving trac-tors or other self-propelled machinery cansubject the body to vibration or joltingwhich is associated with chronic backacheor pain in the hip or knee;

• agricultural workers are affected by asthmaat a rate twice the national average;

• more than 20,000 people annually areaffected by zoonoses (diseases passed fromanimals to humans);

• 25 per cent of the workforce suffer somework-related hearing loss.

Other risks/hazards in the agricultural sec-tor may be listed as follows:• dusts, fibres, mists, fumes, micro-organ-

isms, gases and vapours;• livestock handling: risks of being bitten,

butted, gored or otherwise attacked, and

transmission of diseases from animals tohumans (zoonoses);

• poor hygiene – unclean drinking water, sub-standard washing and toilet facilities;

• heat and cold: high temperatures in the trop-ics, cold temperatures in the fields in tem-perate countries, working outdoors, poorlyheated stores, cold stores;

• poorly designed and maintained personalprotective equipment (respiratory protec-tive equipment);

• electricity and electrocution from poorlymaintained hand-held equipment, exten-sion cables, or contact with overhead powerlines. Poor electrical installations and equip-ment can also cause fires;

• new technologies, including computeriza-tion of many tasks which involve stress, anunder-recognized problem in agriculture;

• genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs)may pose a new hazard. Workers will beplanting, harvesting and processing GMOcrops and handling GMO livestock. GMOproducts do not generally, unlike toxicchemicals, have to undergo a rigorous riskassessment and evaluation procedure. Theirpotential hazards remain unknown.

E x p o s u re to pesticides and other agro-chemicals constitute major occupational haz-a rds that can result in poisoning and death and,in certain cases, work-related cancers andre p roductive problems. The WHO estimatesthat, at a minimum, 40,000 people die annuallyf rom pesticides and a further 3 to 4 million ares e v e rely poisoned, especially in developingcountries where the more toxic materials con-tinue to be widely used and easily available(Helmer and Corvalán, 1999).

In Costa Rica, Honduras and the Philip-pines, 16,000 male banana workers, many ofthem IUF members, will never have childre nagain. They became sterile as a result of theu n c o n t rolled use of DBCP 1, a pesticide bannedin many industrialized countries in the 1970sbut which continued to be exported and usedin many developing countries. In their questfor justice, these sterile workers have filed amajor class action lawsuit in the United Statesagainst the banana companies and the pesti-cide manufacturer (World DevelopmentMovement, 1997).

20

Lack of labour/HSE inspectionand enforcement by regulatoryauthorities

For most countries, labour inspection inagriculture is not a priority. Few countries haveseparate labour inspectors for agriculture, andcoverage of this sector usually rests with thegeneral labour inspectorate. Many countrieshave too few labour inspectors for the adequatedischarge of their duties in all economic sectors.Where they do exist, labour inspection servicesin agriculture suffer from the lack of (i) finan-cial resources; (ii) staff and their insufficienttraining; (iii) specialized technical advice.

Lack of applicable or enforceableinternational health and safetyinstruments

ILO Conventions, including those on healthand safety, are often poorly enforced in agri-culture. The IUF is supporting the shaping andhopefully the adoption of a specific Conventionon health and safety in agriculture to ensurethat international standards apply to thisindustry and that waged agricultural workersenjoy the standards protecting other workers.

IUF action

The IUF is active in all regions of the worldin helping affiliates tackle HSE problems at theworkplace. The organization also plays a leadrole in international negotiations, lobbying andcampaigning on these issues to ensure sustain-

able workplaces and sustainable agriculturearound the world. Some examples follow.

Establishing agricultural safetyrepresentative programmes

The need to establish statutory, trade unionnominated safety representatives and commit-tees in agricultural workplaces is critical if therisks of deaths, accidents and ill health are to bereduced among the general public and withinthe environment as a whole. Special arrange-ments must apply to agriculture given the largenumber of small/medium sized farms scat-tered over wide geographical areas. Similarly,there is a need for safety representatives to beauthorized to visit premises where they are notthemselves employed, as well as a need for spe-cial financing. Various programmes have beenintroduced to facilitate the work of union safetyrepresentatives in agriculture (see Walters inthis issue).

In Sweden, a trade union Regional SafetyRepresentatives scheme was established in1974 for all agricultural workplaces where nohealth and safety committees existed becauseof small numbers of workers (LO, 1998). Thelocal trade union has a mandate to appoint theRegional Safety Representative (RSR) for a spe-cific geographical area where there are mem-bers belonging to the union. The activity of theRSRs is an important resource for health andsafety at local plant level, for both employeesand employer. The RSRs have the same rightsand powers as other workplace safety repre-sentatives. The only differences are determined

21

A practical illustration:Health and safety problems of sisal workers in Tanzania

The Tanzanian Plantation and Agricultural Workers’ Union (TPAWU), an IUF affiliate, hasrecorded the following HSE problems affecting its members in the Tanzanian sisal industry. Inthe sisal sector there are four departments – field, processing (corona), brush and press.

In the field, harvesters and welders are subject to snakebites, thorn pricks, dust, intense heatand light, rain, and a heavy workload where they lift 110 bundles of 30 leaves to earn a dailywage. Field workers also apply pesticides and fertilizers.

Processors in the corona department experience a wet splash of sisal extract resulting fromthe decorticating machine that produces fibre. The juice is moist and irritates the skin. Otherproblems include noise and the heavy weights involved in lifting the fibre to the drying line.

The brush department has a lot of fibre dust. Operators of the brush machine have a repeatedexposure of the hand where incidents of losing hands have occurred. A hardened pad at the backof the hand can develop from the exposure, which presses on the knuckles. Here, too, noise is aproblem.

In the press section, the loaders risk being hit and injured. A damp environment and a brightglare surround the workers in the brush section. Carrying is another heavy job for the sisal workerin this department.

according to the group of employees fromamong whom they are appointed and the modeof financing such activities. They are basicallyfinanced by governmental support distributedthrough national trade unions. The SwedishAgricultural Workers Union (SLF), however,adds some 25 per cent extra financing to ensurea more effective scheme. In 1998, there werenearly 1,500 RSRs operating at 15,200 work-places with less than 50 employees (LO, 1998).

In the United Kingdom, a pilot Roving SafetyRepresentative Programme for agriculturalworkers has been established by the Rural Agri-cultural and Allied Workers (RAAW) TradeGroup of the Transport and General Workers’Union (TGWU), with the support of the Gov-ernment HSE (RAAW/TGWU, 1998). It wasestablished after several years of discussion atthe HSE Agricultural Industry Advisory Com-mittee following the failure to agree on a com-mon way forward with the employers’ organi-zation – the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) –for an extension of an earlier pilot jointemployer-union scheme. The RAAW/TGWUdecided to launch its own programme wherebythe trade union selected nine RSRs in the southof England with a view to increasing workerparticipation in health and safety in the agri-cultural industry. The programme started in1996 with the Health and Safety Executive’sbacking and modest financial support from theEuropean Commission.

Based on evaluation of the pilot project, theTGWU/RAAW believes that a national RSRprogramme would have a positive effect onimproving health and safety on farms and sig-nificantly reducing accidents at work. Therehave been serious difficulties, however. Lack ofNFU support has raised some problems.Another major difficulty was the inability of theRSRs to gain access to the workplaces. Underthe United Kingdom legislation, the right ofaccess is only granted to trade union-appointedsafety representatives where the employer atthe workplace grants formal recognition to thetrade union. In many instances, the agriculturalunion is not recognized by the employer. Theseproblems limited the effectiveness of the RSRsalthough they were able to raise the profile ofhealth and safety in other ways.

The IUF is working to get mobile, regionalsafety representative programmes introducedin other countries. It considers that provisionsfor the right to and commitment to practicalarrangements for such programmes are essen-tial to the coverage of any ILO Convention onhealth and safety in agriculture.

Pesticides

IUF affiliates have continually identifie dpesticides as one of the most serious HSE pro b-lems. In 1998, the IUF launched a Global Pesti-cides Project (GPP) to reduce the use of and risksf rom pesticides, focusing initially on its six pri-ority crops: bananas, cocoa, coffee, cut flo w e r s ,sugar and tea (see Amuko, p. 46 in this issue).Levels of worker exposure to pesticides in thesec rops are high. Pesticide applicators have thehighest exposures but other workers are conta-minated from spray drift and from walkingt h rough or handling sprayed vegetation. Manyhighly toxic pesticides are used in these cro p s ,such as WHO 1A and IB compounds, which aregenerally banned or severely restricted inindustrialized countries. Lack of information onh a z a rds and pre v e n t i o n / c o n t rol measures, lackof awareness and training, combined with theabsence of technical and engineering contro l s(e.g., sealed mixing systems) mean that personalp rotective equipment (PPE) is often the first lineof defence for workers, whereas in reality itshould be the last. Furthermore, the PPE is oftenunsuitable for use in tropical conditions, oftenpoorly maintained or changed too infre q u e n t l y,and is often stored in the same area as personalclothing. These factors, combined with poorhygiene, such as lack of water in the field to tre a tskin and eye contamination, result in high lev-els of fatalities and poisonings.

Links with international lobbies

The GPP aims to build national trade unioncapacity and confidence to tackle these pro b-lems on the farm/plantation at national leveland to address such problems by developinglinks with international lobbies on pesticideissues as well as with governments, farmers’o rganizations, and the global pesticide industry.

The GPP pilot phase involves six agriculturaltrade unions in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda andZimbabwe. The core activity is organizing andrunning Trade Union Education Study Circ l e s(ESC) on pesticides, health and safety, and envi-ronment. The courses provide basic andadvanced education/training for grassro o t sunion members on farms/plantations, uniono fficers and committee members on all aspectsof union organization, re c ruitment and activity.The GPP now trains ESC trainers in pesticides,health and safety, and environment. They in turnteach grassroots members and trade union off i-cers, as well as help establish new ESC gro u p s .S t rong emphasis is placed on gender issues and

22

on training women union members, who makeup 30 per cent or more of the agricultural work-f o rce in these countries. Training materials inlocal languages have been developed.

A country-driven national profile

At the national level, the Tanzanian andUgandan trade unions are participating in amulti-stakeholder process to develop a country-driven National Pro file to Assess the NationalI n f r a s t ru c t u re for Management of Chemicals intheir countries. Trade union participation in thep rocess is designed to ensure that: (i) thenational pro file re flects the problems facingwaged agricultural workers, their families andcommunities; and (ii) the problems highlightedby the Pro file are followed by governmentaction programmes involving unions, farmersand pesticide companies/associations. UAT RE,2IUF’s A rgentinian agricultural affiliate, is alsoinvolved in that country’s national pro fil e ,chairing a working group on exposure of ru r a lpopulations to agro c h e m i c a l s .

IUF affiliates are also pressing for speedy rat-i fication by their Governments of the Rotterd a mConvention on the Prior Informed Consent Pro-c e d u re (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals inInternational Trade 1998. They are supporting anIUF campaign to expand the PIC pro c e d u re tocover all pesticides harming human healthand/or the environment by systematicallyre c o rding and reporting pesticide “incidents” (asper Convention criteria) to their respective gov-ernmental PIC authorities. The campaign targ e t s“ s e v e rely hazardous pesticide formulationscausing health or environmental problems underconditions of use in developing countries”.

The affiliates work on national capacitybuilding and national profiles, and PIC under-pins the IUF’s international work in the Inter-governmental Forum on Chemical Safety(IFCS) and associated forums. IFCS is the polit-ical forum set up to oversee the implementationof Agenda 21, Chapter 19, on the Environmen-tally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals.Agenda 21 is the sustainable development pro-gramme of action agreed on by Governmentsand stakeholders at the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in 1992 (the Earth Summit).

The IUF is also working to promote alter-natives to pesticides such as Integrated PestManagement (IPM) techniques. It is cooperat-ing with the Global IPM Facility and CABI3 net-work to extend IPM training to waged agricul-tural workers.

IUF’s programme of joint HSE trainingfor agricultural workers withthe global pesticide industry

$The IUF has reached a voluntary agre e m e n twith the international pesticide industry, as re p-resented by the Global Crop Protection Federa-tion (GCPF), to carry out joint training on pesti-cides, health and safety, and environment foragricultural workers in diff e rent regions of theworld. In January 2000, a pilot joint IUF-GCPFcourse was held in Uganda to develop a jointtraining curriculum and train a core group ofunion and industry trainers in its use. Joint train-ing of workers in the sugar industry will takeplace in 2000. For the IUF, the framework forsuch cooperation is its Global Pesticides Pro j e c t ,and for the GCPF, its Safe Use Projects (SUPs)p rogramme. The industry SUPs train pesticideusers and allied groups who have an influ e n c eon how pesticides are used, such as medical per-sonnel, agricultural technicians, and teachers.

Such cooperation arose out of an IUF CaseStudy of the GCPF’s Safe Use and HandlingProject in Guatemala (Hurst, 1999). This studyshowed that there was no training of wagedagricultural workers and that the limited train-ing on offer was too presentational in style. Thecase study, financed by the ILO, was presentedat an ILO meeting – Voluntary Initiatives in theChemical Industries – in February 1999.

The IUF aims to ensure that voluntary ini-tiatives in the pesticide and agricultural indus-tries attain the following targets: (a) fullyinvolve workers and their trade unions; (b) raiseHSE standards globally and throughout the fulllife cycle of products, both for workers usingpesticides and producing pesticides/industrialchemicals; and (c) include trade unions as partof the verification/audit mechanisms whichm e a s u re improvements in industry HSEp e r f o r m a n c e .

Cut flowers and HSE

The IUF is a member of a trade union–NGOcoalition that has drawn up an InternationalCode of Conduct on Cut Flowers as a benchmarks t a n d a rd for this industry. Based on the Code, aFair Trade Scheme for Flowers, includingi m p roving HSE standards, is being developed.In cooperation with the Swiss supermarketchain, Migros, a pilot scheme is underway onfive Zimbabwean cut flower farms. Jointe m p l o y e r, horticultural association and coalitioninspections of these farms have taken place sothat they can be accredited under the scheme

23

and their flowers sold at a premium price inM i g ros supermarkets. Issues to be re s o l v e dinclude hours of work, the provision of perma-nent contracts for women workers, applicationof legal provisions for maternity leave, pro v i s i o nof standardized protective clothing, training forpesticide operators, and a living wage. In coop-eration with the Pesticides Trust, a member ofthe Pesticides Action Network (PAN), the IUFhas pre p a red a comprehensive list of pesticidesused on cut flower farms as a basis for re d u c i n gthe numbers and amounts of pesticides used.The IUF is actively working with the PAN net-work in Africa, Europe and Latin A m e r i c a .

Promoting health and safety activitiesin the banana sector

In 1998 in Colombia, the IUF and the agri-cultural union, SINTRAINAGRO, organized aseminar entitled “Pesticides – impacts and alter-natives”. Representatives from employers,social security authorities, and the Ministry ofE n v i ronment also attended, which marked animportant precedent in this region. The tradeunion’s project on promoting the health and

safety conditions of the workers in the bananasector was then proposed to and approved bythe social security authorities. It has enabled theunion to carry out a number of workplace inves-tigations on pesticide use and health pro b l e m sas well as publish educational and informationmaterial on health and safety issues. The semi-nar was followed by study circles among theunion members. A cooperation agreement wasalso established between SINTRAINAGRO andR A PALMIRA, the Latin America branch of thePAN network, to assist the union with the tech-nical and scientific aspects involved.

General training on HSE in agriculture

The IUF supports national/regional HSEtraining programmes for agricultural and alliedworkers. In the Caribbean region, for example,an HSE seminar in Guyana in April 1999 trainedabout 30 workers from the sugar cane, agricul-t u re and tourism sectors. Some of the workersw e re introduced to HSE concepts for the fir s ttime, especially those coming from sugarunions. Asession was held on holistic health andmethods to deal with and beat non-chronic com-

24

Fields of Poison Report: California Farmworkers and Pesticides

In 1999, the United Farmworkers of America – UFWA (an IUF affiliate) carried out a study ofpesticide poisonings among Californian agricultural workers, in cooperation with two publicinterest groups: the Pesticides Action Network North America (PANNA), and the California RuralLegal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF).

In California, the state with the largest agricultural economy in the USA, farm work is con-ducted by a workforce of about 600,000. From 1991 to 1996, the California Environmental Pro-tection Agency’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reported 3,991 cases of occupationalpoisoning by agricultural pesticides, an average of 665 cases per year. As the report notes, thesituation is even worse than these numbers indicate. Pesticide exposure incidents often go unre-ported because many farmworkers are afraid of incurring medical bills since few have healthinsurance and many do not realize they are entitled to workers’ compensation. Many workersfear retaliation from employers or are not provided with sufficient pesticide hazard training torecognize symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Some farmworkers bear the symptoms they experi -ence simply as being part of the job. Ten crops account for half of all agriculture-related pesti-cide illnesses (in descending order of frequency) – grapes, cotton, broccoli, oranges, ornamen-tals, almonds, tomatoes, lettuce, strawberries and alfalfa.

The Report’s recommendations are as follows:• rapidly phase out the use of the most toxic pesticides and promote healthy and sustainable

alternatives;• improve regulations to reduce farmworker exposure;• strengthen enforcement of existing laws;• improve reporting of pesticide poisonings;• improve farmworkers’ access to medical treatment; and• ensure farmworkers’ and the public’s right to know.

Source: Hallward, K. et al. Fields of Poison: California Farmworkers and Pesticides, UFWA, CRLAF, PANNA, Cal-ifornia, 1999 (in English and Spanish).

municable diseases (diabetes, hypertension) andinfectious diseases like HIV/AIDS – all of whicha re serious health threats in the Caribbean com-m u n i t y. Another such example is the IUF’s workwith Brazilian trade union organizations such asC N TA, CONTAG, FENTIFUMO and CONTAC 4

to prevent and reduce repetitive strain injuriesto food workers and pesticide poisonings to agri-cultural workers. Workshops on organic agri-c u l t u re were also held.4

Sustainable agriculture and HSE

The IUF situates its work on improving HSEs t a n d a rds within the context of promoting sus-tainable agriculture (IUF, 1999). At the interna-tional level, sustainable agriculture is being pro-moted through Agenda 21, Chapter 14, onSustainable A g r i c u l t u re and Rural Develop-ment (SARD). The UN Commission forSustainable Development (CSD) is the bodyestablished to oversee and coordinate theimplementation of Agenda 21. The CSD-8 meet-ing in April 2000 will review pro g ress on achiev-ing sustainable agriculture. At this meeting, theIUF will argue that core ILO standards, includ-ing those on agricultural HSE, must be acceptedby Governments and other stakeholders as acentral element of the definition and practice ofSARD, and the successor concept of the Multi-functional Character of A g r i c u l t u re and Land.

The IUF’s work on the proposed ILO instru-ment on health and safety in agriculture is anintegral part of the organization’s wider org a-nizing and campaigning efforts to improve HSEs t a n d a rds in the agricultural sector. There mustbe dramatic improvements in standards of pro-tection both with re g a rd to waged workers andfarmers as well as public health and the envi-ro n m e n tb e f o re agriculture can become sociallyand environmentally sustainable. At the pre s e n tj u n c t u re, the IUF is engaged in a twofold eff o r t :assist in the shaping of a proposed ILO standardon health and safety in agriculture to be debatedas an item on the agenda of the 88th session ofthe International Labour Conference (June2000). These two exercises are complementary:linking these two complementary processes willhelp to make agriculture a healthier, safer, andt ruly sustainable industry.

References

Hallward, K.; Katten, K; Reeves, M; Schafer, K. 1999. Fields ofpoison: California Farmworkers and Pesticides. California,United Farmworkers of America, California Rural Legal

Assistance Foundation, Pesticide Action Network NorthAmerica. Published in English and Spanish.

Health and Safety Executive. 1997. The role of regional healthand safety representatives in agriculture: an evaluation of atrade union initiative on roving safety representatives in agri-culture. Health and Safety Executive. Prepared by SouthBank University, Centre for Industrial and Environmen-tal Safety and Health, School of Applied Sciences for theHealth and Safety Executive, London.

Helmer, R.; Corvalán, C. 1999. Occupational health for all – fromevidence to action. WHO, Geneva.

HSC. 1999. Farmwise – an essential guide to health and safety inagriculture. United Kingdom, Health and Safety Com-mission Agriculture Industry Advisory Committee,C3000, p. 5.

Hurst, P. 1999. Case study on the global pesticide industry’s “safeuse and handling” training project in Guatemala. Geneva,IUF. Published in English and Spanish.

ILO. 1979. Guide to health and hygiene in agriculture work.Geneva, Section 1.3, p. 9.

—. 1996a. Wage workers in agriculture – conditions of employmentand work. Sectoral Activities Programmes, TMAW W / 1 9 9 6 ,Geneva, p. 93.

—. 1996b. Child labour in agriculture – a survey of national legis-l a t i o n, by Suzanne Nola. ILO project INT/96/MO6 NOR.

—. 1999a. Safety and health in agriculture, Report VI (I), Inter-national Labour Conference, 88th Session (June 2000),Geneva, 1999.

—. 1999b. SafeWork – security and productivity through safety.ILO Social Protection Sector.http:\ng\safework\ngsafework7.wpd, p.2.

IUF. 1999a. Health and safety problems in the sisal industry.Report to the IUF Global Pesticides Project, TanzanianPlantation and Agricultural Workers’ Union, December.

—. 1999b. Position paper . FAO/Netherlands Conference onthe Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,Geneva.

LO. 1998. Regional Safety Representatives, a guide from LO.Stockholm, Swedish Trade Union Confederation.

RAAW/TGWU. 1998. Report of the Roving Safety Representa-tives Scheme. London.

World Development Movement. 1997. “Under their skins –the truth about the banana business”, in Action Magazine,United Kingdom, September, p. 8.

Notes

1 DBCP: Dibromochloropropane2 UATRE: Unión Argentina de Trabajadores Rurales y

Estibadores.3 CABI: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Interna-

tional Network.4 C N TA: Confederación Nacional de Tr a b a j a d o res de

l a s Industrias de la Alimentación y A fin e s .C O N TAG: Confederación Nacional de Tr a b a j a d o res en laA g r i c u l t u r a .FENTIFUMO: Federación Nacional de los Tr a b a j a d o res delas Industrias del Tabaco y A fin e s .CONTAC: Confederación Nacional de Trabajadores del a s Industrias de la Alimentación, A g ro-industrias yC o o perativas de Beneficio de Cereales e Industrias delMedioRural.

25

On 12 October 1999, the United Nationsannounced the birth of the planet’s six billionthinhabitant. Two years earlier, the FAO (Foodand Agriculture Organization) had stated thatthe world’s economically active populationwas 2,827 million and that the percentage ofpersons working in agriculture was 49 per centof that population. In other words, agriculturealone accounts for 1,300 million men andwomen. These figures afford some idea of themagnitude of the problem. In an organizationsuch as the ILO, whose objective, lest we for-get, has always been social justice as the foun-dation for lasting and universal peace andwhere for 80 years now it has been attemptingto ensure that international trade does not takeplace at the expense of workers, these figuresshould be a challenge to trade unions.

The first Director-General, Albert Thomas,said that the ILO should be a vehicle for actionrather than an information dispensingmachine. This is why over the years the ILO’sconstituents – governments, workers andemployers – have adopted binding interna-tional labour Conventions, inter alia, to ensurefreedom of association in agriculture. From thebeginning, the implementation of these Con-ventions has been monitored thanks to an inter-national supervisory mechanism unique to thetripartite organization. Today, the global reporton freedom of association and collective bar-gaining by the Director-General, Juan Somavia,to the International Labour Conference of June2000 as part of the follow-up to the TripartiteDeclaration on Fundamental Principles andRights at Work, must demonstrate that the ILO

remains a vehicle for action, for, in his ownwords, “there is much that the ILO can do aboutsocial problems”.

Are trade unionists making sufficient use ofthe international supervisory mechanism?More specifically, what of this supervisionamong agricultural workers, who comprisealmost one-half of the world’s workforce?

I. Ratifications of the Conventionson Freedom of Associationin Agriculture

The evidence would suggest that far shortof all agricultural workers enjoy the right tofreedom of association in order to safeguardtheir vocational interests. Although some pres-sure groups have successfully voiced the con-cerns of some farmers in matters of globaliza-tion and trade liberalization, particularly at theSeattle Conference in December 1999 and moregenerally in negotiations on the “MillenniumRound”, most agricultural workers are pro-tected neither by a national collective agree-ment nor an international Convention. Theseworkers are not organized and live in grindingpoverty that often verges on serfdom or debtbondage. Besides, they are hardly in a positionto make their voices heard either at the nationalor the international level.

And yet in 1921, the ILO had adopted a firstConvention on the right of association in agri-culture, Convention No. 11, which was to guar-antee all persons working in agriculture thesame rights of association and coalition asworkers in industry. Nevertheless, it has so far

26

Trade unions must assist rural workers’organizations to represent rural workers

and defend their right to freedom of association by providing their leaders with enabling

education and training as well as the necessaryresources to ensure their participation

in development

Anna J. PouyatDeputy Head

ILO Freedom of Association Branch

had only 1191 ratifications from among the 174ILO member States.

In 1975, more than 50 years on, the Interna-tional Labour Conference adopted ConventionNo. 141 and Recommendation No. 149 on ruralworkers, in an attempt to alleviate the specificproblems besetting that category of workers.The Convention applies to rural workers, thatis, to all persons engaged in agriculture, hand-icrafts or a related occupation in rural area,whether as a wage earner or as a self-employedperson, such as a tenant, sharecropper or smallowner-occupier.

This Convention more specifically binds itsratifying States to encourage the formation anddevelopment of rural workers’ organizationsand their participation in economic and socialdevelopment and to eliminate all forms of dis-crimination as may exist against them. It alsorequires that steps be taken to promote thewidest possible understanding of the need todevelop strong and independent organizationsof rural workers. It also addresses the potentialcontribution of these latter organizations toimproved job possibilities and working and liv-ing conditions in rural areas, and to increasingand better distributing national income. Todate, regrettably, a mere 37 ILO member Stateshave ratified Convention No. 141, only five ofwhich had not ratified Convention No. 11.2

Yet, the States that have ratified the two coreConventions on freedom of association, namelyConvention No. 87 concerning Freedom ofAssociation and Protection of the Right to Orga-nize (1948) and Convention No. 98 on the Rightto Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949),undertook to guarantee that workers, withoutdistinction whatsoever, would have the right toestablish and join unions for the defence of theirinterests. The protection of the core Conven-tions therefore extends to workers in agricul-ture. Likewise, rural workers should beadequately protected from anti-union discrim-ination on the part of employers on plantationsand on large or small farms. Rural workers’organizations should also be protected againstacts of interference by rural employers oremployers’ organizations. Lastly, rural workersshould be able to negotiate collective agree-ments to set the terms and conditions ofemployment of agricultural workers.

In its 1999 report to the International LabourConference, the Committee of Experts on theApplication of Conventions and Recommen-dations noted with concern that for over 20years, 52 3 ILO member States had still not rati-fied one or the other of the two core Conven-

tions, a fact all the more disquieting as thosecountries account for almost one-half of theworld’s workers and employers.

Since then, several States have committedthemselves: Cambodia has ratified the two Con-ventions, Cape Ve rde, Chile, Georgia andMalawi the first, Seychelles and Switzerland thesecond, thereby extending to rural workerst h e international protection of the right to org a-nize and to bargain collectively. Kazakhstan hasannounced the forthcoming ratification of Con-vention No. 87. As things stand there f o re ,Convention No. 87 binds 127 countries and Con-vention No. 98, 144.

II. Supervision of applicationof the Conventions

1. Constitutional supervision

Although well known, it bears re c a l l i n gthat the very specific influence of the ILO, par-ticularly as re g a rds the application of the Con-ventions and hence those designed to pro t e c trural workers, is due to the existence of strictmechanisms for the supervision of memberStates. Indeed, ratification of a Convention is af ree act by a State, but once this commitmenthas been made, the Conventions acquire af o rce that is binding and independent of them e re will of States and must be applied. Tr a d eunions there f o re have a means of ensuringimplementation of the Conventions. Some ofthese mechanisms are enshrined in the ILOConstitution, as folows:• Complaints can be lodged in virtue of Arti-

cle 26 by one State against another, if the oneor the other has ratified a given Convention,by a government, worker or employer del-egate to the International Labour Confer-ence or at the initiative of the GoverningBody.

• Complaints may be filed under Article 24by a workers’ or employers’ organization.

• Comments may be submitted to the Com-mittee of Experts pursuant to Article 23.2 byworkers’ or employers’ organizations,which must receive a copy of the govern-ment report on the application of the Con-ventions ratified. Once these copies havebeen received, these organizations are enti-tled to comment on their content and on theobservance of the Convention in practice.

The list of constitutional supervisory mecha-nisms would not be complete without mention

27

of the role of the Committee of Experts, com-prising independent persons and re s p o n s i b l esince 1927 for examining the reports to be sub-mitted by member States on the Conventionsthey have ratified under Article 22. This Com-mittee makes comments, which are set out in areport, when it observes deviations or pro g re s sin the application of Conventions. Each year, thereports of the Committee of Experts are the sub-ject of an extensive public discussion within thetripartite committee of the International LabourC o n f e rence in which worker and employer re p-resentatives can state their positions to the gov-ernments against which the complaints arem a d e .

Lastly, under Article 19, the ILO GoverningBody periodically requests reports from Statesthat have not ratified certain Conventions andfrom all States that have done so. These reportsare subject to general surveys conducted by theCommittee of Experts which, apart from theprogress and problems encountered in theapplication of ratified Conventions, reviews thestumbling blocks to the ratification of thoseConventions that have not been ratified and theprospects for ratification. The Conference alsodiscusses these studies.

2. Special machinery

In the early 1950s, special machinery toexamine complaints of violation of the fre e d o mof association was created in agreement with theUnited Nations. Indeed, the Governing Body’sCommittee on Freedom of Association – of tri-partite composition – also examines complaintsfiled by international or national workers’ oremployers’ organizations, and this even in casesw h e re the government in question has not rati-fied the Conventions on freedom of association.The measures recommended by the Committee,which are approved by the Governing Body, aretransmitted to the government concerned sothat it may endeavour to correct the situationsthat are in breach of freedom of association.

Complaints against States that have not rat-ified the freedom of association Conventionsand which are sometimes not even members ofthe ILO, though members of the UnitedNations, may be submitted to a fact-finding andconciliation commission on freedom of associ-ation comprised of independent persons, withthe consent of the State against which the com-plaint has been lodged.

Through this supervisory machinery, theILO aspires toward better recognition of therights and freedoms of agricultural workers

enshrined in the Conventions on freedom ofassociation. It endeavours to halt violations ofand remove obstacles to the enforcement offreedom of association in cases brought to itsattention.

III. Findings of the supervisory bodiesin supervisory procedures

The preceding examples show that the ILOsupervisory bodies have made some headway,especially through dialogue and moral suasion.They also bear out serious infringements of theobligations arising from the freedom of associ-ation Conventions with regard to rural work-ers, by countries that do not observe the ILOprinciples in that domain.

1. Complaints under Article 26of the Constitution

In the 1980s, worker delegates to the Inter-national Labour Conference filed complaints ofnon-observance of the freedom of associationConventions against Poland on the one hand,and against the Dominican Republic and Haition the other and, these States being ILO Mem-bers that have all ratified Conventions Nos. 87and 98, commissions of enquiry were set up toexamine the matters raised. The commissionsset out their recommendations concerning thegovernments in question.

A few years after the commission of enquiryon Poland had examined the complaint aboutthe suspension, by the decree on the State of Wa rdated 12 December 1981, of the entire indepen-dent trade union movement’s right of associa-tion and protest, that country re - re g i s t e red notonly the independent Solidarity trade union,which had spearheaded the struggle to institutegenuine freedom of association in the countriesof Eastern Europe, but also Rural Solidarity. Likethe first, this latter union had been re g i s t e red asa result of pre s s u re from workers in May 1980while the ILO Dire c t o r-General, Mr. Blanchard ,was present in Warsaw at the head of the dire c tcontacts mission that was looking into the com-plaints lodged with the Committee on Fre e d o mof Association. These unions had then beenbanned on 12 December 1981 and their rightsand privileges were re s t o red in 1989.

After the work of the commission of enquiryon the Dominican Republic, that country in1993 strengthened its legislation for the protec-tion of worker representatives and trade uniondelegates against anti-trade union retaliation. Italso stepped up monitoring by the Labour

28

Inspector on sugarcane plantations and batayswhere Haitians worked as cane-cutters underinfra-human conditions. Since then, theDominican Republic and Haiti have concludedagreements on the living and working condi-tions of Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

2. Complaints under Article 24

Also in the 1980s, a complaint was lodged bythe Trade Union Confederation of Norway alleg-ing non-observance of Conventions Nos. 11 and98 by Tu r k e y. Following a military coup d’état,5 3 leaders from the Federation of Pro g re s s i v eTrade Unions of Turkey (DISK) had beena r rested and were faced with the death sentence.The DISK and its affiliate unions had all beensuspended by decree. There had been larg e - s c a l edismissals. All sectors of the economy had beena ffected, including the agricultural sector.

The Governing Body had submitted thematter to the Committee on Freedom of Asso-ciation. On the Committee’s recommendation,direct contact missions were sent to Turkey tomeet with the Government, trade unionists andemployers. The Committee on Freedom ofAssociation examined this and the other relatedcomplaints some 20 times.

The Committee noted that the death sen-tences had not been passed, the trade unionleaders had been freed after three and a halfyears of detention and that the rights and assetsof the DISK and its affiliates had been restored.Agricultural workers won the right to negoti-ate their working conditions collectively with-out having to meet the twofold criteria imposedon other workers, that is, having to account for10 per cent of the workers in the industry at thenational level and 50 per cent of workers in abargaining unit. Only the 50 per cent criterionapplies to agricultural workers.

3. Comments under Article 23.2

A growing number of comments are beingaddressed by workers’ organizations to theCommittee of Experts on the Application of theConventions on Freedom of Association forRural Workers.

A c c o rd i n g l y, in Bangladesh, India, Malaysia,Pakistan and Sri Lanka, national trade uniono rganizations have denounced the fact thatrural workers outside of plantations are not pro-tected by the law on industrial relations.

In Morocco, some trade union organizationshave levelled criticism at the trade union law,which does not provide strong enough guar-

antees to ensure enforcement of freedom ofassociation and protect the establishment oftrade union bureaux in rural areas.

In New Zealand, a national trade unionorganization has stated that the new law hashad the effect of reducing unionization in agri-culture. It claims that at least one-half of col-lective agreements are negotiated in theabsence of trade unions, that is, directly withthe agricultural workers.

Some countries have reported that they hadset up commissions to look into the mattersraised or that they were in the process ofpreparing draft laws to correct those situations.

4. Comments by the Committee ofExperts on the reports to be sub-mitted by governments pursuantto Article 22 of the Constitution

In the framework of regular monitoring ofthe application of the Conventions on freedomof association, the Committee of Experts hasnoted with satisfaction that its comments haveelicited some legislative improvements, partic-ularly as regards the application of Conven-tions Nos. 11 and 87.

In G u a t e m a l a, a 1961 decree amending theLabour Code of 1947 revoked provisions thathad drastically restricted the freedom of associ-ation of agricultural workers. Those pro v i s i o n shad stipulated a minimum of 50 agriculturalworkers for a union to be formed, while 20 suf-ficed for other unions. They confined agricul-tural trade unions to the creation of coopera-tives, the management of occupational benefitplans and training in literacy for those unable toread and write. Besides, they had made the Min-istry of Labour responsible for ensuring thatagricultural trade unions did not engage in anyother activities so long as they were unable top rove that they had fulfilled the functions inquestion and to show that 60 per cent of theirmembers could in fact read and write.

In Nicaragua, a 1951 law prevented agricul-tural workers from setting up company unions(the only ones that they could in fact lawfullyestablish) if more than 60 per cent could neitherread nor write. In addition, that law required aminimum of 25 permanent members for a com-pany union to be created, the main practicalconsequence of which was preventing seasonalworkers from setting up unions. That law wasrepealed in 1966.

In P e r u, the 1964 law on agrarian reform abol-ished contracts that linked the right to use landto the provision of services, even when the par-

29

ties concerned were being remunerated in kind.This had the effect of extending labour legislationto persons providing services and of abolishingthe a r re n d i re s ( s h a re c roppers) and a l l e g a d o s ( s u b -tenants performing certain services) systems,those categories of workers having been hithertodeprived of the right of association.

In Brazil, legal provisions enacted in 1962limiting the scope of action of rural tradeunions to the commune were repealed in 1967.

In Chile also, in 1967, after 20 years of ardu-ous talks between the Committee of Expertsand the Government, the 1947 law was finallyamended. It had contained provisions restrict-ing rural workers’ right to organize by com-parison with that of industrial workers. The lawin question allowed them to set up trade unionsonly on the same agricultural estate andrequired that founding members must have atleast one year of uninterrupted service on thatestate and represent at least 40 per cent of theworkers. As a result, seasonal agriculturalworkers were denied the right to organize. Ithad furthermore imposed stricter rules con-cerning the management of funds and prohib-ited agricultural workers from putting forwardclaims during the sowing and harvesting sea-sons – two 60-day periods in each year – allow-ing them to submit claims only once per year.

A direct contacts mission between repre-sentatives of the Director-General of the ILOand the Government of Venezuela in 1976 led tothe repeal of the provisions of the Labour Reg-ulations Governing Agriculture and Livestockprescribing that labour inspectors supervise theelection of agricultural trade union leaders. Thelaw has now instituted protection against dis-missal for agricultural workers when they for-mally notify their interest in setting up a union.The requirement that agricultural workersmust live within the confines of a given labourinspection jurisdiction so as to be able to set upa union and restrictions on the right to strikehas been eliminated.

In Ethiopia, the 1975 proclamation accordedthe right to organize to agricultural workers,including those engaged in the traditional sec-tor, on an equal footing with other workers.

In Lesotho, the labour code that was drawnup with ILO technical assistance in 1992expressly extended the right of association toworkers and employers in all sectors of theeconomy, including agriculture.

Also in 1992 in the Dominican Republic, thenew labour code that was drawn up thanks tocooperation between the Government and theILO initiated with the setting up of the afore-

mentioned Committee of Experts, was extendedto cover all workers in agricultural, agro - i n d u s-trial, livestock and forestry enterprises, where a sagricultural enterprises with less than ten work-ers had hitherto been excluded.

In 1995 in Panama, amendments to theLabour Code repealed the rule that 75 per centof the members of a trade union had to be ofPanamanian nationality and reduced from 50to 40 the minimum number of workers requiredto set up a union, and this has given a boost tothe right of migrant agricultural workers toorganize.

In 1999, Nepal amended the law on tradeunions to extend its application to self-employed workers and agricultural workers.

In the broader context of the application ofConvention No. 87, the Committee of Experts hasa d d ressed the right of members of agriculturalcooperatives in communist countries to org a n i z e ,particularly of workers on the Kolkhozy (collec-tive farms) which in countries such as the formerU S S R re p resented 80 per cent of agriculturalworkers. Cases in point were A l b a n i a, the formerSoviet Socialist Republic of B y e l o r u s s i a, P o l a n d,the former Soviet Socialist Republic of theU k r a i n e, the former U S S R and R o m a n i a, whichhad ratified Conventions Nos. 11 and 87.

By way of example, the Government of theformer USSR had made some progress in 1981.With the adoption in August 1997 of a decisionby the Central Trade Union Council on how toapply the Regulations on Factory Trade UnionCommittees to kolkhoz trade union committeesand to the fishing kolkhozy, an agreement wasreached between the Ministry of Agricultureand the central kolkhoznik council. That agree-ment has vested the kolkhoz trade union com-mittees with the right to represent kolkhozniksas well as workers and employees of thekolkhozy. A similar situation had prevailed inthe former Soviet Socialist Republics ofByelorussia and the Ukraine. It was only after thefall of the Berlin Wall in 1991 and the ensuingupheavals, however, that workers in thosecountries, including agricultural workers,gained the right to set up independent tradeunions outside the trade union structure thatwas pledged to the communist party.

In parallel with these major legislativeadvances and despite the requests it has beenmaking, for decades now in some instances, theCommittee of Experts, regrettably, must notewith concern that a good many governmentsare dragging their feet when it comes to align-ing their laws with the Conventions on freedomof association for rural workers.

30

Since 1969 for instance, the Committee ofExperts has been requesting Rwanda to extendthe provisions of the Labour Code to agricul-tural workers, a promise that country has beenmaking for 30 years now.

Bolivia’s Labour Code excludes agriculturalwork and instead subjects it to special provi-sions. The Government has reported that thelaw creating the National Agrarian ReformInstitute has brought rural wage earners withinthe scope of the Labour Code. It also gave theassurance in 1999 that the exclusion of agricul-tural work is to be ended.

Honduras continues to exclude from thegeneral labour law those agricultural estateswith less than 20 permanent employees, withthe result that agricultural workers on suchestates are denied freedom of association, theright to strike, to bargain collectively and pro-tection from anti-trade union discrimination.

In Swaziland, the 1996 labour law stillexcludes enterprises with less than ten employ-ees engaged in land clearance, logging andagriculture. With ILO assistance, however, thatcountry has elaborated a draft law that willeliminate that provision.

Paraguay still requires 300 workers for theestablishment of an industrial union, which inpractice considerably impairs the formation ofagricultural trade unions.

In some provinces of C a n a d a such as A l b e r t a ,New Brunswick or Ontario, agricultural andhorticultural workers, or both at the same time,fall outside the purview of laws on industrialrelations, which means that they are also deniedp rotection under those laws with respect to theright to organize and to bargain collectively.

Pursuant to the 1958 Agricultural LabourCode, strike action is still forbidden in the Syr-ian Arab Republic on pain of imprisonment.Strikes are also prohibited during the harvestmonths in Guatemala.

Since 1980, Liberia has outlawed strikeaction by all workers throughout its territory,including of course agricultural workers onplantations. The latter workers are also forbid-den to join industrial workers’ organizations.

In Costa Rica, a provision of the Labour Codep rohibits strike action in the livestock andf o restry sectors. Nevertheless, in January 1998that country’s Supreme Court ruled that pro v i-sion as unconstitutional. To eliminate all ambi-guity in the matter, the Committee of Experts isstill requesting the Government to expre s s l yrepeal the provision. It has also been re q u e s t i n gthat Government for many years now to bringagricultural or livestock enterprises with less

than five permanent employees within the scopeof the Labour Code and to take steps to guaran-tee access for trade union leaders to plantations.

The Committee is requesting the Govern-ment of Burundi to revoke a 1967 Decree-Lawon rural associations making it mandatory forfarmers to join and pay dues to these associa-tions, setting their statutes, requiring them torender certain services to the enterprise, supplyproducts from harvests and livestock and toobserve rules of discipline with regard to crops,or risk seizure of their goods.

In Afghanistan, the Committee is urging theGovernment to amend the provision of theLabour Code that empowers the single tradeunion to impose on workers, including agri-cultural workers, penalties with respect towork discipline and compliance with produc-tion plans.

In India, it is requesting that labour inspec-tion be stepped up for forestry and brickyardworkers in workplaces scattered across vastareas. It is also insisting that the 1948 tradeunion law should be extended to cover themusters assistants, these being workers respon-sible for providing building sites with waterand medical services.

For many years now the Committee hasbeen underlining the fact that forestry workersin Pakistan are not covered by the law on indus-trial relations and are thus denied the right toorganize.

In the Philippines, owing to the large num-ber of islands comprising the archipelago andthe distance of rural workers from one another,the Committee is requesting the Government toremove the obstacles to the right of agriculturalworkers to freely elect their representatives,without obliging them, as is presently the case,to create local sections and to hold direct elec-tions by secret ballot, or face dissolution.

5. Reports under Article 19

When the General Survey was conducted onConvention No. 141 of 1983, the Committee ofExperts had found that 23 States, half of thembeing developing countries, had ratified it.

Some governments had reported the fol-lowing problems that were either retarding orpreventing ratification:• Australia, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada,

Ireland, Japan, Madagascar, New Zealand,Uruguay and the United States spoke of leg-islative problems, some adducing draw-backs associated with their internal consti-tutional structure.

31

• Other governments such as Burundi, UpperVolta – now Burkina Faso – Pakistan andRwanda had mentioned the economic andsocial context, which they deemedunfavourable to the development of ruralworkers’ organizations.

• Still others such as Barbados, Kuwait andSingapore had indicated that the agricul-tural sector played no role in their economy.

• Indonesia, Qatar and Turkey stated withoutbeating around the bush that they did notenvisage ratification in the near future.

• Countries such as A rgentina, Colombia,Gabon, Liberia and Morocco stated that therew e re no particular obstacles to ratifying theConvention, yet they have still not done so.

In contrast, since 1983, Brazil, Burkina Faso,Costa Rica, El Salvador, France, Greece,Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Mali, Malta,Poland, Uruguay and Venezuela have ratifiedConvention No. 141.

6. Committee on Freedomof Association

With respect to rural workers, the numerouscomplaints of violation of freedom of associa-tion examined by the Committee often relate toserious and even tragic infringements ofhuman rights. There are allegations of murder,violent deaths of agricultural trade union mili-tants or leaders and disappearances or kidnap-pings of trade unionists. There are also reportsof mass arrests of striking agricultural workers,evictions from land, or even of occupation ofthe premises of rural workers’ unions.

The Committee is requesting the govern-ments concerned to initiate independent judi-cial inquiries so as to clear up the allegationsand punish offenders. In many cases, paramil-itaries, hired killers, sometimes even army andpolice officers guilty of grave offences havereceived severe penalties in the wake of theCommittee’s recommendations.

Other complaints include refusal to registeragricultural unions, dissolution by administra-tive means or the denial of access to plantationsfor trade union leaders. There are also com-plaints regarding the creation of the so-called“solidarist” organizations, by and under theinfluence of employers, for the purpose of man-aging social amenities in agricultural enter-prises and in other sectors. The effect of these“solidarist” organizations is to weaken theposition of trade union organizations in the

agricultural sector, with its already low level ofunionization and where labour inspection vis-its are rare as farms are geographically widelyscattered. After a direct contacts mission in1993, legal provisions were adopted in CostaRica to ensure that the right to bargain collec-tively would be reserved for trade unions to theexclusion of the “solidarist” associations.

It is clear, then, that respect for public free-doms and the right to organize is still far frombeing the norm in too many countries, but thatappreciable headway has been made in theframework of complaints procedures initiatedwith the Committee on Freedom of Association,itself a quasi-judicial body that now enjoysunquestionable prestige.

7. Complaint examined bya Fact-finding and ConciliationCommission on Freedomof Association

This particular procedure was applied toSouth Africa under apartheid at a time whenthat country had no longer been a Member ofthe ILO since 1966, though it had remained aMember of the United Nations. Hence, when in1988, and pursuant to the procedure in force, anational trade union organization filed a com-plaint against that country of violation of free-dom of association, the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations submitted the matter to the ILOfor examination. South Africa, then in thethroes of profound political upheaval, gave itsconsent to the ILO Governing Body for theestablishment of a fact-finding and conciliationcommission.

The commission visited the country to lookinto matters of fact and of law together withrepresentatives of the Government, the com-plainants and of employers. In the wake of therecommendations made by that commission in1992 and the abolition of apartheid, rural work-ers obtained the right to organize when SouthAfrica brought them within the scope of the lawon industrial relations in 1995. In parallel, it alsoresumed ILO membership in 1994 and ratifiedConventions Nos. 87 and 98 in 1996.

IV. Looking ahead

In summing up, even though much remainsto be done, some successes have been scoredthanks to the ILO. With its experience of over80 years in this domain, this international orga-nization provides trade unions with means bywhich to implement their policies.

32

At the national level, they are able to use tra-ditional means to exert pressure on nationalparliaments – the public arena in each of the 174State Members of the ILO – by launching cam-paigns designed to help rural workers by secur-ing ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98on freedom of association and, of course, ofConventions Nos. 11 and 141, which deal morespecifically with the right of workers in agri-culture to organize.

They can make extensive use of that tradeunion weapon par excellence, worker solidarity,so as to help agricultural workers set up stro n gand independent rural worker organizations. Toachieve this, trade unions must undertake averitable pedagogical mission in which theymust help train agricultural workers in settingup unions, freely choosing their representativesand above all in collective bargaining withemployers and government on the terms andconditions of employment.

Like governments, and on the basis of Rec-ommendation No. 149 detailing the role to beplayed by rural worker organizations, i.e. torepresent and defend the interests of theseworkers and ensure their participation indevelopment, trade unions must themselvesalso help these organizations to participate inplanning procedures and in the functioning ofinstitutions concerned with the development ofrural areas. In short, they must help them pro-vide education and training for rural workersand leaders of their organizations, includingfinancial or material assistance for their estab-lishment and proper running. It is hard tooveremphasize the importance of educationand training in the development of rural work-ers’ organizations in enabling them rapidly toassume their responsibilities in economicdevelopment .4

Moreover, thanks to the technical assistanceresources available to the ILO, it could also cre-ate a veritable school of collective bargaining,at the International Training Centre of the ILOin Turin for instance, to train workers andemployers in the drafting of agreements andaccords on working conditions.

Trade unions may, and they are stronglyurged to do so, avail themselves of the super-visory machinery created by the ILO to submitcomments or even complaints to the Commit-tee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom ofAssociation, the commissions of inquiry or thefact-finding and conciliation committees onfreedom of association in order to secure imple-mentation by the States concerned of the fun-damental principles of freedom of association

and collective bargaining. If those unions canutilize this international supervisory machin-ery, they have a duty to rural workers to do soin virtue of the worker solidarity mentionedabove. All too often, rural workers make up anextremely vulnerable segment of the popula-tion, despite being the ones responsible forfeeding that population.

Notes

1 The ILO member States that have to date still not rati-fied Convention No. 11 are: Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia,Bahrain, Bolivia, Botswana, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde,Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guinea, Eritrea, the Gam-bia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea(Republic of), Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Liberia, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Namibia,Nepal, Oman, the Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis,San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, SierraLeone, Somalia, South Africa (which nevertheless ratifiedConventions Nos. 87 and 98 in 1996), Sudan, Thailand,Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emi-rates, the United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen andZimbabwe.

2 The five countries are Afghanistan, El Salvador, Hun-gary, Israel and the Philippines.

3 For Convention No. 87, this applies to 36 countries,Members of the ILO for over 20 years now, namelyAfghanistan, Angola, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Brazil, Cambo-dia, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador,Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi,Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Papua-NewGuinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan,Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republicof Tanzania and the United States; for Convention No. 98, 24member countries, namely Afghanistan, Bahrain, Cambodia,Canada, China, Congo, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,India, Iran, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Mauritania, Mexico, Myanmar,New Zealand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Somalia,Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and the UnitedStates.

4 Articles 16 and 17 of Part III of RecommendationNo. 149 on ways of promoting the development of ruralworkers’ organizations concerning education and training(Section C) provide as follows:

“16. In order to ensure a sound growth of rural workers’organizations and the rapid assumption of their full role ineconomic and social development, steps should be taken, bythe competent authority among others, to (a) impart to theleaders and members of rural workers’ organizations knowl-edge of:

(i) national laws and regulations and international stan-dards on questions of direct concern to the activity of theorganizations, in particular the right of association;

(ii) the basic principles of the establishment and opera-tion of organizations of rural workers;

(iii) questions regarding rural development as part of theeconomic and social development of the country, includingagricultural and handicraft production, storing, processing,transport, marketing and trade;

(iv) principles and techniques of national planning at dif-ferent levels;

(v) training manuals and programmes which are pub-lished or established by the United Nations, the International

33

Labour Organization or other specialized agencies andwhich are designed for the education and training of ruralworkers;

(b) improve and foster the education of rural workers ingeneral, technical, economic and social fields, so as to makethem better able both to develop their organizations andunderstand their rights and to participate actively in ruraldevelopment; particular attention should be paid to the train-ing of wholly or partly illiterate workers through literacyprogrammes linked with the practical expansion of theiractivities;

(c) promote programmes directed to the role whichwomen can and should play in the rural community, inte-grated in general programmes of education and training towhich women and men should have equal opportunities ofaccess;

(d) provide training designed particularly for educatorsof rural workers, to enable them, for example, to help in the

development of cooperative and other appropriate forms ofservicing activities which would enable organizations torespond directly to membership needs while fostering theirindependence through economic self-reliance;

(e) give support to programmes for the promotion ofrural youth in general.

17. (1) As an effective means of providing the trainingand education referred to in Paragraph 16, programmes ofworkers’ education or adult education, specially adapted tonational and local conditions and to the social, economic andcultural needs of the various categories of rural workers,including the special needs of women and young persons,should be formulated and applied.

(2) In view of their special knowledge and experience inthese fields, trade union movements and existing organiza-tions which represent rural workers might be closely associ-ated with the formulation and carrying out of such pro-grammes.”

34

Agriculture is a significant means ofemployment and livelihood in Africa, Asia andLatin America. It is often a major contributor tothe measured Gross Domestic Product in south-ern hemisphere countries, and provides rawmaterials for industrial processing, particularlyin Africa. Despite this, workers and their fami-lies on large-scale farms and peasant commu-nities remain disadvantaged in terms of accessto infrastructures, markets, social services,social security, labour protection, investmentinstitutions and other critical economic inputsfor their development. It is generally withinrural areas, particularly in Africa, that one findsthe “poorest of the poor”. Landless peasantsand workers on large-scale farms are “workers”as long as they have jobs, and become “squat-ters” as soon as they lose them. Such marginal-ization has undermined the accurate collectionand presentation of information of social con-ditions in the agricultural sector.

In many southern hemisphere countries,agriculture is dual in nature, with smallholderpeasant production and large-scale estates,often with underlying conflict over the landapportionment between these sectors. In manysouthern African countries, for example, thebest agricultural land was appropriated for useby white settlers and/or multinational compa-nies, confining the local black population togenerally poor agricultural areas. This led topersistent divisions between the sectors in

terms of land tenure systems, forms of labouremployed, and access to markets and invest-ment (Ferguson, 1990; Loewenson,1992a;Rutherford, 1997). Despite their greater mar-ginalization, however, subsistence small-scalefarming has always been linked with the for-mal economy, initially through subsidizing thefamily costs of migrant labour to urban andmining areas, and later through formal sectorwage remittances sent back to support house-holds living below poverty levels (Palmer andParsons, 1977; First, 1980; Vail, 1989). Theselinks have crossed national boundaries, forexample through the recruitment of migrantlabour from rural areas of Malawi, Mozam-bique, Lesotho and Botswana for the miningsector in South Africa.

This article gives specific focus to the issueof women agricultural and plantation workersin developing countries, and their health andsafety problems. It seeks to explore the pro-duction and employment patterns in agricul-ture; their impact on the health of women work-ers in the sector; and their implications in termsof better protection of women workers’ healthin agriculture.

Women’s employment and health areplaced first in the context of the more generaltrends in the sector. As the paper details below,women often occupy the most insecure farmjobs, have least secure rights to smallholderland ownership and participate least in formal

35

Occupational safety and health for women workers in agriculture: Public health issues

in the agricultural sector call for specific technical inputs and for addressing the issues

of deprivation and imbalances of power

Rene LoewensonTraining and Research Support Centre

Harare

Women are half the world’s population,receive one-tenth of the world’s income,account for two-thirds of the world’s working hoursand own only one-hundredth of the world’s property.International Labour Organization

socio-political structures. Such marginalizationmeans that their situation, poorly documentedas it is, receives little public or formal attention.Ad hoc surveys by the author and others thusprovide much of the information on the situa-tion of women used in the paper, much of itdrawn from the author’s own continent, Africa.While it is not intended to extrapolate Africanexperiences to other regions, the paper aims toraise issues that may have wider application.

Production and employment trendsin agriculture and their impacton women’s work

The past 30 years have shown evidence of atrend towards increasing mechanization andchemical inputs in large-scale agriculture(Loewenson, 1992a; McIvor, 1995). For a num-ber of decades, this was also accompanied by abias against small-scale farming, a highlyunequal distribution of land, and a policy envi-ronment favouring large-scale farms. Small-scale farmers have also been encouraged toincrease chemicals and equipment use toenhance productivity, including through thepromotion of hybrid seed varieties, credit andmarketing schemes (Porter and Phillips-Howard, 1997), and outgrower arrangementswith formal sector estates (Hinderink andSterkenburg, 1987). Associated with the trendstowards capital intensity and the decliningterms of trade in farming, is a trend towardssubstituting permanent workers with non-per-manent, seasonal workers (McIvor, 1995).While increasing flexibility in labour markets isfound across most sectors, the poor applicationof basic labour standards combined with theabsence of benefits in the agricultural sectorhave led to a more pronounced shift towardsinsecure forms of employment.

The proportion of labour in agriculture isoften substantial. In southern African coun-tries, for example, it ranges from 40 per cent inSouth Africa to 88 per cent in Malawi. In allthese countries the proportion has declinedover the last 30 years (Eicher and Rukuni, 1994).Working conditions for farm workers are gen-erally worse than in other formal sectors of theeconomy (Devereux and Nœraa, 1996; Davies,1990; du Toit, 1996). Further, within the formalagricultural sector, the conditions and terms ofwork differ dramatically in terms of permanentor non-permanent workers, the former not onlyhaving improved job security but also typicallyhigher wages, better housing, and health andwork benefits (Loewenson, 1992a).

Given that non-permanent workers haveless rights, generally less pay, and no securitycompared to permanent workers, this trendtowards casual employment is a distinctly neg-ative employment trend. For example, therecent trend towards improved labour stan-dards in the formal agricultural sector notedlater in the paper is undermined by the fact thatthese rights are often only practically enforce-able in the case of permanent workers.

The greater share of labour on farms is, how-ever, found in the informal or small-scale sec-tor. In southern Africa, this makes up about 68per cent of the total labour force, for example(Loewenson, 1998). Much of the employment inthe small-scale agricultural sector is unpaidfamily labour, although there are also peopleengaged as workers who receive direct pay fortheir labour.

While informal sector employment is poorlymonitored, studies have found a range of full-time and part-time casual forms of labour, oftenhired for specific tasks, paid in cash or kind,such as food and clothing (Pankhurst, 1991;Worby, 1995; Marshall and Roesch, 1993).Household labour on small-scale farms canthus be complemented by a range of family andnon-family labour, in various forms of contract,and paid in various forms. The common featureis the largely unregulated nature of the sector,and the absence of industrial relations mecha-nisms for regulating and monitoring workpractices in the sector.

Within this general context, women occupya large share of jobs in both large and small-scale farming. Female labour participationrates are generally lower than male. In agricul-ture, and particularly in household, small-scale, and low-skill forms of large-scale agri-culture, the female participation rate risesmarkedly, making these the traditional spheresof female employment.

No control over outputs,land, capital inputs

Two factors exercise a negative impact onthis positive level of labour participation: in theformal sector, women occupy the lowest qual-ity, least secure jobs; in the informal sector theyoften lack control over the outputs they pro-duce, or over the land and other capital inputsto production, particularly in patriarchal soci-eties. Women are therefore the most vulnerablegroup in both sectors. In the formal sector,women particularly occupy non-permanentjobs (Kamuzora, 1986; Tibone, 1989; Davies,

36

1990; Gitonga, 1991; Loewenson, 1991, 1992a;FAO 1992; de Vletter, 1995; Rutherford, 1996).As non-permanent workers, they can be dis-missed at will, receive no benefits and oftenlower pay (Adams, 1991; Amanor-Wilks, 1997;Loewenson, 1991). In much of the Africansmall-scale farming sector, women have fewprimary rights to land in case of a breakup of afamily or widowhood. They face discrimina-tory inheritance practices, while land reformprogrammes typically give sole title to hus-bands. Women have poor control over theirproduction output: in Zimbabwe, for example,while women account for 80 per cent of thelabour for all household and farm tasks andproduce up to 70 per cent of food crops (Johalet al., 1993), once a crop becomes lucrative togrow for the market, control often shifts to men.Hence small stock are maintained by womenwhile cattle (having greater capital and marketvalue) are owned and controlled by men. Asproduction for external markets has increased,so too has the control of these crops oftenshifted to men. While matriarchal systems mayprovide for greater female control in some ofthese areas, weak female participation at thedecision-making level of formal investmentand technical agricultural institutions may leadto poor support of small-scale farming done bywomen. Not surprisingly, therefore, womenhave been reported to work in undercapitalizedand insecure production activities with inade-quate access to credit, land, marketing andextension services, training and other inputs(Johal et al., 1993).

Dual burden places most severestress on poor women

In general, women have been found to workon average one to three times longer than menin the same society, whatever the number ofhours men put in (Smyre, 1992). A ready expla-nation is the double workload: the dual burdenof household work and work in other produc-tive spheres is common north and south, butperhaps places the most severe stress on poorwomen, whose social support is weakest. Muchof poor women’s time is spent in meeting basicneeds, such as fetching water and firewood,preparation of food, and in caring for depen-dents (ZWB, 1994). In Zimbabwe, for example,collecting water accounts for 20 per cent ofwomen’s time and collecting fuel 10 per cent(Johal et al., 1993). Women also spend a con-siderable amount of time informally tradingsurplus produce. This domestic and social

work is generally not valued as part of thedomestic product, and thus assumes an invisi-ble status and commands little investment inimproved conditions.

One consequence of this dual workload isthat women often take children they are mind-ing with them into fields, exposing the childrenas well as themselves to occupational hazards(Gitonga, 1991; Loewenson, 1992b). Use ofpiecework practices on formal sector estateshas encouraged the use of non-paid family andchild labour, increasing the pressures on chil-dren to take up adult roles (London, 1997;Loewenson, 1997a).

There are thus a number of features in thecurrent situation and the recent trends in pro-duction and employment that are likely toinfluence women’s health in agriculture asfollows:i. inequality in ownership of land, in access to

credit and other infrastructures in ruralareas associated with inequalities inincomes and social well-being;

ii. the low level of investment, productivityand poor profit margins in many small-scaleagricultural enterprises, associated withrural poverty;

iii. trends towards increased insecurity ofemployment, low-quality jobs and piecewage jobs, particularly for women workers;

iv. low control in female small-scale farmersover land, and over decision-making in andoutputs from production; and

v. the dual burden of household work andfarming work, with long working hours anddouble workloads.

Occupational and public healthproblems in relation to women’swork in agriculture

While the conditions of employment andhazards of agricultural work are often poorlymonitored, there is increasing evidence thatagricultural workers face significant occupa-tional and public health problems. The ILOrecently reported that at least 170,000 agricul-tural workers die each year and millions moreof the world’s 1.3 billion agricultural workerssuffer serious injuries or occupational diseases.Whereas occupational mortality rates havedeclined over the 1990s in other dangerousoccupations, such as mining and construction,those in agriculture have continued to rise (ILO,1997). Workers in developing countries are

37

especially at risk given inadequate education,training and safety systems. Women’s work hasbeen poorly monitored for its health risks dueto its informal or non-permanent nature, eventhough women have been noted to do haz-ardous work (London, 1997).

Hazards/risks inthe work environment

Agricultural work carries with it a numberof risks, as follows:Physical hazards: Heat, dust, vibration fromfarm tools and vehicles, and electrical hazardsfrom contact between irrigation pipes and over-head linesMechanical hazards: From cutting tools and farmmachinery Chemical hazards: Particularly pesticides andagrochemicals Biological hazards: From moulds in organic duststo farm animals Ergonomic hazards: Bending, long hours ofstandingWork organization hazards: Deriving from piece-work practices and poor welfare facilities

Complex causes

These risks are amplified by the large num-bers of exposed workers and exacerbated by alack of controls in the work environment andpoor provision of protective clothing. Beyondthose workers directly exposed, many otherworkers and family members are exposed indi-rectly through early entry into fields, packingof products, pruning of crops and through useof contaminated water supplies or air pollution(London, 1994). This is particularly the case asworkers and their families live and work on thefarms, sometimes in close proximity to thefields. Risks are also amplified by the poor con-trol that workers have over the pace, contentand organization of their work. Formal sectoragriculture is characterized by the least devel-oped labour relations systems, as well as weakbipartite systems for risk identification andmanagement. In addition, workers are unwill-ing to take individual action to refuse danger-ous work, particularly if they think that suchaction threatens both their job and housingsecurity when they live and work on the farms.Adverse socio-economic conditions (lowwages, migrant labour, physical violence, alco-hol abuse) and the stress induced by incomeand job insecurity add to the immediate haz-ards (Myers, 1990).

Narrow margins for investmentin health and safety

Small-scale farmers face a similar range ofhazards, with lower levels of technology andhigh labour demands for relatively low out-puts. This makes the margins for investment inhealth and safety relatively narrow. Increasingcapital and technological inputs to productionin recent years have increased exposure to agro-chemicals. However, the latter are often appliedmanually, using old, poorly maintained equip-ment, with inadequate information to usersconcerning the risks involved. Exposure toagrochemicals has been reported to pose themost sharply increasing health risk in agricul-tural work (ILO, 1997). Globally, pesticidessales have risen by 5.5 per cent per year, withforecasts of further increases by 1.6 per cent perannum over the next five years (Rother andLondon, 1998). In developing countries, pesti-cide risks include the use of toxic chemicals,restricted or banned in other countries, unsafeand poorly maintained application techniques,lack of information on the product for the user,unsafe storage of chemicals and use of oldchemical containers for food and water storage.Controls for pesticide exposure have beenfound to be inadequate in case of the toxicity ofthe pesticide, and dissemination of informationabout the pesticides very poor (Loewenson,1993; Loewenson and Nhachi, 1996; London,1994; Lakew and Mekonnen, 1997).

Workers do not know

While new technologies are being applied inagriculture, small-scale farming in particular isparticularly characterized by low levels of tech-nology and high workloads. Primitive hand-tools, hoes and ploughs, heavy loads and sus-tained physical work pose ergonomic hazards.One survey of occupational health and safetyin small-scale farms found risks from the use ofdraught animals, farm implements and longhours with poor work postures, reported asrisks by both researchers and workers(Loewenson, 1997a). These risks are reinforcedby poor safety precautions and information. Insmall-scale farming, it is uncommon for farm-ers and workers to be aware of, let alone pro-tect themselves against, the major occupationalhazards (von Hildebrand, 1994).

38

Anaemia and reproductive hazards

Women suffer the same profile of risk as allother workers in the sector. There is, however,an additional dimension, related to both thequality of jobs that women do in the sector andtheir dual workload. Women’s work-relatedhealth problems interact with and exacerbateillness caused by the work they do in the homeand in care of dependents. At the same time,women’s poor health status arising from poordiet, inadequate vitamin intake, and poor liv-ing and social conditions may increase risks ofwork-related cancers and the biotransforma-tion of toxins and thus their toxicity (Pearce andMatos, 1994). Anaemia, for example, causesweakness and fatigue and leads to loweredwork output. Anaemia is very prevalent amongpregnant women in developing countries: theWHO estimated in 1982 that 60 per cent of thesewomen suffered some level of anaemia(11gm/dl), a figure verified in more recent 1991updates (Koblinsky et al., 1992). Women, likemale workers, face reproductive hazards andtoxins in agricultural work, such as pesticides(e.g. DBCP),1 due to heat, stress or manual han-dling of heavy loads. This interacts with otherproblems such as undetected pelvic inflamma-tory disease which leads to problems in fertil-ity, pregnancy and childbirth.

Such patterns of multiple exposures andmultiple health outcomes may be exacerbatedby the long hours of work women perform andby the fact that the largely female seasonal andnon- permanent workforce often do not receiveprotective equipment or safety training (Lon-don, 1997). For example, women have beennoted to do less well-organized work, applyingpesticide by hand, while mechanical or back-pack applicators are used only by the moreskilled male permanent workers (Rutherford,1996). Women’s work is thus characterized bya high level of demands, with little control overthe nature and content of the work. The con-flicts and double burden they experiencebetween the positive health gains of beingemployed and the negative health impacts ofthe way their work is organized, and the man-agement of domestic responsibilities, havebeen found to lead to digestive disorders, sleepdifficulties and musculoskeletal problems(Kothari et al., 1996). One study in India foundthe highest incidence of stillbirths, prematurebirths and deaths during peak rice cultivationseason, at a time when women’s pieceworkintensified, involving squatting and bendingfor long periods (Smyre, 1992). In my own

research in Zimbabwe, non-permanent femaleworkers reported higher levels of ill health inboth themselves and their children under fiveduring the few months in the year of piece wagework. They were less likely to use health ser-vices for these problems and more likely toallow disease to progress at these peak employ-ment times due to the high opportunity costs ofmissing work when it is paid on a piece wagebasis (Loewenson, 1989).

Public health risksand health outcomes

Occupational health on farms has alreadybeen noted to have a strong interaction withpublic health conditions. This arises partly dueto the fact that people live and work on thefarms, to the interaction of poverty and work-related diseases and to the environmentalspillover of many of the occupational risks onfarms. For example, there is much documentedevidence of wider community exposure to pes-ticides due to contamination of foodstuffs dur-ing transport or storage, the diversion of agro-chemical coated seed to human consumption,the presence of pesticides in water or food dueto misuse of containers, or the contamination ofgroundwater, and pesticide residues on food(Ferrer and Cabral, 1994; London and Myers,1995; Loewenson and Nhachi, 1996). Womenand children have been found in some studiesto comprise a high proportion of exposed andreported poisoning cases (Bwiti et al., 1987,Loewenson et al., 1991; London, 1997).

Migrant labour and poor living conditionshave led to an increase in communicable dis-eases such as malaria (Packard, 1989). In small-scale agriculture, production and processing ofagricultural products and domestic animals inor near homes expose families to occupationalrisks such as inorganic and organic dusts andzoonotic diseases (White and Myers, undated).

As mentioned earlier, the major health pro b-lems faced by women workers arise due to poorliving and social environments and inadequatediets. The paradox persists that in areas whereland is abundant, farmworkers are unable tocomplement their incomes through food pro-duction. This is particularly the case in singlefemale-headed households where casualemployment and insecure tenure undermineboth the access to land and the time to grow food.

Occupational illness is often masked by thealready high level of public health problems inthe agricultural sector. Agricultural workers inAfrica, for example, in both formal and infor-

39

mal sectors, have been noted to be among thosewith the highest levels of general ill health dueto poverty, food insecurity, poor living condi-tions, poor access to health services and socialunderdevelopment (Jayne, Chisvo and Rukuni,1994; Loewenson, 1992a). Poor working condi-tions and an uncertain future have also beenassociated with high alcohol consumption andinterpersonal violence among agriculturalworker communities (London, 1997; Loewen-son, 1992a; McIvor, 1995; Djubang, 1994).

Under-reporting

Occupational illness and injury are also hid-den by the poor coverage of occupationalhealth services and lack of formal monitoringand reporting systems in large- and small-scalefarms. This leads to most occupational injuryand illness going unreported, and in conse-quence to negligible levels of compensation ornone at all (Ivor, 1995; Kouabenan, 1990;Kahenya, 1996). Studies in South Africa suggestthat only 5 per cent of deaths and about 20 percent of hospital admissions due to pesticidepoisoning are reported as part of the routinepublic health surveillance system, a figure thathas remained unchanged for over 15 yearsdespite knowledge on the part of the authori-ties about under-reporting. A programmeaimed to increase reporting did increase reportstenfold, although private doctors still largelyfailed to notify cases (London, 1997).

Despite such under- reporting, ad hoc sur-veys suggest that there is a significant risk ofoccupational disease in agriculture (Noweir,1986; Packard, 1989; Kitunga, 1996), includingacute and/or chronic lung diseases, occupa-tional skin diseases, haematologic cancers,degenerative musculoskeletal syndro m e s ,hearing loss and stre s s - related mental disor-ders, particularly depression (Husman, Kan-gas, Klen, et al., 1989). There are diseasess p e c i fically related to agriculture such as canecutters’ tenosynovitis, cashew dermatitis, andbovine tuberculosis (Choudhry, 1989). To x i cdust organic syndrome is pronounced in grain,swine and dairy farming (Myers, 1990).O rganic dusts from sugar cane, grain, cottonand coffee are noted to produce re s p i r a t o r yd i s o rders, including bagassosis, occupationalasthma and byssinosis (White and Myers,undated; Sekimpi et al., 1990). A g ro c h e m i c a l sa re a major cause of morbidity, accounting forup to 14 per cent of all occupational injuries inthe sector and 10 per cent of all fatal injuries(ILO, 1997). Research evidence suggests that

long-term occupational exposure to pesticidesalso leads to adverse chronic genotoxic, re p ro-ductive and immunotoxic effects (Buff i n ,1 9 9 7 ) .

Gender inequalities pronounced

Women face particular problems in relationto this profile of risk and injury. As noted ear-lier, their employment and economic statusweaken the control of occupational risks, whilethey experience negative gender disparities inpublic health from birth onwards, outweighingeven the genetic advantages that girl childrenhave over boy children, such as in infant mor-tality (Jhamba, 1994; Smyre, 1992). These gen-der inequalities are most pronounced in devel-oping countries and have widened underrecent structural adjustment and liberalizationpolicies. They emerge in terms of poor nutri-tion, associated with poor diet, early onset ofsexual, reproductive and maternity relatedhealth problems due to their poorer educa-tional attainment and social status and respira-tory and intestinal infections due to poor livingconditions.

One source of increased female ill health asdescribed is the close link between employ-ment status and the living and social conditionsthat affect public health. In Swaziland, forexample, many seasonal workers on pineappleestates are women hired on a seasonal basiswith no guarantee of employment for the fol-lowing season, regardless of how long theyworked for the company. During this off-sea-son period, many are reported to live in over-crowded and unhygienic housing surroundingthe estate, making a living through brewingbeer and prostitution. Their poor accommoda-tion is conducive to such diseases such as tuber-culosis (TB), cholera and diphtheria (McFad-don, 1982), and to sexually transmitted diseasesand HIV/AIDS. HIV rates in Zimbabwe areextremely high in the centres near the largeestates in the south of the country, which arealso foci of female seasonal and migrant labour.Women on these estates were found in longitu-dinal surveys to depend on a range of informalincome-generating activities between periodsof seasonal employment, including exchange ofsex for food, shelter and money (Loewenson,1992a). Analysis of data in official annualreports on workers’ health in Cameroon from1991 to 1993 revealed that malaria, infectiousdiseases (such as HIV/AIDS) and dermatologicdiseases were the leading causes of morbidity.The analysis also noted higher levels of TB

40

among workers on formal sector agriculturalplantations, suggested to be due to poor hous-ing and working conditions, poor access tohealth services, and HIV infection.

So the reported level of ill health and injuryin women workers on farms, almost withoutexception, does not reflect the real burden of illhealth. This lack of visibility of ill health out-comes weakens the case for resources to be tar-geted at preventing ill health. At the same time,the insecure nature of women’s employmentcontracts in formal sector farming and the lackof adequate organization of social protection inthe small-scale sector can lead to the costs ofsuch illness being borne at personal or house-hold level, and not within the production sys-tem. This draws attention to how health ser-vices are organized both to prevent and manageill health, and how accessible these services areto women.

Measures for protecting the healthof women workers in agriculture

The risks and health problems in agricultureare neither new nor unknown, and as with themajor public health problems experienced,both the technology and knowledge exist toprevent them. This calls in part for an improvedwork environment and health standards onfarms. Many early occupational health lawswere specifically framed to exclude agriculturalworkplaces as well as small enterprises, on bothcounts leaving out formal and informal sectorfarming. More recent legal trends havewidened the coverage to formal sector agricul-ture, but exclude small-scale peasant farming.Compensation law has generally been wider inits scope of coverage than occupational healthand safety law, but still generally excludessmall-scale farmers. Legal protection is alsoweaker for those with less secure contracts ofemployment, including those who work for inkind payments, such as obtains in small-scalefarming.

Even where legal coverage applies, legalenforcement may be weak due to fragmenta-tion, overlap and loopholes in the law, low cov-erage by labour officials, low levels of union-ization among workers, poor occupationalhealth surveillance systems and insufficientlabour inspectors (ILO, 1997; Choudhry, 1989;Rother and London, 1998). Inspectorate sys-tems are variable in the agricultural sector, withmany basic services poor or even non-existent(Noweir, 1986; Bella, 1996; Kahenya, 1996;Kitunga, 1996; Loewenson, 1997). Small-scale

agricultural production is almost alwaysexcluded from occupational health and safetylaw and infrastructures. This may be sustainedeven as these sectors are integrated into formalmarkets, with occupational health regarded asa further cost to already vulnerable producers.

Support in dealing with domesticresponsibilities

Legal enforcement may also be weakened bythe low literacy and weak organization in theagricultural sector. Laws may well specifywarning signs for toxic risks of pesticide use, forexample, but the effectiveness of such warningsigns is critically dependent on the level ofunderstanding of what the signs mean, and thishas generally been shown to be rather low andpoorly backed by education pro g r a m m e s( O AT U U / H S E P, 1996; Rother and London,1998). Many of the constraints re g a rding cover-age and implementation of standards aff e c twomen even more adversely, since the majorityof them are in the small-scale sector and in non-permanent employment. Added to such con-straints, women have lower levels of participa-tion in industrial relations and trade unions t ru c t u res. Unless they benefit from some sup-port to deal with their domestic re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,they face time constraints in enhancing theirparticipation in such stru c t u re s .

Primary health care more beneficial

Public health services have wider coveragethan occupational health services, but skills atprimary care levels are often inadequate tomake differential diagnoses of occupationalmorbidity and are poorly supported by occu-pational health specialists (Ndamba, Makaza,Kaondera, et al., 1991; Tedla and Yimam, 1986).Public health services expanded after the 1970sthrough national primary health care (PHC)approaches, including improvements in livingenvironments, immunization, maternal andchild health promotion, health education andin access to primary medical care services. ThePHC approach also included the promotion ofcommunity health workers operating in small-and large-scale farm areas. It could be arguedthat women have gained more from the expan-sion in primary health care services than fromthe increased coverage of occupational healthlaws, given the more explicit inclusion ofwomen’s health issues in the former. Unlike thesituation prevailing in largely male-dominatedindustrial relations system, women also took

41

on key roles as community health workerswithin the primary health care system. How-ever, the insecure employment status of womenalso affected their use of PHC services, evenwhere coverage expanded. In Zimbabwe, forexample, women employees on large-scalefarms had the highest rate of illnesses in a farmworker health survey, but did not seek healthcare for fear of losing work since they werecasual employees (Loewenson, 1991).

Despite significant investments to impro v eservices in rural areas, there are still shortfalls inpublic health system coverage in both large- andsmall-scale farms (ILO,1997). Public health sys-tems have also faced serious constraints unders t ructural adjustment and liberalization pro-grammes, particularly where they were statefunded. In a recent survey in South Africa, forexample, 31per cent of 39 formal sector farmssurveyed in the western Cape were found tohave no form of first aid or basic health serviceon the farm. Of the first aiders present on otherfarms, few had any medical training (London,1994). In a number of countries, schemes havebeen initiated to train primary care workers forfarms, and these have recently incorporated thep revention of occupational and pesticide haz-a rds (London and Myers, 1995; Loewenson,1989). Such primary care schemes have beenfound to improve public health on farms(Loewenson et al., 1983), although their impacton occupational health has not been assessed.

Issues and conclusions

Historically, farm workers have been amongthe most disadvantaged and disorganized for-mal sector workers (Loewenson, 1992a). Theyare generally unskilled labour and are easilyreplaced. Many are migrants with fewresources and vulnerable to employer victim-ization. This enterprise-level marginalization isoften reproduced at the state level where theirinterests are rarely considered (Packard, 1989;Loewenson, 1992a; Rutherford, 1997). Thestrength of farmworker unions has also beenweakened by the fact that until recent decades,autonomous trade unions on farms were cir-cumscribed in a number of countries (Kamu-zora, 1986; Loewenson, 1992a).

This paper shows that these conditions areworse for women, who hold the least securejobs in the formal agricultural sector, and oftenlack control over land and outputs in small-scale farming. They are also worsened by thedual domestic and production workloadwomen experience under conditions of poor

living, community and social environments,increasing their working hours and workloadand generating a mixed profile of public healthand occupational health problems.

Address the underlying problems

Sustainable interventions to improve thehealth and safety of women workers wouldt h e re f o re need to address underlying pro b l e m sof non-permanent, piece wage and other lowquality and insecure jobs, generate greater andy e a r- round employment opportunities, includ-ing through off- farm employment, and enhancewomen’s control over land, production inputsand market surpluses. Furthermore, there is aneed to lighten the domestic workload of ru r a lwomen through various forms of social sup-port, including the provision of safe, accessiblewater supplies, adequate and accessible fueland energy sources, and collective forms ofc h i l d c a re, such as community nursery schools.

A “cradle to grave” approach

Within work environments, there is a needfor more active bipartite and state-supportedintervention to identify, discuss and controlrisks, and in a legal and institutional environ-ment where workers feel they do not risk theirjobs when they act on health and safety. Liter-acy training and information inputs are criticalelements of the capacity support for health andsafety for all workers, including women.Within the small-scale farming sector, suchinterventions can be implemented throughfarmer organizations, and through other com-munity-based organizations, such as healthand women’s groups. The spillover of work-related risks to the community and families alsoneeds to be identified and controlled, for exam-ple by avoiding early re-entry in sprayed fields,provision of safe water supplies and control ofchemical runoff into groundwater supplies, sit-ing of farm villages and safe disposal of chem-ical containers. For chemical companies, a “cra-dle to grave” approach that follows risks intofield use, and includes multisectoral coopera-tion to ensure safe use, application and disposalwould enhance the management of chemicalrisks in the less well-organized farming sectors.

Integrate education into extensionand market services

So, firstly, the paper suggests that managingoccupational risks for women on large- and

42

small-scale farms needs to be set within a pub-lic health and primary health care frameworkfor a number of reasons: proper public healthservices have wider coverage of rural areasthan occupational health services, and particu-larly of women workers, given the explicitinclusion of maternal and child health pro-grammes. Public health problems interact withwork-related illness, and many workers willbring work-related problems to public healthservices. In a situation of scarce publicresources, there is a need to recognize these con-ditions and maximize available resources andinfrastructures to promote both public andoccupational health. Secondly, the foregoingdiscussion underlines the need to ensure thatworkers on farms are protected by the labourlegislation in force on farms, and to extendinspection services to rural areas for these lawsto be implemented. Moreover, such standardsand enforcement mechanisms need to be prac-tically applicable to insecure, migrant andpiece-wage workers if they are to make adifference to women’s work on farms. As forthe small-scale farming sector, there is a needto integrate educational efforts to promotesafety standards into the support, extensionand market services with which these groupsinteract.

Multi-stakeholder forums

Workers’ health and safety rights have notbeen acquired without some struggle, nation-ally and on farms themselves. A g r i c u l t u r a lworkers’ unions often lack the org a n i z a t i o n a ls t ru c t u re, re s o u rces and skills to win theserights and adequately enforce wider legal gains(London and Myers, 1995). This signals a stillpoorly met need for investment in capacitydevelopment of these organizations dire c t l yand under wider union umbrellas. To overc o m etheir isolation and strengthen their case, somepeasant and farmworker unions, farming org a-nizations and cooperatives, environmental andhealth groups, and state extension services haveformed multi-stakeholder forums, includingtrade unions to raise consciousness about issuesof concern in agricultural work. Local govern-ment stru c t u res have also been pointed to asimportant agents for raising health and socials t a n d a rds on farms. For women, who often donot participate in these stru c t u res, there is aneed to identify relevant communication chan-nels and organizational frameworks and makeexplicit effort to invest in these.

Power differences wider for women

Whatever the case, the disempowerment ofthe workers themselves would need to beaddressed. In agriculture, generally, there is asignificant power imbalance between workersand employers in the large-scale sector; andbetween smallholder farmers and formal mar-ket and state institutions in the small-scale sec-tor. Where gender inequity exists, and this isfound in many countries north and south, thesepower differences are even wider for women.Hence interventions need to confront the pater-nalism, oppression, isolation and social under-development that has characterized the historyof these sectors, and which workers, and par-ticularly women workers, on large-scale farmscontinue to experience (du Toit, 1996; Ruther-ford, 1997). Dealing with occupational andpublic health issues in the agricultural sectorcalls for both technical inputs, and for inter-ventions that deal with issues of deprivationand imbalances of power.

Jobless, ruthless, voiceless, rootlessand futureless

While there are many specific, mitigatoryinterventions, the negative trend towardscasual, low quality jobs and growing povertyin many rural areas, particularly in Africa, callsfor more in-depth analysis of the economiccauses of these trends. The UNDP HumanDevelopment Reports have in recent yearshighlighted concern about the current paths togrowth, and the need for greater considerationof the human and social dimensions of growth,both in order to enhance equity and ensuremore sustainable growth paths. The descrip-tion in this article of women’s work in large-and small-scale farms highlights the contradic-tion between the UNDP’s vision of sustainabledevelopment and these women’s poor qualityjobs (jobless growth), low income work (ruth-less growth), poor control over work (voicelessgrowth), poor social support (rootless growth)and inadequate attention to reproductive haz-ards (futureless growth). Hence, alongside themeasures which must be put in place to guardagainst the consequences of such negativepaths to growth, is a parallel need to identifyand pursue paths to growth that better enhancerural women’s economic and labour marketposition.

43

References

Adams, J. 1991. The rural labour market in Zimbabwe. Develop-ment and Change, Ch. 22, pp. 297-320.

Amanor-Wilks, D.E. 1997. Social conditions in rural areas andcommercial farms. Paper prepared for the Leadership forEnvironment and Development Zimbabwe Interna-tional Sessions, 21 April to 3 May.

Bella, D. 1992. “Organization of occupational health andsafety in post-war Liberia; problems and solutions”, inAfrican Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety 1(Supplement), pp. 61-64.

Buffin, D. 1997. “Latest research – health effects up-date”, inPesticides News, Vol. 38, p. 17.

Bwiti, T.; Chikuni, T.; Loewenson, R. et al., 1987. “Health haz-ards in organophosphate use among farmworkers in thelarge-scale farming sector”, in Central African MedicalJournal, Vol. 33(5), pp. 120-125.

Choudhry, A.W. 1989. “Occupational health in agriculture”,in East African Newsletter on Occupational Health andSafety, Vol. 3, pp. 16-19.

Davies, W. 1990. We cry for our land: farm workers in SouthAfrica. Oxford, Oxfam.

Devereux, S.; Nœraa, T. 1996. “Drought and survival in ruralNamibia”, in Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 22(3),pp. 421-440.

Djubang, J.N. 1994. “Possible re - e m e rgence of tuberc u l o s i samong agricultural workers in Cameroon”, in AfricanNewsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 4,p p .4 0 -4 1 .

Eicher, C.K.; Rukuni, M. 1994. “Zimbabwe’s agricultural rev-olution: Lessons for Southern Africa”, inM. Rukuni andC.K. Eicher (eds.): Zimbabwe’s agricultural revolution.Harare, University of Zimbabwe Press, pp. 393-411.

Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine: Development,depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cam-bridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ferrer, A.; Cabral R. 1994. “Epidemic poisonings caused bypesticides: Relevancy in the field of occupational health”,in African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety,Vol. 4, pp. 33-35.

First, R. 1980. The Mozambican miner: Astudy in the export oflabour. Maputo, Universidad Eduardo Mondlane.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1992. Ruralwomen: The closing link between population and environment.Discussion note for Expert Group Meeting on Popula-tion and Women, Population Division of the Departmentof Economic and Social Development, United NationsSecretariat in consultation with the United Nations Pop-ulation Fund. Gabarone, Botswana, pp. 22-26, June.

Gitonga, L. 1991. “Women in African agriculture”, in AfricanNewsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 2, pp. 52-53.

von Hildebrand, A. 1994. “Pesticide problems and IPM –implementation in Madagascar”, in Pesticides News, ThePesticides Trust, Vol. 25, pp. 12-13.

Hinderink, J.; Sterkenburg, J. J., 1987. Agricultural commer-cialization and government policy in Africa. London, Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul.

Hurst, P.; Hay, A.; Dudley, N. 1991. The pesticide handbook.London, Journeyman Press.

Husman, K.; Kangas, J.; Klen, T. 1989. “Occupational risks inagriculture”, in East African Newsletter on OccupationalHealth and Safety, Vol. 3, pp. 4-7.

ILO. 1997. “Press release on farm safety”, in African News-letter on Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 7, pp. 61-63.

Jayne, T.S.; Chisvo, M.; Rukuni, M. 1994. “Zimbabwe’s foodinsecurity paradox: Hunger amid abundance”, inRukuni and Eicher (eds.), op. cit.

Jhamba, T. 1994. Mortality determinants in Zimbabwe: Policyimplications. Harare, University of Zimbabwe, mimeo.

Johal, R.; Keyvanshad S.; Lisker, D. 1993. Zimbabwe Genderissues information sheet, No. 143, World Bank, July (AfricaRegion).

Kahenya, P.N.P. 1996. “A review of studies on occupationaldiseases in Kenya”, in African Newsletter on OccupationalHealth and Safety 2 (Supplement), pp. 46-49.

Kamuzora, P. 1986. “Redefining occupational health for Tan-zania”, in Review of Africa Political Economy, Vol. 36,pp.30-34.

Kitunga, L. 1996. “Prevalence of occupational disease in Tan-zania”, in African Newsletter on Occupational Health andSafety 2 (Supplement), pp. 42-45.

K o b l i n s k y, M.; Campbell, O.; Harlow, S.; 1992. “Mother andm o re: a broader perspective on women’s health”, inM . K o b l i n s k y, J. Timyan and J. Gay (eds.): The health ofwomen: a global persepctive, Westview Press, Boulder, USA.

Kothari, U.; and Nababsing, V. 1996. Gender and Industriali-sation. Editions de l’Ocean Indien, Mauritius.

Kouabenan, D.R., 1990. “Occupational safety and healthproblems in the Ivory Coast: A diagnosis and some pos-sible remedies”, in International Labour Review, Vol.129(1), pp. 109-119.

Lakew, K.; Mekonnen, Y. 1997. “Astudy among agriculturalworkers in Ethiopia”, in African Newsletter on Occupa-tional Health and Safety, Vol. 7, pp. 68-70.

Loewenson, R. 1988. “Labour insecurity and health”, in SocialScience and Medicine, Vol. 27 (7), pp.733-741.

—. 1989. The health impact of changing patterns of agriculturalproduction: The Zimbabwean farmworker, Ph.D. thesis,University of London.

—. 1991. “Harvests of disease: women at work in Zimbab-wean plantations”, inM. Turshen (ed.): Women and healthin Africa. Trenton, N.J., Africa World Press, pp. 35-49.

—. 1992a. Modern plantation agriculture: corporate wealth andlabour squalor. London, Zed Press.

—. 1992b. Epidemiology in occupational health in developingcountries. Mimeo. Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions,Harare.

—. 1993. “Safety issues identified in Zimbabwe”, in PesticidesNews, Vol. 21, p. 13.

—. 1997a. Assessment of the health impact of occupational risk inAfrica: Current situation and methodological issues. Discus-sion draft for ILO meeting on Assessing Health Impactof Occupational Risk.

—. 1997b. Health impact of occupational risks in the informal sec-tor. Report for ILO/TARSC, monograph, Harare.

—. 1998. Occupational Health and Safety in Agriculture in South-ern Africa. Report prepared for the ILO, Zimbabwe, July.

—; Zanza, J.; Mushayandebvu, I. 1983. An interim evaluationof the Bindura Farm Health Worker Project. Harare, Save theChildren Fund, United Kingdom, mimeo.

—; Nhachi, C.; Murambiwa, W. et al. 1991. Epidemiology of thehealth impact of pesticide use in developing countries: epi-demiological research in Zimbabwe, mimeo, Harare.

—; Nhachi, C.F.B. 1996. “Epidemiology of the health impactof pesticide use in Zimbabwe”, in C.F.B. Nhachi and

44

O.M.J Kasilo (eds.): Pesticides in Zimbabwe: toxicity andhealth implications. Harare, University of ZimbabwePress, pp. 25-37.

Laurell, A.C.; Hogstedt C.; et al. 1995. “Participatoryapproaches and epidemiology in occupational healthresearch”, in International Journal of Occupational andEnvironmental Health, Vol. 1, pp. 121-130.

London, L. 1994. “Agrichemical safety practices on farms inthe western Cape”, in South African Medical Journal,Vol.84, pp. 273-278.

London, L.; Myers, J.E. 1995. “Critical issues for agrichemi-cal safety in South Africa”, in American Journal ofIndus-trial Medicine, Vol. 27, pp. 1-14.

London, L. 1997. Occupational epidemiology in agriculture: a casestudy in the Southern African context. Keynote address atthe International Symposium on Epidemiology in Occu-pational Health: Risk Reduction in the Workplace. Inter-national Commission on Occupational Health, ScientificCommittee on Epidemiology in Occupational Health,Harare, September.

London, L.; Rother, A. 1998. People, pesticides and the environ-ment: who bears the brunt of backward policy in South Africa?Paper presented to the Environmental Law Conference,University of Cape Town, April.

Marshall, J.; Roesch, O. 1993. “The ‘green zones’ agriculturalcooperatives of Nampula City: A new phase in theMozambican cooperative movement”, in Journal ofSouthern African Studies, Vol. 19(2), pp. 240-272.

McFaddon, P. 1982. “Women in wage labour in Swaziland:A focus on agriculture”, in South African Labour Bulletin,pp. 140-166.

McIvor, C. 1995. Zimbabwe, the struggle for health: Acommu-nity approach for farm workers. London, Catholic Institutefor International Relations.

Myers, J.E. 1990. “Occupational health of farmworkers”, inSouth African Medical Journal, Vol. 78, pp. 562-563.

Ndama, J.; Makaza, N.; Kaondera; K.C. et al. 1991. “A c ro s s -sectional study on the prevalence and intensity ofschistosomiasis among sugar cane cutters in Zim-babwe”, in Central African Journal of Medicine, Vol. 37(6),pp. 171-175.

Noweir, M. 1986. “Occupational health in developing coun-tries, with special reference to Egypt”, in American Jour-nalof Industrial Medicine, Vol. 9, pp.125-141.

OATUU/HSEP. 1996. “Chemical safety practice in Africa”,inOATUU/HSEP Newsletter, No. 4, Zimbabwe.

Packard R. 1989. “Industrial production, health and diseasein Sub-Saharan Africa”, in Social Science & Medicine, Vol.28(5), pp. 475-496.

Palmer, R.; Parsons, N. (eds.). 1977. The roots of rural povertyin Central and Southern Africa. Berkeley, University of Cal-ifornia Press.

Pankhurst, D. 1991. “Constraints and incentives in ‘success-ful’ Zimbabwean peasant agriculture: The interactionbetween gender and class”, in Journal of Southern AfricanStudies, Vol. 17 (4), pp.611-632.

Pearce, N.; Matos, E. 1994. Industrialisation and health in occu-pational cancer in developing countries . Lyon, IARC Publi-cations, No. 129.

Porter, G.; Phillips-Howard, K. 1997. “Agricultural issues inthe former homelands of South Africa: The Transkei”, inReview of African Political Economy, Vol. 72, pp. 185-202.

Rother, H.A.; London, L. 1998. Pesticide health and safety pol-icy mechanisms in South Africa: The state of the debate. Work-ing Paper, No. 1, Occupational and EnvironmentalHealth Research Unit, Department of CommunityHealth, University of Cape Town.

Rutherford, B. 1996. “Traditions” of domesticity in “modern”Zimbabwean politics: Race, gender, and class in the govern-ment of commercial farm workers in Hurungwe District.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal,Canada.

—. 1997. “Another side to rural Zimbabwe: Social constructsand the administration of farm workers in Urungwe Dis-trict, 1940s”, in Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol..23(1), pp. 107-126.

Sekimpi, D.K.; Agaba, E.F.; Okot Nwang, M. et al. 1990. Res-piratory and allegoric status assessment of coffee dust exposedworkers in Uganda. Preliminary report to the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Nairobi Office.

Smyre, P. 1992. Women and Health, Women and World Devel-opment Series.

Tedla, S., Yimam, M. 1986. “Schistosomiasis at theWonji/Shoa sugar estates during two decades (1964-1985)” in African Journal of Science and Technology 1(1),pp.1-18.

Tibone, C. 1989. “Health hazards associated with agriculturalactivities in Botswana and how they affect women”, inEast African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety,Vol. 3, pp. 22-25.

du Toit, A. 1996. The fruits of modernity: law, power and pater-nalism on Western Cape farms. Land Reform and AgrarianChange in Southern Africa. An Occasional Paper Series,Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School ofGovernment, University of Western Cape.

UNDP.1996. Human Development Report, New York, OxfordUniversity Press.

Vail, L. (ed.). 1989. The creation of tribalism in Southern Africa .Berkeley, University of California Press.

de Vletter, F. 1995. “The implications of changing migrationpatterns in Southern Africa”, in J. Crush, W. James, F.Vletter et al.: Labour migrancy in Southern Africa: Prospectsfor post-apartheid transformation. Southern African LabourMonographs 3/95, Labour Law Unit, University of CapeTown, pp. 21-48.

White, N.; Myers, J. (n.d.). Agricultural respiratory disease inindustrialising countries. Mimeo.

Wo r b y, E. 1995. “What does agrarian wage-labour signify?Cotton, commoditisation and social form in Gokwe, Zim-babwe”, in Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 23 (1), pp. 1-29.

Zimbabwe Women’s Bureau. 1994. We carry a heavy load . PartII, Harare, Triple-R Printers.

Note

1 DBCP: dibromochloropropane, used to treat soil to pro-tect the roots of fruits and vegetables from certain pests.

45

Agriculture represents one of the most haz-ardous sectors in both developing and devel-oped countries. It is ranked as one of the threemost hazardous industries together with min-ing and construction. Machinery such as trac-tors, along with cutting tools, causes the high-est frequency and fatality rates of injuries.Exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicalsconstitute major occupational hazards whichcan result in poisoning and death, and in cer-tain cases are related to cancers and affect repro-ductive health.

In Africa and other developing countries,the situation is made worse by the uncontrolleduse of banned or severely restricted chemicalsimported from the industrialized countrieswhere they are no longer in use. Furthermore,the agricultural worker lives and works in thesame environment, therefore for him/her occu-pational health and general health are moreclosely related. In a rural environment there isno clear distinction between the working andliving conditions of those engaged in agricul-tural work. The many workers and their fami-lies who live where they work face further dan-gers, for example exposure to pesticides andagrochemicals in water and air. Poor housingand overcrowding in the living quarters called“labour camps”; poor sanitation; cases ofcholera; dysentery; AIDS; and death from thesediseases are prevalent among the workers dueto inadequate medical care.

Apart from the human suffering involvedand notoriously low level of wages of the work-ers, the economic loss through accidents and illhealth places enormous burdens on the enter-prise and economies alike. If the existing situa-tion in the agricultural sector is to be improved,then training and education for agriculturalworkers and capacity building initiatives fortheir trade union are needed.

Workers’ education

A major means to achieve the afore m e n-tioned goals of training and capacity building ist h rough workers’ education directed toward ssocial change which may result from unions t rength and the integration of working peopleinto the trade union. It is a specialized branch ofadult education which addresses the educationalneeds and interests arising out of workers’ par-ticipation in the trade union movement. A h i g hlevel of membership and the quality of wellinformed members measure the strength of anyo rganization. The primary thrust of any work-ers’ education effort is to step up re c ruitment ando rganization of workers into a strong tradeunion. It is on this strength that workers canengage effectively in a collective bargaining cam-paign to negotiate any positive changes in theirworkplaces and in the society where they live.

Such education should not be a single, iso-lated event but a continuous process integratedinto ongoing trade union activity. Educationshould therefore target all members: the topleadership to enable them to run the organiza-tion according to the principles for which it wasestablished; the middle leadership for effectivelinkages between the rank and file and the topleadership; then the general membership tostrengthen the union at grass-root level. Specialprogrammes should address the issues ofwomen members and young workers; special -ized education and training, e.g. on health,safety and environment, child labour should beincorporated into the overall education policy.

As has been observed, workers unitedwithin a strong trade union, well informed andtrained, will influence the trend of events affect-ing them at the workplace. In the area of safetyand health, the overall rationale of training andeducation is to raise or improve awareness of

46

Uganda: Training, education and information on health, safety and environment –

National Union of Plantation and Agricultural Wo r k e r s(NUPAW)

Omara AmukoOrganizing Education Secretary

NUPAW

safety and health hazards and protect the envi-ronment, impart knowledge of the causes ofoccupational illness and injury, and promotethe implementation of effective preventionmeasures. The specific purpose and impetus oftraining will, however, vary according to thedifferent target groups. There are three levels ofeducation and training in occupational healthand safety and environment: 1. Awareness;2. Training for specific needs; and3. Specialization.

These components are not separate but arerather part of a continuum. Any person mayrequire information at all three levels, e.g. pol-icy-makers, legislation managers and workers.Within these categories, many people requireadditional training in more specific tasks, e.g.health and safety officers or health and safetyrepresentatives need to acquire more informa-tion through intensive training.

All categories – workers, employers, and theGovernment – should participate in improvingworking conditions, but those who do notdirectly suffer the problem may be tempted toturn a blind eye without concerted workplaceaction on the part of workers. Negotiatinghealth and safety issues must therefore be anintegral part of organized workers’ action. Thismeans building skill and knowledge, organiza-tion, collective action and unity if we are tochange a work and living environment whichdestroys our health. Unions should start edu-cation programmes to train trade union lead-ers, health and safety educators and branch andshop floor health and safety representatives inorder to strive for integrated action aroundhealth and safety issues.

Health and safety trainingin NUPAW (U)

The NUPAW Uganda is the largest tradeunion organization in Uganda. It has a totalmembership of 47,000 including 15,000 women,with a potential of 150,000 members. NUPAW(U) is affiliated to the National Organization ofTrade Unions (NOTU) (with 75,000 members)and to the International Union of Food, A g r i-cultural, Hotel, Restaurants, Catering, To b a c c oand Allied Workers’ Association (IUF) (2.6 mil-lion members from 118 trade unions in 334 coun-tries). NUPAW re p resents workers in the tea andsugar plantations and general agriculture, e.g.rice farmers, flower farms and other agriculture

related industries. ln 1997, NUPAW had 60,000members but during the military rule (1971-79),the economy was completely ruined and tradeunion activities were very minimal. All the teaand sugar estates had grown into bushes. Tr a d eunion members lost their jobs and by the end of1979, NUPAW (U) had only 3,000 members leftin the sugar estates.

Training for cadres

The rehabilitation of industries after theTanzania–Uganda war led to a renewal of eco-nomic activities in Uganda in the aftermath ofa devastating military rule and the war. In 1982,with only three operating branches and 3,200members, NUPAW started educating the newelected leaders with assistance from the formerInternational Federation of Plantation Agricul-tural and Allied Workers ( IFPAAW). IFPAAWmembers of the National Executive Counciland the Secretariat were trained between 1982and1986 at the Tom Mboya Labour College inKisumu, Kenya. These cadres were trained intrade union organization, collective bargain-ing, grievance handling and leadership-relatedissues. Such training helped the leaders toappreciate the problems of workers whichincluded uncooperative and anti-unionemployers, obsolete labour laws, and stateinterference in trade union affairs.

The “educated leadership” started reorga-nizing the workers into a trade union. At thetrade union congress in 1986, the membershiprose to 6,000 in seven branches, thanks to theIFPAAW education programme. In order toconsolidate what it had achieved since 1980 andrecruit more members, NUPAW developed aworkers’ education project based on study cir-cles. The project was carried out in 1989 and 40study circle leaders were trained. The NUPAWStudy Circle Education and Trade Union Devel-opment Project (1990-97) trained 120 study cir-cle leaders. The leaders then formed over 500study circle groups benefiting over 10,000members. Study circle education is based onwell-recognized principles of adult learningtheory, inc1uding the following:• Adults are especially self-motivated, in

terms or acquiring information that hasimmediate relevance to their lives and work,so they especially welcome practical toolswhich could help them solve problems inthe workplace.

• Adults learn best by building on what theyalready know, incorporating new ideas into

47

their existing reservoir of learning. Theyalso wish to be respected for their experi-ence. Therefore the most effective methodsare those which are participatory in charac-ter and encourage reflection.

• Adults learn in different ways. Each personhas a different learning style. So an educa-tion session will work best if participantshave the opportunity to engage in multiplelearning methodologies involving audiovisuals, question-and-answer sessions, sim-ulation or role-play, reading, writing, prac-tising with equipment and discussing criti-cal issues. Variety not only ensures that thecognitive process is addressed but also pro-vides repetition to reinforce learning and ofcourse sustain interest.

• Adults learn best when they are activelyengaged: when they “learn by doing” theyare more responsive to active participatorymethods than to passive ones. Lectures andwritten materials of course, have their placein a full repertoire of methods, but case stud-ies, role plays, handouts, simulation andother small group activities whcih alloweach individual to be involved are morelikely to result in the retention and applica-tion of new learning. Ideally, each sessioninvolves interaction among participantsand includes opportunities for learning newinformation, applying new skills and dis-cussing the causes of problems and explor-ing solutions. So the issues raised for tradeunion action originated in these study cir-cles. Some of the problems identified weresolved at the shop floor, for example that of“free riders” or workers who did not wantto join the union but were enjoying the ben-efits negotiated for the members and whowere easily recruited as a result of tradeunion action. Some problems were raised aswarranting negotiations for inclusion in thecollective bargaining agreement (CBA), forexample a one-hour break for breastfeedingmothers to allow them to breastfeed theirchildren during working hours, or paternityleave for seven days to allow a member toattend to his wife at childbirth and duringthe post-natal period. Some issues wereaddressed within the overall framework ofunion policy, for example occupationalhealth and safety.

In 1989, some workers from Kasaku TeaEstates filed complaints to the effect that theyhad become impotent. The case originated in

the study circle groups of one of the LabourCamps called Rusesa when they were dis-cussing protective wear for tea pluckers. Theparticipants became concerned when one ofthem said he had worked as a tea plucker forthe past 16 years and that for the past 15 yearshe had been experiencing weakness in his sex-ual performance, that his condition had com-pletely deteriorated and that he was eventuallyliving alone because he could not arouse anywoman’s interest. This issue was taken upthrough the Union Branch to the NationalExecutive Council. Further investigationsrevealed that there were 11 such cases of impo-tence in Kasaku Tea Estates alone. The uniontook up the matter with management, and theDepartment of Occupational Health and Safetyof the Ministry of Labour and IFPAAW wereinformed about it. It is suspected that theseworkers are victims of chemical exposure,apparently of low doses which are used in thesetea plantations. The Kasaku case caused theunion to draw up a policy of occupationalhealth and safety, endorsed by the DelegatesConference in 1991, and which sought toachieve the following objectives:• improve the health and safety and working

environment for all workers;• build union cadres in health and safety from

the shopfloor to the national level andensure that these cadres use the mainstreamstructures to organize and protect workers’interests;

• form health and safety committees at allbranches and at national level and use themto discuss and negotiate health and safetyissues;

• train union health and safety representa-tives/officers at shopfloor, branch andnational levels to represent workers onhealth and safety issues, disputes and nego-tiations to enable the union mainstream toimplement health and safety proposals;

• educate and inform workers on health andsafety;

• monitor and investigate the health andsafety problems facing workers and use thefindings to improve conditions; and

• coordinate union activities with those ofother institutions involved in health andsafety and represent workers in health andsafety structures.

48

Implementing the policy througheducation study circles (ESCs)

The Study Circle Education and TradeUnion Development Project created an oppor-tunity for NUPAW to identify HSC problems inwork places for the Health and Safety Com-mittee wherever it operates and find solutions.The study circle sessions did not only help torecruit members and strengthen the union butalso helped to create awareness about healthand safety hazards in workplaces.

The project components are:1. Training and retraining of study circles in

study circles methodologies;2. Courses for branch officials and shop stew-

ards;3. Courses for women activists;4. Formation of study circles; and5 . Development of information/study

m a t e r i a l s .

Project

Study circle leaders

These leaders are further trained in health,safety and environment so that they in turnimpart knowledge to the study circle groups.Such training includes identification and con-trol of hazards.

Branch officials and shop stewards

This is a very important target group repre-senting as it does the link between employersand those in charge of implementing union pol-icy. Resolutions arising out of training sessionsfor these groups are actively followed up byboth the employers and the union. Items sched-uled for incorporation into collective bargain-ing agreements, policy statements and cam-paign goals usually originate from these targetgroups either from their meetings or trainingcourses. They should therefore be better for-mulated and more comprehensive. In mostcountries workplace improvement has resultedsolely from organized workers’ action.

Health and safety representatives areelected from among this group. In addition toknowing the hazards and how to protect work-ers from them, training courses are designed forthis group to learn about pesticides, accidentinvestigation, compensation and rehabilitation,health and safety structures and functions, firstaid, labor laws, ILO Conventions and interna-tional solidarity.

Training for women activists

Women workers have special problemsbecause they have different physical frames.They bear children and breastfeed. They per-form most of the unpaid domestic labour in oursociety, which means that they assume a dou-

49

Examples of hazards

Mechanical Physical Ergonomics and work Biological Chemicalhazards hazards organization hazards hazards hazards

Unguarded Impulse Manual handling Sources Hazardous hazardous noise of heavy loads of infection chemicalsmoving parts in use

Floor with waste Noise above Poor work posture Snake bites Chemicals not or slippery 90 dB stored undersurfaces lock

Poor house- Poor Long hours of work Insect stings Hazardouskeeping electrical chemicals not

installation properly labelled

Risk of pressure Very high Casual labour Biting by Hazardous bursts/leakages temperature dangerous chemicals in use

animals by pregnantwomen

Dust Shift/night shifts Contact withhuman blood

Poor lighting Isolated work

Vibration

ble workload and are exposed to hazards inboth workplaces.

The course for women activists covers vari-ous women’s issues that affect them at the work-place, in the trade unions and in the society.Some of the major topical issues are as follows:• re p roductive hazards: because women

carry the unborn child and bre a s t f e e d ,many of the hazards a woman worker isexposed to also affect the unborn child.They can cause abortion, stillbirth, abnor-mal development or even death of the childif not contro l l e d .

• Women exposed to certain chemicals, suchas diethylsilboestrol, can have children thatdevelop cancer later in life.

• Women exposed to pesticides may abort orbear deformed children.

• Women who are exposed to chemicals suchas lead, vinyl chloride, high levels of sol-vents or organichlorine pesticides may passthe chemical to the infant through breastmilk.

• Women who lift heavy objects, spend longhours standing, are exposed to heat or vibra-tion, can suffer high blood pressure, backpain, abortion; may deliver a low birth babyor have an abnormal delivery.

Study circle group meetings

Most of the study circle members are rankand file members and meet at their conve-nience. Most groups are formed during work-ing hours – the union has negotiated a collec-tive bargaining agreement with mostemployers for time off with pay for trade unioneducation and trade union work, so the timeand venue are arranged by the local unionbranch and the management of the enterpriseconcerned. Each branch has in place a dozenstudy circle leaders who organize the studycircles.

Discussion in study circles is based on theadult learning principles referred to earlier. Thecollective findings or decisions of the study cir-cles are used to solve problems or are for-warded to higher levels for action. So manychanges have taken place at workplaces as aresult of study circles education, for example:• child labour is prohibited in Kakira Sugar

Works;• Health and Safety Committees have been

formed at all the branches;

• dramatic performances at various estateshave been creating awareness of chemicalhazards; and

• mobile shelters have been provided forbreastfeeding mothers in Kakira SugarWorks.

Development of study materials

A study circle leaders’ training manual wasdeveloped to help sustain the project throughongoing education and training information,and booklets with basic information on health,safety and environment was produced as ameans to raise awareness and strengthen theGlobal Pesticide Project (GPP). In 1994, IFPAAWmerged with IUF and NUPAW became mem-ber of IUF which is composed of 334 tradeunions in 118 countries representing a com-bined membership of 2.6 million employed inagriculture and in the preparation and manu-facture of food and beverages, in hotels, restau-rant and catering services, and in all stages oftobacco processing.

The IUF integrated the study circle educa-tion project into its activities which meant thatNUPAW was to continue with its programmeof study circles. As indicated earlier, study cir-cle activities can yield rich results, so in 1997pesticides and other harzadous chemicals wereidentified as a major issue to be addressed.

IUF resolutions led to GPP

The 23rd IUF Congress expressed grave con-cern with re g a rd to the uncontrolled use ofchemicals, especially pesticides, all over theworld, particularly in developing countries.T h e re are reports from the agricultural workers’unions including NUPAW, which show thath u n d reds of thousands of agricultural workersface illness and death due to insufficient infor-mation on the lack of protective equipment anduse of materials which are known to be haz-a rdous to human health. They resolved that:• the IUF should work to ensure the creation

of health and safety forum at global, national,regional, local and work place level;

• the IUF should strive towards a global banof the pesticides on the “Dirty Dozen” list;and

• use should be made of the Pesticides ActionNetwork (PAN).

It was on the basis of the foregoing resolu-tions that IUF developed the Global Pesticides

50

Project to ensure that agricultural workersaround can share the results of research andexchange experiences.

Goal of GPP

The overall goal of IUF’s Global PesticidesProject is to build a national and regional unionto work on local, national, regional and inter-national pesticides issues within the context ofsustainable agriculture and linked to integratedmanagement, pollution prevention and genet-ically manipulated organism biotechnology.

In the first phase (1998-2000), GPP is focus-ing on four pilot African countries, Ghana, Tan-zania, Uganda and Zimbabwe and six affiliatedunions are involved, as follows:• General Agriculture Workers’ Union of

Ghana (GAWU);• National Union of Cooperative Movernent

Workers (NUCMW), Uganda;• Tanzania Plantation and Agricultural Work-

ers’ Union (TPAWU);• Uganda Hotels, Food and Allied Workers

Union (UHFAWU);• National Union of Plantation and Agricul-

tural Workers (NUPAW), Uganda; and• General Agricultural Plantation Workers of

Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ).

Target groups include grass-root tradeunion members, shop stewards, branch offi-cials, union committee members, nationalunion leaders and officers, pesticides policy-makers and environment/consumer organiza-tions.

The Project builds on the earlier trade unionESCs Project launched in Africa (Tanzania,Uganda, and Zimbabwe) which is linked tobilateral general health and safety activities inUganda and Zimbabwe carried out by theSwedish Agricultural Trade Unions (SLF).

GPP activities

The GPP is extending trade union ESCs toprovide training on pesticides, and on health,safety and environment issues (HSE). Asexplained earlier, ESCs are courses designed toprovide basic and advanced training for grass-root members working on farms and planta-tions, and for branch officials and shop stew-ards, on all aspects of trade union organization,recruitment and activity, with strong emphasison gender issues and on training of workers

and trade union members. In NUPAW, at least30 per cent of participants of any trade unioneducation activity must be women. Special pro-grammes for women only are also organized.There are 80 active study circle leaders inNUPAW, including women, who are continuingwith the programme.

Bilateral activities

The Swedish Agricultural Workers (SLF) areengaged in bilateral cooperation with sometrade unions in Africa, for exampleSLF branch1 has been involved in bilateral activities in thefield of health and safety with General Agri-culture and Plantation Workers of Zimbabwe(GAPWZ) for over ten years. Similarly, SLFbranch 5 has been cooperating with NUPAWand NUCMU of Uganda. SLF branch 5 startedcooperation and solidarity activities withNUPAW in 1997. Since 1998, it has assistedNUPAW in capacity building for general healthand safety activities. It has provided trainingfor study circle leaders, branch officials andshop stewards, and study materials and equip-ment to strengthen health and safety trainingfor NUPAW members.

SLF Programme: Training activities

The training programme was implementedin three steps; 40 study circle leaders wereselected to participate in the training pro-gramme.

Step One – two weeks

At this stage the 40 participants were taughtabout health and safety and its importance.Since agricultural workers work and live in thesame areas, part of the training aimed at devel-oping awareness of living conditions – theexternal environment, water, sanitation,hygiene and health. Such training was impor-tant because some illnesses which affect work-ers and their families are caused by poor sani-tation, lack of hygiene and poor housekeeping.

With regard to working conditions, partici-pants were taught the FASE method (Find –Analyse – Solve – Evaluate). This method, asindicated, involves four stages: drawing up aninventory of hazardous working conditionsafter identifying the problems; suggesting solu-tions; carrying out an evaluation to find outwhether or not the problem is solved; in theevent that it was not solved, take another courseof action. Other areas covered included the

51

study of national legislation on safety andhealth and collective agreement in force. In thecase of NUPAW, health and safety problemswere inventoried according to the followingcategories:• ergonomic;• dust;• noise and vibrations, their effects on the

body, ears in particular, and protective mea-sures; and

• chemicals and solvents, their effects onworkers’ health and preventive measures.

Activities also included field visits to thesugar factory and the plantations and anassignment desgined to apply the FASEmethod in Step Two of the course.

Step Two – one week

During this phase, the participants had topresent a report based on the assignment givenin Step One for discussions. Then they weretaught first aid; accident prevention; how tocontrol fire explosions and deal with electricalhazards; to wear adequate protective clothing;and measure light and noise with digital equip-ment. At the end of Step Two, participants wereto practise what they had learnt using study cir-cle methodology to enable them to spreadknowledge of health and safety to all the groupsinvolved in the study circles.

Step Three – one week

Only 15 selected study circles participatedin this step. They received training since theirrole was to help set up health and safety com-mittees at all levels of the union structure; drawup and implement the union’s health and safetyeducation and training programmes; negotiateand take up health and safety issues withemployers and the Government; feed suchissues into the IUF network; reach out andinvestigate the health and safety problems fac-ing workers and use the findings to improvetheir condition. In a nutshell, they were toensure the implementation of NUPAW’s healthand safety policy. The areas covered in this thirdstep included:• drafting proposals for health and safety col-

lective bargaining agreements;• ILO Conventions on health, safety and envi-

ronment;• the functions of health and safety committees;

• the role of health and safety representatives;and

• planning and organizing health and safetycourses.

All these activities were carried out with theparticipation of health and safety experts fromSLF.

Issues raised during training

First, many agricultural workers do not real-ize that their work is dangerous.

There is general lack of awareness on thepart of the workers about the serious occupa-tional hazards in their work which threatentheir own health and safety, their families’health, as well as the society at large and theenvironment. In cases where workers do havesome degree of awareness of the dangers oftheir work, they usually lack the trainingneeded to reduce the risks involved andimprove working conditions by learningappropriate work habits.

Secondly, many workers, because ofpoverty, are forced to take risks and are oftenresigned. Working and living conditions onplantations are generally extremely poor. Sincethe workers are poor, they willingly accept anykind of job offer in order to avoid starvation.However, a major problem is the failure ofemployers to supply adequate and accessibleinformation to workers about the chemicalsthey use; nor do they provide the protectiveclothing needed to handle or use pesticides.Legislation on pesticides is also inadequate, noris any legislation governing the use of pesti-cides and pesticides poisoning enforced. Casesof chemical poisoning are notoriously underre-ported. Sprayers, pickers, weeders and allworkers who have been exposed to varyingdegrees of pesticides leave the fields withoutbeing able to wash up due to lack of facilities orclean water. They return home in the sameclothing worn at work, carrying the pesticidesto their homes and families. There is no sewagesystem for dwellings on the plantations andworkers’ homes seldom meet even the mini-mum housing requirements.

GPP intervention

Under the GPP programme, NUPAW hastried to address the above issues through thefollowing strategies:1. Health and safety committees are estab-

lished at all levels of NUPAW structures for

52

the purpose of implementing the union’shealth and safety policy.

2. Ongoing study circle education will spreadhealth and safety knowledge among theunion members participating in the studycircles.

3. The appointed National Coordinator onHealth, Safety and Environment overseesthe implementation of the GPP Project.

Implementing the GPP Project

As mentioned elsewhere, there is unbridleduse of chemicals, especially pesticides, all overthe world, particularly in the developing coun-tries. The use of pesticides not only endangersthe lives and health of consumers, agriculturalworkers and their children by causing cancersand birth defects, but also pollutes the envi-ronment, contaminating earth, air and water.

Information needs

While acknowledging the clear benefit thatchemicals provide to our daily lives, it is essen-tial to obtain comprehensive and reliable infor-mation on the chemicals we are to use in ord e rto be able to handle them in a safe and sustain-able way. Sound chemicals managementre q u i res adequate information on the nature ,uses, hazards/risks, effects, control and dis-posal of chemicals. It is not enough to know thatdata is available, but also to know where it canbe accessed most eff e c t i v e l y. Such informationis needed for the protection of human healthand the environment throughout the stages ofthe chemical life cycle from pro d u c t i o n / e x t r a c-tion/import, transport, storage and use thro u g hre-use, recycling, export and disposal. It is alsoneeded for policy- making, e.g. set log enviro n-ment standards with re g a rd to registration, re g-ulation etc., transport, emergency response, pre-vention of occupational accidents, and in thecontext of education and raising aware n e s s .

The National Health, Safety and Environ-ment Coordinators of the GPP projects inGhana, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe weretrained at The Pesticide Trust, London, in theareas of needs, sources, accessibility and uti-lization of information.

Information system on chemicalmanagement

In order to facilitate the flow of information,a system should be put in place. The benefit ofan information system is that it facilitates access,exchange and dissemination of informationwith re g a rd to chemical management for allstakeholders and makes it easier for those whoneed information to know where to obtain it.

Uses of information

Internally, the information accessed is usedby workers, the Health and Safety Committees,study circle leaders, branch officials, and tradeunion executives; nationally, by other tradeunions, government organizations, e.g. theMinistry of Agriculture, and by NGOs, e.g.National Environment Management Authority(NEMA). Internationally, such informationmay be accessed by the IUF Secretariat, IUFaffiliates, other international trade unions, orinternational agencies such as the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), the WorldHealth Organization (WHO), the InternationalLabour Organization (ILO), the Organizationof Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP).

Types of Information

Chemical-specific information

This should include the physical and chem-ical properties of a substance, its uses, humanand environmental exposure effects, emerg e n c ym e a s u res to counteract accidents/spillage, dis-posal methods, regulatory measures, tradename, common name, scientific name, activei n g redient formulation, and toxicity, etc.

Environmental information

This should include pollution release, trans-fer data, as well as information on persistence,biodegradability, bioaccumulation and possi-ble chemical reactions.

Worker-related information

This should include safety data sheets,safety measure and the safe use of pesticidesand equipment, easily understood safe han-dling instructions/pictograms. Other types ofinformation which need to be provided include

53

data on cases of poisoning and accidents, dataon use quantities, and types, as well as the geo-graphical area where such chemical pesticidesare used.

Trade-related information

This should include statistics of imports/exports; national production and formulationof chemicals; advice on safe transportation ofthese substances; and on labelling, packagingand storage methods; as well as where they areto be used.

Regulatory / legal information

This should include relevant national lawsenacted and/or enforced; regulations; and mat-ters pertaining to the ratification and implemen-tation of international labour Conventions andother agreements ratified by the Government.

Sources of information

Government Ministries, Uganda

Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Labour,Trade and Industry, Transport, National Envi -ronment Management Authority (NEMA),Labour Inspectorates.

Industry/agriculture

Companies produce material data sheets onthe products they produce and export and thesecontain valuable information with regard totheir effects on the safety and health of work-ers, emissions, and safe transport and handling.

Research and academic institutions

This source includes university and scien-tific research centres, libraries documentingresearch as well as international documenta-tion centres.

Public interest groups

Another vital source of information isthrough environmental NGO’s consumergroups and other public interest group.

Emergency response centres

Information can also be found in hospitalsand local clinics and public services (emer-gency and security) authorities which provide

information on cases of accidents incidents,poisoning spills, they can also provide adviceon symptoms and diagnosis, antidotes, treat-ment and care, prevention methods and clean-up measures.

International sources

• Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO)

FAO was founded in October 1945 and is thelargest autonomous agency with the UnitedNations system. FAO is active in dealing withfood and agricultural emergencies. It has awide range and comprehensive publications oncrop protection and pesticide issues.

• International Labour Organization(ILO)

ILO has a long-standing concern over healthand safety at the workplace and has produceda convention concerning safety in the use ofchemicals at work (ILO Convention No. 170).The ILO also participates in the InternationalProgramme on Chemical Safety (ICPS).

• World Health Organization (WHO)

Within the ambit of ICPS, WHO works withthe ILO and United Nations Environment Pro-gramme UNEPchemicals to produce the WHORecommended Classification of Pesticides by Haz-ard, providing a guide to the acute toxicity clas-sification of pesticide active ingredients andtheir formulations. WHO also works with ICPSto produce Environmental Health criteria seriesof rnonographs on pesticides, providing aguide to health and environmental hazards.With FAO, WHO is the joint sponsor of theCodex Alimentarius (Codex), which sets stan-dards for pesticides in food and produce.

• United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP)

UNEP has information on the followingprogrammes and projects e.g.• Global Environmental Epidemiology Net-

work;• Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry

(PRTR);• Prior Informed Consent (PIC);• Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); and

chemicals.

54

• Organization for EconomicCooperation Development (OECD)

The OECD has produced Guidelines for AidAgencies on Pest and Pesticides Management.

• CAB (Commonwealth AgriculturalBureaux) International

CAB is an international treaty of 37 Membercountries that provide services worldwide toagriculture. Its mission is to help improve wel-fare worldwide through dissemination/appli-cation and generation of scientific knowledgein support of sustainable development, withemphasis on agriculture, fore s t r y, human healthand the management of natural resources andwith particular attention to the needs of devel-oping countries.

• Pesticides Action Network (PAN)

PAN is an international coalition of volun-teer groups, civil society, NGOs and individu-als who advocate ecologically sound practicesin place of pesticides. PAN is also involved inlocal, national and international advocacywork like campaigning against the “DirtyDozen” and in efforts to promote sustainableagriculture and rural development.

There are many more international sourcesof information.

• Industry associations

Industry and Industry Associations canprovide information essential to sound chemi-cal management, for example, the Global CropProtection Federation (GCPF), formerly GIPAP(International Group of National Association ofManufacturers of Agrochemical Products) isthe principal worldwide representative body ofthe agrochemical industry. GCPF publishesposition papers, monographs on most of themajor pesticides issues and a regular newslet-ter. GCPF also runs nine Safe Use Projects inGuatemala, Kenya and Thailand.

New training needs

The Global Pesticides Project was devel-oped to support the implementation of two res-olutions adopted by the IUF Agricultural TradeGroup World Conference (1998) which urgedIUF affiliates to:1. Participate in the respective National Coor-

dinating Team developing the national pro-

file to asses the national infrastructure forthe management of chemicals plus any rel-evant action programme resulting from theprofile. This will help to ensure that thenational profile reflects the problems facingagricultural workers, their families andcommunities, as well as the measures to betaken by the Government and other relevantstakeholders,to address the problems high-lighted by the national profile.

2. (a) Press for speedy ratification of the Rot-terdam Convention on the Prior Infor-mal Consent (PIC) Procedure for certainHazardous Chemicals in InternationalTrade (1998)

(b) Support the IUF campaign to collect dataon pesticide user incidents systemati-cally (as per convention criteria) and toreport to the relevant government/PlCauthority in order to integrate the pesti-cides causing these incidents into the PICprocedure.

This situation has prompted NUPAW todraw up new strategies to adopt action plansas a follow up to the resolution. Although theGPPis building on the EAC activities, there arenew training needs identified as follows: 1. Safety in the use of chemicals;2. Identification, classification and labelling of

chemicals;3. Chemical Safety Data Sheets;4. Data Collection and Analysis, cases of pes-

ticides user incidents and severely haz-ardous formulations;

5. Integrated Pest Management Information.

Networking

NUPAW plans to strengthen networkingactivities within the union structures, with IUFstructures and international NGOs, e.g. PAN,Pesticide Trust, CABI, for the purpose of access-ing information and collecting educationalmaterials. Such networking can further bestrengthened with visits to organizations work-ing on pesticides, study tours, and affiliation toorganizations like PAN.

Information/documentation

NUPAW is striving to create a “clearinghouse” for dissemination of informationamong workers in terms of documents and

55

findings, action plans and other information,and more so create a data base for all records.

Available information technology: e-mail,CD ROM and Internet will facilitate the project.

Advocacy

Within its overall and continuing activity,NUPAW is advocating the Ugandan Govern-ment to implement the United Nations Confer-ence on Environment and Development(UNCED), the Earth Summit, Brazil 1992,Agenda 21, particularly Chapter 19, on Envi-ronmentally Sound Management of ToxicChemicals which includes development ofnational profiles to assess the national infor-mation structure for management of chemicalsand ratification of the PIC Convention.

Conclusion

The unbridled use of chemicals, especiallypesticides, causing illness and death amongagricultural workers due to insufficient infor-mation, lack of protective equipment and theuse of materials which are known to be haz-ardous to human health, compound alreadyexisting problems like low wages, poor hous-ing, lack of training and obsolete labour laws.The way forward must be for IUF and affiliatesto work on promoting sustainable agricultureand rural development through national cam-paigning, recruitment, organization and train-ing, raising awareness of the extent of the prob-lem, and collective action to improve thesituation.

56

A basic knowledge of the extent of pesticideuse in any country is the first step in ensuringa safe and healthy working environment foragricultural workers, and in promoting sus-tainable development in the agricultural sector.Developing a clear awareness of the issuesinvolved and the extent of occupational andenvironmental health effects, then using theknowledge gained for effective action to bringabout improvements, will provide a basis onwhich to develop local and national prioritiesand strategies for action.

Hazards may be aggravated

Evaluating the impact of pesticides in anyone country will depend on many factors. Theyinclude: the relative importance of the agricul-tural sector; how many people are engaged inagricultural work; land use patterns; the typesof crop cultivated; and the type and evolution ofpesticides used. Occupational and enviro n m e n-tal health effects of pesticide use will also dependon quantity and use patterns, the intrinsic toxi-city of individual pesticides and the degree ofindividual exposure, as defined by the mannerof application, the type of formulation, enviro n-mental mobility of the pesticide, etc. In addition,it must be re m e m b e red that any hazards re l a t-ing to the use of modern agricultural techniquesmay be aggravated by exposure to severe cli-matic conditions, great physical effort, stre n u o u sand irregular working hours, isolation, andother physical and social factors such as malnu-trition, low standards of living and inadequatelevels of community hygiene.

The population at risk

While the population at risk will obviouslyvary from country to country, depending on allthe above-mentioned factors, agriculture willalways be a high risk activity in terms of thesheer numbers of accidents and diseases

57

Pesticides in agriculture:the extent of the problem in Asia

Annie RiceInformation officer

CIS, SafeWorkILO, Geneva

Figure 1. Economically active populationin agriculture, 1998

among the workforce. Almost half of theworld’s labour force, or over 1.3 billion persons,work on the land. Eighty per cent of these areto be found in Asia, and two countries alone –China and India – account for over 60 per centof the world’s agricultural labour force, and for78 per cent of that of Asia (see Figure 1).

Although the proportion of the workforceengaged in agriculture is under 10 per cent inthe more developed countries of the region, inmost developing countries agriculture sup-ports a significant proportion of the workforce,as high as 60 per cent, and even over 90 per centin extreme cases such as Nepal (see Table 1).

Agriculture’s contribution to gross domes-tic product (GDP), although important, isinvariably much smaller. As countries becomericher, agriculture’s share of GDP shrinks andfewer people work on the land. Thus, theworld’s economically active population work-ing in agriculture is expected to fall from 47.1per cent in 1996 to 42 per cent by the year 2000,and to 38 per cent by 2010. Even so, in the coun-tries of South Asia the agricultural labour forceis still expected to grow and its share projectedto remain above 50 per cent. These countries

Table 1. The labour force in agriculture

Percentage Agricultureof labour force value addedin agriculture as per cent1998 a of GDP,

1998 b

Australia 4.7 3Bangladesh 57.7 23Cambodia 70.8 51China 68 18Fiji 40.8 24.5 c

India 60.5 25Indonesia 49.7 16Japan 4.6 2Republic of Korea 11.3 7LaoPDR 76.7 52Malaysia 20.2 12Mongolia 25.7 33Nepal 93.2 40New Zealand 9.2 8.1 c

Pakistan 47.9 25Papua New Guinea 75.2 28Philippines 40.8 17Sri Lanka 46.1 22Thailand 58 11Viet Nam 68.2 26World 45.6 5

Sources: a FAOSTAT, 1999; b World Bank, 1999; c 1987figures, The Economist, 1991.

and those of East Asia, where agriculturalworkers still make up 47 per cent of the work-force, will remain predominantely agriculturalover the next 15 to 20 years.

While over half the population may work ordepend on the agricultural sector in many of thecountries of the region, it also happens that agri-c u l t u re is a sector traditionally neglected as aresult of the emphasis placed on industrial devel-opment and on the rapid rate of urbanization.

Land use

Another factor that is important in defin i n gwho is at risk, and where, is land use. Overall,only just over 11 per cent of the world’s land are ais used for arable farming, including permanentc rops such as tea and coffee. But for individualcountries, these proportions can be much gre a t e r.For example, 66.8 per cent of the total land are aof Bangladesh is given over to arable farming,potentially exposing huge numbers of workersand rural communities to increased risk fro mpoisonings from agrochemicals. Permanent pas-t u re, on the other hand, dominates a number ofcountries in the region, reaching almost 75 percent of the land area of Mongolia, for instance.This type of land use does not re q u i re the sameamount of input in agricultural chemicals, sodoes not entail the same magnitude of risk in thisrespect as for arable farming (see Table 2).

58

Table 2. Land use as percentage of total land area

Arable crops, 1997a Permanent crops, 1997 a Permanent pasture, 1996 b

Australia 6.9 0.03 53.9Bangladesh 60.8 2.5 4.6Cambodia 20.9 0.6 n.a.China 13.3 1.2 42.8Fiji 10.9 4.6 9.4India 54.5 2.66 3.8Indonesia 9.9 7.2 6.5Japan 10.4 1 1.7Republic of Korea 17.5 2 0.9LaoPDR 3.5 0.22 n.d. c

Malaysia 5.5 17.6 0.8Mongolia 0.8 – 74.7Nepal 20.3 0.5 12.2New Zealand 5.8 6.4 50.5Pakistan 27.3 0.73 6.4Papua New Guinea 0.13 1.35 n.a.Philippines 17.2 14.7 4.2Sri Lanka 13.4 15.8 6.8Thailand 33.4 6.6 1.5Viet Nam 17.4 4.7 1.5World 10.6 1 n.a.

Sources: a FAOSTAT, 1999; b FAOSTAT, 1997; c no data.

Agricultural productivity and new risks

Agricultural production in the countries ofAsia has grown the fastest in the world, at anaverage of 3.2 per cent per year during 1982–92and continuing for many countries, although,as Table 3 shows, this growth is stabilizing inlater years for the majority. Growth is partiallydue to technical changes, such as increased areaof land under irrigation and use of tractors andfertilizers, all of which are indicators of agri-cultural efficiency and reflect the degree ofinvestment in agricultural improvement.

Asia has the greatest share of arable landunder irrigation in the world, an average of37per cent, but reaching 80 per cent in Pakistan.Even in damper climates irrigation can beimportant, such as in Japan where 61 per centof the arable land is irrigated. At 5.3 per centper year, it also has the fastest growth in fertil-izer consumption. Such advances have allowedAsia to almost triple its yields of staple cropsfrom 1.1 tonne per hectare to 3 tonnes perhectare since the early 1950s. Part of this trend,one which is a feature of Asian agricultural pro-ductivity, is the so-called “Green Revolution”,

where new varieties of crops for enhanced pro-duction have boosted incomes of poor farmersand the landless. A survey in southern India,for example, showed that between 1973 and1994 the average real income of small farmersincreased by 90 per cent and that of the land-less by 125 per cent. Calorie intakes for smallfarmers and the landless rose from 58 to 81 percent and protein intakes from 103 to 115 percent. But these new high-yielding crops alsohave their down side: their demand for labour-intensive cultivating techniques and thirst forwater and agrochemicals in the form of fertil-izers and pesticides expose agricultural work-ers to new hazards.

Agrochemicals

The use of pesticides is increasingly a regu-lar feature of agricultural work. They are, bydefinition, poisons which are used to destroy orcontrol unwanted organisms, usually specieswhich otherwise might cause severe economiclosses to crops or be responsible for the trans-mission of disease. Since they are biocides, theyare intrinsically potentially dangerous to other

59

Table 3. Agricultural productivity and efficiency

Average annual Number of Fertilizer use Irrigated landgrowth agriculture tractors per (1 000 metric tonnes) c (as percentage value added 10 km2 of arable land)(per cent) a

1980-90 1990-98 1988 b 1987 1997 1979-81 a 1997 c

Australia 3.3 1.1 0.7 1349 2 260 3.5 5.1Bangladesh 2.7 1.5 0.5 706 1 072 17.1 44.8Cambodia n.d.d 2.2 n.d. 6 8 4.9 7.1China 5.9 4.3 2.0 22 687 35 988 45.1 38.3Fiji n.d. n.d. n.d. 21.5 19 1.4 1.1India 3.1 3.4 3.9 8 822 16 195 22.8 33.5Indonesia 3.4 2.8 0.4 2 265 2 463 16.2 15.5Japan 1.3 -2 365.5 2 037 1 510 62.6 62.9Republic of Korea 2.8 2.1 8.9 840 906 59.6 60.5LaoPDR 3.4 4.5 n.d. 0.5 3.5 15.4 19.2Malaysia 3.8 2 2.7 699 1 200 6.7 4.5Mongolia 1.4 1.9 0.1 24 2 3 6.4Nepal 4 2.3 0.7 54 109 22.5 38.2New Zealand 3.8 2.2 5.6 370 691 5.2 8.7Pakistan 4.3 3.8 6.8 1 720 2 659 n.d. 81.4Papua New Guinea 1.8 4.1 n.d. 14.7 13 n.d. n.d.Philippines 1 1.5 2.2 486 810 14 16.3Sri Lanka 2.2 1.5 12.3 206 210 28.3 31.8Thailand 3.9 3.1 6.5 587 1 478 16.4 24.5Viet Nam n.d. n.d. 5.3 421 1 571 24.1 31.9World 2.7 1.2 n.d. 139 589 137 254 17.8 18.8

Sources: a World Bank, 1999; b The Economist, 1991; c FAOSTAT, 1999; d no data.

species, including humans. It is therefore notsurprising that these and other agrochemicalsconstitute one of the major occupational riskscausing poisonings and deaths and, in certaincases, work-related cancers.

Thousands of deaths every yearfrom pesticides

Pesticide-related illnesses both in devel-oped and in developing countries are notori-ously under-reported, but the ILO estimatesthat as much as 14 per cent of all occupationalinjuries and 10 per cent of fatalities in the agri-cultural sector are due to exposure to pesti-cides. This would put the figure for pesticide-related deaths for agricultural workers at about17,000 per year. While developing countriesconsume about 20 per cent of the world pro-duction of pesticides, they are home to about 70per cent of the total number of acute poison-ings, or more than 1.1 million cases per year.The World Health Organization, on the otherhand, places the total cases of pesticide poi-soning at between 2 and 5 million per year, ofwhich 40,000 are fatal (see Table 4).

China and India firstfor pesticide poisonings

The countries of Asia, including Japan andAustralia, consume about 24 per cent of theworld’s production of pesticides (see Figure 2).But, because the region has the main concen-tration of agricultural workers, it follows thatin numerical terms the majority of the world’spesticide poisonings will be found in the devel-oping countries of Asia, and in particular inChina and India (see Table 4).

Figure 2. Pesticide use by region

Source: UNIDO, 1993.

The magnitude of occupational and envir-onmental health risks associated with exposureto pesticides will vary according to the type ofpesticide used, quantities and use patterns e.g.type of crop cultivated and the mode of appli-cation, special groups at risk and climaticconditions.

The majority of pesticide operations aredirected at the control of insects, weeds andplant pathogens, with the result that the mainclasses in use today are insecticides, herbicidesand fungicides. Whatever its class, hardly anypesticide will ever be sufficiently specific in itsaction to exclude damage to species other thanthe target. Herbicides are among the most spe-cific, while most insecticides can rarely distin-guish between target pests, beneficial insects,large mammals and even humans. Fungicidesgenerally lie between the two.

Pathogens and insectsthrive in the tropics

Different countries will show different char-acteristics in terms of their consumption of spe-cific types of pesticides. Hence developingcountries, especially those with tropical or sub-tropical climates which favour the build-up ofpathogens and insects harmful to agriculturaland plantation crops, are big users of insecti-cides, generally the most harmful pesticides tohumans. The highly developed agriculturalindustries of Japan and Australia, on the otherhand, are big users of herbicides as part of theirefforts to increase crop yields. Japan and Koreastand out in the region for their use of fungi-cides, probably due to the more humid climatesin these countries which is often associatedwith plant disease.

While the use of pesticides in developingcountries is much less than in industrializedcountries, it is expected to increase in the for-mer at a faster rate. Pesticide sales increased by28 per cent over the 1990s in these countries.Furthermore, it is expected that insecticideswill continue to represent by far the greatestproportion of pesticide class used in somecountries of Asia.

Another factor which influences the extentof use of certain pesticides is the type of cro pthey are supposed to protect. Cash crops, espe-cially plantation crops, form the main marketfor pesticides in developing countries; chemi-cals are being increasingly used in subsistence-type agriculture where the potential for workerand public exposure may be greater due to arelative ignorance of the effects and a lack of

60

61

Table 4. Regional use of pesticides by class, percentage of the market share, 1990

Herbicides Fungicides Insecticides

North America 33 28 18Europe 35 52 29Asia 15 6 30Latin America 9 7 9Rest of world 8 7 14

Source: UNIDO, Industry and Development Global Report 1993.

p rotection. In terms of market value, most pes-ticides are aimed at only about ten major cro p sin the world – maize, wheat, rice, cotton,soybean, sugar beet, vines, general fruit andvegetables (see Figure 3).

In monetary terms, fruit and vegetablesrank as the number one pesticides-demandingc rop. From an environmental point of view,h o w e v e r, the amount of pesticide used per unitharvest crop per area (the use index) may bem o re relevant. In this case, cotton ranks asnumber one as it consumes twice as much pes-ticide as soybean and eight times as much asw h e a t .

It is therefore very important in terms ofpotential health and environmental impact toknow what sort of pesticide is used where andon what sort of crop. Since it is known that fruitand vegetables consume most pesticides it fol-lows that the countries of Asia and the Pacificwill be major users, as they account for about45 per cent of world vegetable production.Vegetable production is dominated by China,which alone produces over a quarter of theworld’s vegetables, and by India, which isthe second biggest producer of vegetables,although less than half that of China. Asia alsoaccounts for about 25 per cent of fruit produc-tion, with India being the third biggest fruitproducer in the world (after Brazil and UnitedStates). The region also accounts for almost halfof cereal production, dominated again byChina, India and the rice-growing countries ofSouth and East Asia.

Rice in Japan, more than halfof total pesticides

Wide discrepancies can exist among coun-tries in the use of pesticides for specific crops.For example, while Japan accounts for only 1per cent of the world’s planted area for rice pro-duction, it uses more than half of total worlduse of herbicides and fungicides and nearly halfof the world’s use of insecticides for this crop.

Figure 3. Main crop and pesticide combinations,billions US$, 1990

Source: UNIDO, 1993.

The extent of health effects from pesticideexposures will also depend to a large degree onthe toxicity of a particular pesticide in use inany area. Discounting the naturally occurringpesticidal chemicals, bacterial and other organ-ism biocides (which represent only a minorshare of pesticide use), most pesticides belongto only four major groups which dominate themarket: organochlorines, organophosphates,carbamates and pyrethroids.

The four major groups

Organochlorines

These were the first synthetic organic pes-ticides to be developed, in the 1940s. They actby interfering with normal functioning of thenervous system. Examples include aldrin,dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, DDT, HCH, endo-sulfan, heptachlor and methoxychlor. They areless widely used now, mainly because manyinsect species have developed resistance tothem, because their persistence in the enviro n-ment has made them unacceptable, and alsobecause they are stored in the fatty tissues ofhumans and other species and can there f o rebioaccumulate in the food chain. These last twofactors have led to severe restrictions and evenbans on their use in some countries. But thesem e a s u res have not stopped their use in somedeveloping countries, mainly because of theircheap price, indigenous availability, “dump-ing” by industrialized countries, and, iro n i-c a l l y, their broad spectrum of activity and long-term eff i c a c y. Just ten years ago, DDT stillaccounted for 70 per cent of all pesticide use inIndia, even though it has been banned,restricted or withdrawn from sale in more than40 countries of the world.

Organophosphates

Concern for the environmental effects ofo rganochlorines led to a shift towards lesse n v i ronmentally persistent org a n o p h o s p h a t epesticides. These compounds are not stored inthe body, but their effects can accumulate.Early organophosphates, such as parathion,tended to have similar properties to thee a r l y nerve gases developed for warfare ands o w e re extremely toxic to mammals andhumans. Later developments pro d u c e do rganophosphates with lower toxicity forhumans. Common examples include m a l a t h i o n ,dichlorvos, diazinon, fenitrothion, brom o p h o s ,temephos, etc.

Carbamates

These pesticides act in a similar way too rganophosphates but are not stored in fatty tis-sue and show no accumulation of effect. Exam-ples include aldicarb, methomyl, pro p o x u r,bendiocarb, carbaryl and fenthiocarb.

Pyrethroids

This class of pesticide was developed fromthe naturally occurring pyrethrins. Bothpyrethrum and the synthetic pyrethroids areattractive in that they are relatively non-persis-tent in the environment and relatively non-toxic to mammals. This relative safety, togetherwith outstanding insecticidal activity, has ledto the pyrethroids becoming the most rapidlyexpanding of all insecticide classes. Examplesinclude bioallethrin, cyhalothrin, cyperme-thrin, fenvalerate, permethrin, resmethrin andbioresmethrin.

If occupational and environmental healthproblems are directly related to the amountsand types of pesticides used, then all these fac-tors may be taken as indicators of the extent offuture problems unless measures are taken toavoid or reduce both pesticide use and partic-ularly use of the more toxic varieties.

Pesticide stocks

A particular health and environment prob-lem in many developing countries is the largestock of obsolete and highly toxic pesticides,much of it donated through foreign aid pro-grammes. The Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO) estimates that several countries inAsia have stocks in excess of 5,000 tonnes each,some of which may be over 30 years old. Dueto the absence of efficient and environmentally-sound disposal facilities, notably high-temper-ature incinerators, stocks are constantlyincreasing.

In many countries pesticide containers arekept in the open where they deteriorate andleak their contents into the soil and water. Somesuch pesticides, says the FAO, are so toxic thata few grams could poison thousands of peopleor contaminate a large area.

Donor countries, aid agencies, agro c h e m i c a lcompanies and recipient governments are allresponsible for the steady accumulation ofobsolete pesticides in developing countries. Thelong-term solution to costly disposal pro b l e m s(disposal costs vary from US$3,500 to US$5,000per tonne) lies in preventing accumulation in

62

the first place by keeping stocks as small as pos-sible and by drastic reduction of pesticide use.

The extent of individual exposureto pesticides

Individuals can be exposed to pesticides inseveral ways – through handling the chemicalsat work, through mixing and/or application,by being in or near the area where pesticidesare applied, by drinking or eating contami-nated produce, etc. To be able to reduce expo-sure, therefore, several factors have to be takeninto account.

Ways to reduceexposure

Formulations

A great many formulations of pesticidesexist – sprays, fogs, mists, dusts, baits, concen-trates, granules, etc. Sprays, fogs, mists anddusts are much less easy to contain and riskcontaminating a wide area and exposing morepeople to direct and indirect hazards. This riskcan be reduced to some extent by the use ofgranular formulations, and even more so by theuse of planting machinery that can bury thegranules into the seed furrow.

Application equipment

Just as there are different formulations thereare also different methods of application of pes-ticides that can greatly influence the extent ofexposure. Obviously, the implantation of pel-lets or granules can be highly targeted, as wellas relatively risk-free to the operator; but in thevast majority of agricultural practices pesti-cides are applied in spray form, either from theair, or from the ground by tractor-mountedmachinery or by individual workers using aknapsack sprayer. Contamination is muchmore likely by these techniques.

If crops are sprayed by hand, as is the casein the vast majority of agricultural workplacesin the developing countries of Asia, then therisk to operators is considerable. This is madeworse by the fact that the technology used tospray pesticides in many countries reflectstechnical standards of over 40 years ago. Inaddition, much of the spraying equipment is inextremely poor condition and many farmersstill believe in “high volumes, high pressureand high doses” as the most appropriate wayto apply pesticides.

Not complyingwith quality standards

The FAO published a press release in 1997highlighting, among other things, the state ofaffairs concerning pesticide spraying tech-niques in Asia. The organization estimated thatin Pakistan about 50 per cent of applied pesti-cides are wasted due to poor spraying machin-ery and inappropriate application. In India,high levels of pesticide residues in food crops,compared to the world average, are reported –an indication of inappropriate application.Although India has national standards govern-ing spray equipment, there are still many smallmanufacturers serving local needs who do notcomply with quality standards.

No legislation, standardsor training

The FAO also quoted a study in Indonesiathat showed that 58 per cent of manual spray-ing equipment leaked. In Malaysia, a lack oftraining, improper maintenance of sprayingequipment and insufficient protective clothingall contribute to pesticide poisoning amongspray operators as well as excessive pesticideresidues in water. A report on Viet Nam saidthat the supply of safe spraying equipment waslimited, mainly due both to the absence ofnational legislation and standards and a lack oftraining of operators.

Economic and culturalbackground

The technology allowing safer and moreefficient use of pesticides exists today but itsapplication depends on the technical capacityand the economic and cultural background ofa country. To improve application and reduceexposures to pesticides, it will therefore be nec-essary to introduce good, standard qualityspray equipment, education of farmers andoperator training.

If crops are sprayed from the air, by heli-copter- or airplane-mounted sprayers, the riskto operators may be less, but environmentaland public contamination will be considerablyhigher. Aerial spraying creates spray driftwhich may affect very large areas and wholecommunities. Depending on the height abovethe ground at which spraying is carried out,turbulence, wind speed, etc., often less thano n e -half of the applied spray falls inside thetarget field.

63

Special groups at risk

If all the above factors determine the poten-tial extent of exposure to occupational andenvironmental health hazards in the agricul-tural community, then the actual impact will befelt most on certain groups. The most vulnera-ble groups are found among the rural poor, infamily subsistence agriculture, in plantations asdaily paid labourers, seasonal or migrant work-ers without land, women and child labourers(see Table 5).

The rural poor

One of the distinguishing features of agri-cultural work is that it is carried out in an essen-tially rural environment where working andliving conditions are interwoven and enviro n-mental factors play a determining role. Envir-onmental pollution from pesticides causes pub-lic health hazards to workers’ families and theircommunities as well as to the workers them-selves, and to farm animals. In developing coun-tries in particular, a large number of rural work-ers live in extremely primitive conditions, oftenisolated, without adequate food, water supplyand sanitation systems, or access to health ser-vices. These rural communities often lack theeducation and information needed to do some-thing about the health hazards they face.

Casual and migrant workers

Temporary work in agriculture is character-ized by casual forms of labour, precariousworking conditions and little or no social pro-tection. It must be remembered that the bulk of

wage employment in agriculture in Asia is gen-erally of a daily, occasional or seasonal nature.Such wage labourers may be either fully land-less or from smallholding peasant households.Temporary workers may be more exposed to“dirty” operations than are other agriculturalworkers, and have less training to carry outtasks. Migrant workers may also have languageand cultural difficulties at work and in theirdaily lives that make them ill-equipped to helpprevent exposures to occupational hazards inthe first place and to receive effective treatmentin the second. Mobile and seasonal workersmay suffer from multiple chemical exposuresthat accumulate from different workplaces.

Women

In Asia, over 80 per cent of the workforce inagriculture is made up of women. Doubly bur-dened by their family responsibilities and theiragricultural work, women’s work loads areindeed heavy. Furthermore, their incomesremain low as they depend on the sale of pri-mary products, the prices of which are out oftheir control.

Twice as many women now

A significant change in the past few yearshas been the number of women in the wagedagricultural workforce. In the Asia and Pacificregion, their presence has doubled since 1980 tonearly 45 per cent of the waged employment inthe sector. Globally, this figure is about 20 percent. However, such work is more often thannot seasonal, with all the attendant increasedrisk of exposure to pesticides and machinery.

64

Table 5. Occupational status of the agricultural population in selected countries(percentage)

Country Employees and own-account Wage workers Unpaid family workers workers

Bangladesh 38.6 39.1 21.9Fiji 59.5 4.5 35.7Indonesia 48 12 40Japan 49.1 11.5 39.9Republic of Korea 58.4 6.9 34.6Malaysia 46.3 27.5 26.1New Zealand 37.1 57.6 5.2Pakistan 53.9 9.5 36.5Philippines 51.8 20.2 27.9Sri Lanka 34.6 43.7 21.5Thailand 34.1 9 56.8

Source: ILO. 1996. Wage workers in agriculture. Conditions of employment and work , Geneva.

The health impact of pesticides may also begreater on women for a variety of reasons: theirgreater burden of body fat in which certain pes-ticides have a tendency to accumulate, theirreproductive capacity, and, if exposed duringpregnancy, the risk of effects on the unbornchild. Women may also be more susceptible tothe effects of pesticides due to malnutrition andto exhaustion.

Child labour

Child labour is pervasive in agriculture,both in smallholdings and in large commercialfarms. In spite of improvements and nationallaws that prohibit child labour being adoptedin a number of countries, the problem persistsboth as a result and as a manifestation ofpoverty, especially in the agricultural sector.

Data on the prevalence of child labour ina g r i c u l t u re are few, but recent ILO surveyssuggest that there are at least 120 million chil-d ren between the ages of five and 14 who arefully at work, and about 250 million if those forwhom work is a secondary activity areincluded. Of these, 61 per cent are to be foundin Asia, that is, over 152 million childre n ,o f whom 73 million are fully at work (seeTa b l e 6 ) .

A far higher percentage of child labourersare rural rather than urban children, and agri-culture accounts for 77 per cent of all cases ofeconomically active children under the age of15. In Bangladesh, for example, fully 82 per centof the country’s 6.1 million economically activechildren work in agriculture. It is also a sectorwhere children comprise a significant part ofthe total labour force, close to one-third of the

65

agricultural workforce in some developingcountries. These rural children are more likelyto start work earlier (at 5, 6 or 7 years old) andwork longer days and hours than urban childlabourers. Girls are particularly likely to startwork earlier and be denied access to educationin the process.

A modern formof slavery

Many children have been, and are, active ina g r i c u l t u re from an early age as part of familylife, helping out their parents in the fields andwith various chores. Many, often as young asseven or eight, work for a wage or as part of afamily team on large-scale enterprises pro d u c-ing for export. Often they are not formallyh i red although they work piece-rate or onquota systems.

Large numbers of children are forced towork in the agricultural sector, and farmingmay account for more forced child labour thandoes manufacturing. Debt bondage, at its mostcommon in rural areas in South Asia, is a mod-ern form of slavery whereby a person offerstheir labour, or that of a child, in return for amoney advance or credit. Sometimes only thechild is pledged, becoming a commodity inwhat can only be one of the worst processes ofchild exploitation.

Young children routinelyexposed

But whatever the form of exploitation,many working children face significant thre a t sto their health and safety, even on small fam-ily farms which produce much or most of theagricultural produce of a country. Small farmsa re as likely to misuse chemicals as are larg e rc o m m e rcial enterprises. A c c o rding to dataf rom Sri Lanka, child deaths from pesticidepoisoning on farms and plantations areg reater than from childhood diseases such asmalaria and tetanus. Even if not actually work-ing, babies and very young children are ro u-tinely exposed to the threat of pesticides asthey accompany their mothers in the field. Nocountry can aff o rd to keep sending its childre nto work rather than to school, and no family,if not out of economic necessity, would wantto see its children suffer in the fields from anearly age. Greater commitment on the part ofgovernments, employers and trade unions isre q u i red to address the issue of child labour ina g r i c u l t u re .

Table 6. 10-14-year-olds at work(per cent of total age group)

Country 10-14 year-olds at work(per cent of total age group)

Bangladesh 30.12China 11.55India 14.37Indonesia 9.55Japan 0Republic of Korea 0Malaysia 3.16Nepal 45.18Pakistan 17.67Philippines 8.04Thailand 16.22

Understanding the economicsof child labour

The traditional response to the problem hasbeen to improve legislation, but more oftenthan not in developing regions, effective legalprotection does not extend beyond urban areasand the formal sector. Protecting children onsmallholdings must therefore rely on othermeasures such as community education aboutthe alternatives to child work, in particular theimportance of education. Schooling for thepoor, especially girls, is the single most effec-tive way to stem the flow of children intoexploitative agricultural work. A better under-standing of the economics of child labour inagriculture would assist in the design of betterpolicies and initiatives to reduce the hazardsrelated to child labour and thereby towards theelimination of such forms of employment.

Bibliography

Centre for Our Common Future: Agenda for Change: Aplainlanguage version of Agenda 21 and the other Rio agreements(Geneva, 1993).

FAOSTAT: Statistical data available from the United NationsFood and Agriculture Organization’s database at

h t t p : / / a p p s . f a o . o rg / c g i - b i n / n p h - d b . p l ? s u b s e t = a g r i c u l t u re .Fyfe, A: Bitter harvest: Child labour in agriculture (Geneva, ILO,

1996).ILO: Wage workers in agriculture: Conditions of employment and

work (Geneva 1996).Short, K.: Quick poison, slow poison: pesticide risk in the lucky

country (Australia, 1994). UNIDO: Industry and Development Global Report 1993.

UNDP: Human Development Report 1999.

World Bank: 1999. Entering the 21st century: World Develop-ment Report 1999/2000.

—. 1998. Knowledge for Development: World Development Report1998/1999.

66

Latin America is a vast region of the A m e r i-can continent divided into two geographicala reas, namely Central America (Costa Rica, ElS a l v a d o r, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaraguaand Panama) plus Mexico, and South A m e r i c a( A rgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,E c u a d o r, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay andVe n e z u e l a ) .

Its total area is over two million hectare s ,m o re than 8 per cent of which is used for farm-ing in the normal course. This percentage variesa c c o rding to the country, ranging from 2 per cent(Bolivia, Guyana) to 36 per cent (El Salvador).

Its population was 465 million in 1998, or 8per cent of the world’s population. That pro-portion will remain constant until 2010 at aworld population growth rate of 13.1 per centand should be sustained by economic develop-ment and increased food production.

Economic trends

The world’s economically active populationis 2,865 million, 1,307 million of which areengaged in agriculture (FAOSTAT, 1999). Theirproportion of the overall workforce is decliningslowly as a result of an estimated 0.6 per centslowdown in growth between 1900 and 2000,and a projected 0.4 per cent between 2000 and2010 (ILO, 1996). Yet their absolute number con-tinues to grow, as does the land area undercultivation.

Increases in many export prices

Broadly speaking, economic growth indeveloping countries has been influenced byboth external and domestic factors. The exter-nal factors have been the economic upturn in

industrialized countries that has made for alarge influx of capital, the liberalization of inter-national trade and the increases in a range ofexport prices (FAO, 1996). The domestic factorshave been socio-political and macroeconomicstabilization, a diminished government role inthe economy and the opening up of foreigntrade. These changes have made it possible toimport goods that boost not only productivitybut also investment in education to foster effi-ciency and technological development.

Forging strategic alliances

The globalization of markets based onincreased international trade and more modernmeans of communication has led to financialand political interdependence among nations.The corollary to the new distribution of powerhas been the formation of strategic alliances inorder to create regional protection mechanismssuch as the Central American Common Market,the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR),the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) and the Andean Pact.

Deterioration of the situationof workers

Yet agriculture is feeling the effects of thesechanges, like all the other sectors with less pro-nounced technological development andwhere the results of production are less pre-dictable and entail a low return per unit. Owingto international competition, prices are set bythe lowest bidder, which ultimately deregu-lates the labour market. The consequence is thedeterioration of the political and economic sit-uation of workers, as well as their occupational

67

Prevention must be the guiding principlewith respect to accidents and occupational diseases:

Workers must be informed as to hazardsand be trained to incorporate preventive measures

into the performance of their activities

Heloísa FarzaConsultant on Health in Agriculture

SafeWork Programme ILO

health and safety. The free trade agreementsframed by economic parameters have led to:• flexibility in the world of work, with a high

degree of geographical worker mobility,changing methods of production, the con-clusion of precarious contracts and the indi-vidualization of labour relations favouredby the intervention of employment agents(Bronstein, 1997);

• the technological restructuring of agricul-tural enterprises to speed up growth;

• competition based on maximum profitabil-ity, the elimination of subsidies and labourspecialization, leading to the demise ofsmall and medium-sized enterprises andthe preponderance of the latifundios1.

Agricultural production

The early 1990s witnessed the stagnation ofper capita world agricultural output and theworsening of the world food deficit; the numberof countries in difficulty rose from 15 in 1994 to29 in 1997 (FAO, 1996), over half of them beingin A f r i c a .

In spite of this stagnation, the countries ofLatin America maintained a level of productionin excess of population growth, though beingheavily dependent on farm exports, their pro-duction was oriented towards the external mar-ket, which determines what is grown and itssale price. The 1990s policy of diversificationdesigned to foster export products with higherincome and price elasticity (ornamental plants,pineapples) than traditional products did notsucceed in all the countries.

The world’s poorestare agricultural workers

In Latin America, the population engaged infarming is largely rural. The concentration ofland and mechanization, compounded by glob-alization, have quickened the impoverishmentof this population and its exodus towardsurban fringes where it is increasing the alreadyswollen ranks of the jobless and exacerbatingliving conditions (see Figure 1).

Generally speaking, most of the world’spoor are farm workers (ILO, 1990). The FAOand the Economic Commission for Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean (ECLAC) have demon-strated that between 1980 and 1990, the region’stotal indigent population grew by 60 millionand, even if the phenomenon is essentially anurban one, its impact and severity are stillgreater in rural areas (World Bank, 1980, 1982).

68

Figure 1. Distribution of agricultural workersby category in Central America

Limited access to services

The living and working conditions of theagricultural population are closely interrelated.The isolation of places of residence limits accessto most services in particular, to drinkingw a t e r, public cleansing facilities, public trans-port, health services, and technical orientationservices, among others. The unhealthiness ofthe surroundings is affecting not only smallproperties but also large enterprises owing tothe employment of casual labour and migrants,often without legal, social and trade union cov-erage (Vanackere, 1988; Forastieri, 1997).

Women, the elderly and children

Because of the migration of young mentowards the cities, agricultural work is fallingincreasingly upon women, the elderly and chil-

Source: ILO: Project RLA/93/MO3/DAN – Costa Rica, El Sal-vador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama (unpub-lished document, Geneva, 1998).Quoted in: ILO, 1999, Safety and health in agriculture,Report VI(I) to the International Labour Conference, 88thSession (2000), Geneva, 1999.

dren. Their access to training and informationas to the risks involved is practically non-exis-tent and they suffer the worst consequences ofpoor working conditions. Women alreadymake up 40 per cent of the sector’s workforceand, of the 15 million children on the job mar-ket in Latin America and the Caribbean, 56 percent are already in the agricultural sectorbetween the ages of 5 and 7 years of age (ILO,1996a; Forastieri, 1997). In 1989, 20 to 25 per centof Brazil’s rural workers were under 18 years ofage (ECLAC, 1993) and the proportion of thoseunder 10 was significant (ILO/IPEC, 1997a).Again in Brazil, 28,000 children were workingin the production of coal, sugar cane and sisalat the close of 1997 (ILO/IPEC, 1997b).

Land sales, insufficient wagesand worsening poverty

The departure of the men is leading to aslowdown in the technological and commercialchanges appropriate to the present economicsetting and to a loss of competitiveness. Theresult is increased sales of land, joblessness,migration, casual work, falling productivity,insufficient wages and the intensification ofpoverty.

The social and economic status of farmworkers in Latin America is yet another com-plicating element in characterizing contractualrelations within this population group (FAO,1996). They may be permanent employees,independent owners, small owners with tem-porary activities on other properties, unpaidfamily members or even temporary workersfrom other regions or neighbouring countries.There are varying perceptions of the difficultiesencountered and this has produced wide-ranging attitudes to change.

Discrimination against Indianand mixed-race populations

Casual workers make up more than onethird of the workforce in Guatemala and Mex-ico, one fifth in Honduras and one quarter inPanama (FAO, 1996). In Brazil, women repre-sented 33 per cent of the total in 1989. They rep-resented 80 per cent of fruit-harvesters in Chile(52 per cent of women), and 32.1 per cent ofagricultural workers in Ecuador (Gomez; Klein,1993).

Besides, there is the problem of the Indianand mixed-race populations, who are subject tosevere political, social and economic discrimi-nation. They are sometimes small proprietors,

69

but are most often landless workers (over 50 percent of rural dwellers in Guatemala, 65 per centof coffee producers in Mexico) (see Figure 2).

Training restricted toa few isolated problems

B roadly speaking, there is a virtual absenceof vocational training. Perception of occupa-tional hazards is insufficient if not non-existent.Training and information programmes are org a-nized by the Ministries of Labour and Health insome countries, in cooperation with othernational or international bodies, but these covermostly technical staff and labour inspectors.They rarely reach workers and small pro p r i-etors. More o v e r, the local nature and limitedcontent of these courses make it possible to solveonly isolated problems, without inducingdurable changes of behaviour or work methods.

Working conditions

In addition to crop-related activities such assoil preparation, sowing, the tending of plants,the handling of pesticides and fertilizers, har-vesting and clearing of fields, working the landrequires activities in support of these processesand of the habitat in general, such as new landclearance, building of access roads and irriga-tion systems, the construction and maintenanceof buildings, work in silos, the upkeep of imple-ments and machinery, livestock farming, etc.The properties are mostly small farms (between45 and 90 per cent of the cultivable area depend-ing on the country), but may also be in excess

Figure 2. Distribution of farms in Brazil,by size and level of technology used

Source: Garcia and Almeida, 1991.

of 1,000 hectares (latifundios)1. The bigger thearea, the greater the likelihood that it will beused for livestock rearing, with a large portionof the land lying fallow.

Increased risks in relation tothe complexity of work methods

Widely varying levels of technology areused depending on the size of properties, theplant species concerned and the financialresources available to farmers. The heath haz-ards increase in parallel with the complexity ofwork methods.

The mode of production determines the typeof farming: whether subsistence or commerc i a l ,on small plots or large-scale, with crop ro t a t i o nor intensive farming. The work is seasonal andinvolves long working days and phases ofhighly intense activity. Subsistence farmingrelies on traditional techniques and grows arange of plant products on small plots of land,while small and medium-sized commerc i a lfarms invest in mechanization and also practicec rop variety and rotation involving a smallerselection of agricultural products. The big farmsengage in the intensive cultivation of a singlec rop on large areas. The reduced variety of plantspecies and the absence of crop rotation togetherwith the use of larger areas have the effect ofdepleting the soil of the necessary nutritive ele-ments and reducing the self-regulation of bio-logical species. The net result is the need formechanization, the large-scale use of fertilizersand the systematic chemical treatment of cro p s .

Legislation on agricultural work

Laws governing agricultural work varyfrom country to country in Latin America: ageneral labour code based on the practices andneeds of the industry is used in Brazil andVenezuela, establishing rules on the use of pes-ticides and agricultural machinery. In Colom-bia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico, thegeneral law contains some sector-specific pro-visions (Alvarez, 1990). Only in Argentina isthere a specific law on the matter: Law 22.248on the agricultural labour regime governs thehealth and safety conditions of workplaces,machinery and implements. It prescribes thatprevention must be the guiding principle withrespect to accidents and occupational diseases,that workers must be informed as to occupa-tional hazards and that they must be trained toincorporate preventive measures into the per-formance of their activities.

One of the three mostdangerous sectors

Owing to ignorance and the shortcomings ifnot the total absence of adequate legislation,labour relations are based only on a few collec-tive agreements. The result of this lack of socialprotection combined with non-existent inspec-tion is that confrontation and violence are stillone way of settling labour disputes.

The hazards of agricultural work

Farming is classified among the world’sthree most dangerous production sectors.Despite the small proportion of workersemployed in the sector in the United States, (2.7per cent of the workforce), it recorded the sec-ond highest death rate from occupational acci-dents and the third highest incidence of occu-pational injuries in 1995 and 1996 (NationalSafety Council, 1996, 1997). This covers all cat-egories of farms and, even if workers on largerproperties have greater access to information,protective equipment and health services, thefrequency and intensity of their exposure torisks are also higher.

Over 200,000 deaths per yearworldwide

The ILO receives some 2,200 declarations offatal or non-fatal industrial accidents in agri-culture annually (ILO, 1996). Based on the mor-tality rate in the United States and the indus-trialized countries of Europe where workingconditions are better and there are good sys-tems of diagnosis and registration, it is possibleto calculate that the worldwide occupationalmortality rate must be in the region of 200,000cases per year.

Casual workers the chief victims

The world labour accident rate showed anupward curve during the latter part of the pastdecade (Proteção, 1990). Workers are exposedto hazards directly related to their activities andto environmental risks (storms, ultra-violetradiation, poisonous animals and plant aller-gies), and the chief victims are casual workerswho are given the most perilous workingconditions and who have the least training inprevention.

70

Under-reporting of minor accidents

By order of frequency, the most oftenreported causes of accidents are those involv-ing cutting and piercing instruments, tractorsand their accessories and chemical products(National Safety Council, 1997). Nevertheless,as a result of the well-known practice of under-reporting minor accidents involving tools andmachines, pesticides, falls, slips and so manyother risk factors, the statistics available even indeveloped countries are far below the actualincidence, and there is no way of estimating theproportion of unreported cases (see Table 1).

Furthermore, in addition to changes in liv-ing and working conditions, changes innational classifications and the quality of noti-fication systems can significantly affect the fig-ures disclosed. This is evident from the statis-tics on Ecuador where the number of accidentsrose 181 per cent between 1985 and 1990, whilein Panama and Brazil, where no noteworthymeasures were taken, the figures fell by about25 per cent over the same period (Gomez; Klein,1993).

Virtually non-existent reporting

Despite the significance and seriousness ofsubacute chronic intoxication by pesticides,muscular and skeletal ailments, allergic condi-tions, dermatoses, neoplasia, zoonoses, etc.,reporting of occupational diseases is almostnon-existent in Latin America. The available sta-

tistics most often emerge from targeted studiesand cannot be extrapolated to the entire coun-try or even the region. More o v e r, malnutrition,unsafe health conditions and interc u r rent dis-eases compound the risk of occupational dis-eases, and the simultaneous occurrence of occu-pational and non-occupational diseases evenfurther complicates the task of diagnosis forphysicians who are not alive to these pro b l e m s .

Less than half of workerscovered by insurance

The gravity of the situation can sometimesbe gauged indirectly:• “Rural Brazil does not count its injured”, but

the compensation figures recorded for 1989by the Social Security Service show 199 pen-sions paid to dependants following cases ofdeath; 436 retirements on account of inva-lidity, and 96,104 payments owing to occu-pational diseases. It must nonetheless berecalled that the insurance system covers amere 45 per cent of workers (Proteção, 1990);

• imports of pesticides into Central Americarose almost 100 per cent during the 1980s to53.6 million kg per year. In Costa Rica, overthe same period, the figure was 4 kg of pes-ticides used per year and per capita, or eighttimes the average calculated for the worldpopulation and twice the estimated figurefor the entire region (Wesseling; Castillo,1992).

71

Table 1. Mortality rate from industrial accidents in agriculture in Latin America

Country Mortality rate in agriculture Number of declared accidents

Argentina * (07/96 - 06/97) 0.443/1000 insured workers (07/96 - 06/97) 16 861Bolivia (1995) 0.000/1000 insured persons (1995) 2Chile – (1985) 6 015Colombia (1995) 0.084 /1000 insured persons (1995) 3 098Costa Rica (1995) 0.450/1000 insured persons (1995) 45 442Ecuador – (1994) 157El Salvador (1992) 0.270/1000 insured workers (1995) 498Guatemala (1990) 0.230/1000 insured persons (1992) 34 480Guyana – (1995) 3 717Honduras – (1992) 3 655Mexico (1989) 1.400/10000 insured workers (1995) 16 088Nicaragua (1991) 0.688/1 000 insured persons (1996) 324Panama – (1996) 3 769Peru (1990) 0.008/1000 insured persons (1990) 594Venezuela – (1994) 582

Source: ILO, 1997. Bulletin des Statistiques du Travail, Geneva.* Superintendencia de Riesgos del Trabajo, Min. de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Buenos Aires, 1997.

72

There is a category of workers who oftenface even greater problems than those com-monly encountered by rural workers: these areindigenous rural workers.

In many countries in Latin America the liv-ing and working conditions of these workersand their families are below the averagefor workers belonging to what is referred toas the predominant society, including non-indigenous rural workers. These differencesare evident in access to education, social secu-rity, levels of trade union membership, salariesand in occupational health and safety. Inrecent years, these differences have also beenreflected in land distribution under agrarianreform programmes.

One aspect of ILO policy towards agricul-tural workers consists of extending to themsome elements of the social protectionenjoyed by workers in industry.1 Nevertheless,indigenous rural workers of both sexes aremost often without minimum social protectionand at greater disadvantages than non-indige-nous rural workers of either sex. Access to edu-cation for these workers and their families isoften limited by the lack of suitable teachingmethods that take account of cultural factorssuch as the languages and beliefs of these peo-ples and which meet their specific needs.

In general, the conditions of health pro t e c-tion of indigenous peoples are more pre c a r i o u sthan the average for the population. Hence,for example, in connection with Mexico’s appli-cation of the Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesConvention 1989 (No. 169), the ILO Committeeof Experts on the Application of Standards andRecommendations spoke of the health hazard sfacing indigenous workers on the tobaccoplantations in Nayarit State owing to the inten-sive and indiscriminate use of toxic pesticides.2

Instances have been identified in Paraguay inwhich indigenous workers have died for lack ofaccess to minimum health services on theestates where they worked or because theyw e re unable to aff o rd such health care. Socialsecurity coverage for these workers is there f o rev e ry limited, as in some countries a formal workcontract must be concluded with the employerin order to gain access to it.

Although the Conventions on freedom ofassociation guarantee all workers the right toset up such organizations as they may deemappropriate, rural workers in a good manycountries face de facto and de jure obstaclesto becoming unionized. The situation is evenmore critical for indigenous workers, who are

often denied the legal capacity to set up or joinsuch organizations. In most countries in LatinAmerica with indigenous populations, tradeunion organizations of indigenous extractionare all but non-existent. The Committee ofExperts took note of some allegations con-cerning the situation of indigenous daylabourers in Mexico who “only have access totrade unions which have shown no concern fortheir precarious situation, while independentorganizations that have started to organizeagricultural workers have been systematicallydenied the right to register.”

In some countries, indigenous rural work-ers are viewed by other workers as competitorsin the struggle for land, as some laws grantthem certain rights over land that they had tra-ditionally occupied. In a comment on Ecuadorc o n c e rning the application of the Discrimina-tion (Employment and Occupation) Conven-tion, 1958 (No. 111), the Committee of Expert sstated in general terms that in rural areas –w h e re indigenous peoples have lost all or mostof their traditional lands and become farmworkers – their main problem could well be defacto discrimination in working conditions.And where they earn a living as subsistencef a rmers alongside non-indigenous farmers andlessees, their principal problems often arisef rom inequalities in obtaining loans or from thelack of facilities for marketing their pro d u c e ,publicity programmes and of the where w i t h a lfor upgrading their professional qualific a t i o n s .

As regards the wages of these workers, theCommittee of Experts has identified instancesof discrimination in relation to non-indigenousworkers. A case in point is that of workers onestates in El Chaco in Paraguay, where theCommittee also took note of reports thatwages owed to indigenous workers are paidonly at the end of the year with a good manydeductions, including for food, which is over-valued in many instances. It also pointed to theexistence of wage discrimination, as the mini-mum wage paid to indigenous workers islower than the statutory minimum, while non-indigenous workers receive higher wages forthe same type of work.

As for the labour situation of indigenousworkers, a publication by a human rights org a-n i z a t i o n ,3 submitted by a trade union org a n i-zation and cited in the Committee of Expert s ’1999 observation on Mexico, alleges that thewives of day labourers, for the most part indige-nous women, “are the ones who perf o rm themost onerous tasks”, sometimes working 18- to

Indigenous rural workers in Latin AmericaC. Ramos Veloz, Equality and Employment Branch, ILO Geneva

73

20-hour days covering domestic chores andf a rm work, their wages always being consid-e red as complementary to that of their hus-band. Besides, they have neither matern i t yleave nor medical care during pregnancy andmust work until the last day of pre g n a n c y.

Even though the product of rural work isof crucial importance to all societies, the solu-tion to the myriad problems besetting theseworkers, both men and women of indigenousorigin, is yet to be devised. More proactiverural labour inspection could undoubtedly laythe groundwork for improving the workingconditions of these workers. Yet, an ILO study4

cites the examples of several countries in theregion (Brazil, Honduras and Uruguay) where,in the early 1990s, farm labour inspectionrarely exceeded 1 per cent of all visits and mostof these came in response to individual com-plaints or stemmed from trade union action.Such visits are even less frequent when it comesto indigenous workers and no reliable statis-tics exist in that connection.

It is now imperative to foster a new aware-ness on the part of civil society, the competentgovernment authorities and trade union orga-nizations that will lead to coordinated andeffective actions if these workers are to beguaranteed the full enjoyment of their funda-mental human rights and if social justice is toprevail for those who have been excluded forso long.

Notes

1 Wage workers in agriculture: Conditions ofemployment and work, Sectoral Activities Pro-gramme, ILO, Geneva, 1996.

2 Report of the Committee of Experts on theApplication of Standards and Recommendations.87th International Labour Conference, 1999.

3 Slavery in Mexico. Rural migrant workers ... theirhuman rights, Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez, A.C. HumanRights Centre, Mexico D.F., 1998.

4 Wage workers in agriculture, op. cit., note 1.

The World Health Organization (WHO)estimates that only 5 to 10 per cent of all work-ers in developing countries have access tohealth services at the workplace, as against 20to 50 per cent in industrialized countries. TheWorld Bank for its part states that two thirds ofeconomic losses attributable to industrial dis-eases and accidents could have been averted byprevention programmes (WHO, 1997).

Short of appropriate measures,grave consequences are likely

The outlook for world agricultural pro d u c-tion would seem bright for the end of the pre s e n tdecade thanks to a growth rate clearly outstrip-ping the average for the 1980s. (FAO, 1996; Wo r l dBank, 1980, 1982). Yet, in the context of world eco-nomic globalization, agriculture is underg o i n gradical change which, combined with the impov-erishment of rural dwellers, the lack of trainingin health and safety and the deregulation of thes e c t o r, is further undermining the living andworking conditions of small farmers and agri-cultural workers in Latin America.

The lack of reliable and representative sta-tistics further complicates the task of assessingthe situation, despite which it may be con-cluded that if specific measures are not taken in

the very near future, serious consequences willsoon be felt throughout the world stemmingfrom worsening poverty, joblessness, poorworking conditions and their concomitants ofrural and urban violence, food dependency,international migration and the increasingexternal indebtedness of countries. The guar-antee of the right of association and the appli-cation of core labour standards will be the keyto warding off such a prospect.

Including agricultural workersin the development process

On the strength of experience from earlierprojects, specifically those carried out in Cen-tral America since 1993 (ECLAC, 1993), the ILOis able to lend its cooperation for the updatingof relevant legislation, facilitating tripartitecoordination on agricultural employment poli-cies, promoting occupational health and safety,developing social security programmes and inorganizing training for the various players inrisk prevention and control in agriculture. Onlyin this context of improved living and workingconditions will it be possible to combine stabledevelopment with the advancement of agricul-tural workers.

References

Alvarez, O.H. 1990. Las organizaciones de los trabajadores ruralesen América Latina, Debate laboral, No. 6, Rome.

ILO. 1990. Structure and functions of rural workers’ organiza-tions, Geneva.

—. 1996. Labour Statistics Digest, Geneva.—. 1996a. Wage workers in agriculture: conditions of employment

and work, Sectoral Activities Programme, Geneva.—. 1996b. Labour overview. Latin America and the Caribbean,

ILO News, Geneva.—. 1997a. International Programme for the Elimination of

Child Labour (IPEC), Action against Child Labour: Lessonsand Strategic Priorities for the Future. A synthesis Report,Geneva.

—. 1997b. Implementation report: Review of IPEC experience1995-1997, Geneva.

B ronstein, A.S. 1997. “Labour law reform in Latin A m e r i c a :Between state protection and flexibility”, I n t e r n a t i o n a lLabour Review, Vol. 136, No. 1, Geneva.

ECLAC. 1993. Economic Commission for Latin America andthe Caribbean, Panorama social de América Latina, UnitedNations, Santiago, Chile.

FAO. 1996. La situation de l’agriculture et l’alimentation, Rome.FAOSTAT. 1999. Database.

Forastieri, V. 1997. Statistics on working children and hazardouschild labour in brief, International Conference on ChildLabour, Oslo, October.

Gomez, S.; Klein, E. 1993. Los pobres del campo. El trabajadoreventual, FLACSO/PREALC, ILO, Santiago, Chile.

Proteção. 1990.” Insegurança em números”, No. 9, Vol. 2,pp.156-159, Brazil.

National Safety Council. 1996. International Accident Facts,Itasca, IL, United States.

—. 1997. International Accident Facts, Itasca, IL, United States.Vanackere, M. 1988. Conditions of agricultural day-labour-

ers in Mexico, International Labour Review, Vol. 127, No.1,Geneva.

Wesseling, C.; Castillo, L. 1992. “Plaguicidas en América cen-tral: algunas consideraciones sobre las condiciones deuso”, article presented at the first Central American Con-ference on Ecology and Health, pp. 83-112, San Salvador,September.

WHO. 1997. La santé au travail. Des faits et des chiffres, Aidemémoire, No. 84, revised in December, Geneva.

World Bank. 1980 and 1982. World Development Report, 1980and 1982, Washington, DC

Note1 Latifundio, vast estate belonging to a single owner, of

which a small part is devoted to livestock or agriculture.

74

Panorama of accidents and diseasesin rural work in Brazil

Eduardo Garcia Garcia*

Rosa Yasuko Yamashita**

ardous occupations like mining and construc-tion where the fatal accident rates have beendeclining (ILO, 1997).

Dependent on weather and prices

Although the countryside is generallythought of as a bucolic and peaceful place,rural work has been described as one of themost stressful occupations owing to the factthat it is undertaken under adverse weatherconditions, and due to its dangerous nature ,isolation, workload and working hours, andthe economic vulnerability of workers in thes e c t o r. The farmers’ lack of control over theinstability of prices of agricultural produce andthe sector’s vulnerability to the enviro n m e n t a lconditions that interfere in the production andcost of their produce are factors that lead tod e p ression and anxiety (Ellis and Gord o n ,1 9 9 1 ) .

Accidents involving beasts of burden anddomesticated animals are also frequent. Astudy conducted by the United States NationalSafety Council in 31 states of that country indi-cated that animals were involved in 18 per centof the reported injuries, mainly cows andhorses (Cummings, 1991). Parasitic and infec-tious diseases are also common: about 40 of the150 zoonoses and parasitic infections occurringin the world are of occupational importance ina g r i c u l t u re, such as encephalitis, bru c e l l o s i s ,tetanus and leptospirosis, for example (Klig-man et al., 1991). Machinery and other equip-ment used in agriculture and forestry are alsoresponsible for a range of accidents and dis-eases, among them exposure to vibration andnoise above the advisable levels, accidents dueto overturning of machines and accidents pro-voked by moving transmission parts. In Mis-souri, United States, it was found that 16.8 percent of the farmers between 25 and 64 years ofage presented hearing loss sufficient to inter-f e re with verbal communication (Cru t c h fie l dand Sparks, 1991). In Australia, 70 per cent ofthe deaths resulting from occupational acci-

* Researcher of the Rural Safety Department of Funda-centro. E-mail: edgarcia@fundacentro.gov.br

** Chief and researcher of the Rural Safety Departmentof Fundacentro. E-mail: rosayam@fundacentro.gov.br

International data has revealed that ruralwork is one of the most dangerous activities,due to the high disease and accident rateswhich characterize the sector and also to theseverity of the same. The International LabourOffice (ILO) affirms that work in agriculture issignificantly more dangerous than other workactivities. It estimates that millions of farmerssuffer serious damage to their health and that170,000 of them die every year in the world, dueto their work in this sector. According to furtherILO data in the United States, where rural pro-ducers and workers make up just 3 per cent ofthe workforce, agricultural activities accountfor 8 per cent of all accidents at work; and inItaly, in spite of rural production accounting forjust 9.7 per cent of the workforce, 28.7 per centof all occupational accidents occur in agricul-ture (ILO, 1997).

Agriculture vies for first place

Specialists in the United States say thatprobably no other occupation includes a widerrange of health hazards than work in agricul-ture and they estimate that 6 per cent of thefarmers of that country work with some dis-ability provoked by accident, more than in anyother industry (Cordes and Rea, 1991). In theUnited States, Australia, Canada and in othercountries where statistical data on mortalityand morbidity related to rural work are avail-able, agriculture vies year by year with the con-struction, mining and transport industries forthe first place in the ranking of occupationaldisease and accident rates.

Commenting on the high mortality rateamong different sectors of work, the ILOaffirms that the mortality rates in agriculturehave continued at consistently high levels dur-ing the last decade, contrasting with other haz-

75

dents in agriculture between 1982 and 1984w e re caused by moving mechanical equipmentand 40 per cent were provoked by tractors orimplements drawn by them (Erlich et al., 1993).Statistics for the United States point to the trac-tor as being responsible for 40 to 60 per cent ofthe accidents and deaths in agriculture (Coye,1985). In 1989, there were 7.2 deaths per 100,000tractors, and tipping and overturning con-tributed to 55 per cent of all the fatal accidents( C o rdes and Rea, 1991).

Farmers are also exposed to chemical pro d-ucts, noxious gases and toxic dusts that canp rovoke respiratory diseases. Some substancesa re suspected carcinogens, such as solvents,paints, fuels, machines’ exhaust fumes andpesticides. Results of epidemiological studiesindicate that farmers have higher risks forsome diseases such as leukaemia and cancersof the lip, stomach, skin, prostate, brain andconjunctive tissues, among other diseases(Blair and Zahm, 1991).

Despite all the data showing the immensediversity of health hazards to which rural

workers are exposed, in general, especially inthe developing countries, attention is mainlyconcentrated on the problems related to pesti-cides due to the gravity and number of cases.The World Health Organization (WHO) esti-mates that, annually, there are 700,000 cases ofacute intoxication in the world, with more than13,000 deaths caused by rural work with pesti-cides. In spite of the fact that they consume just25 per cent of all the pesticides marketedthroughout the world, the developing coun-tries account for 90 per cent of the cases of acuteintoxication and 99 per cent of the deaths pro-voked by such products (Garcia, 1996).

Brazil

Brazil now has rates of urbanization similarto those of the developed countries and in somecases surpasses them (Alves et al., 1999). How-ever, part of the urban population works inrural occupations. The distribution of the ruraland urban population in Brazil in 1996 is shownin Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of the rural and urban population for the regions of Brazil, 1996

Region Total population Urban population Proportion Rural population Proportionof urban of ruralpopulation population

[a] [b] [b/a] [c] [c/a]

x 1000 x 1 000 % % x 1000 % %

North 11 288 7 039 5.7 62.4 4 249 12.5 37.6North-East 44 767 29 198 23.7 65.2 15 569 45.6 34.8Central-West 10 501 8 865 7.2 84.4 1 636 4.8 15.6South-East 67 001 59 709 48.6 89.1 7 292 21.4 10.9South 23 514 18 157 14.8 77.2 5 357 15.7 22.8

Total (Brazil) 157 071 122 968 100.0 78.3 34 102 100.0 21.7

Source: Adapted from Alves et al., 1999.

Table 2. Distribution of economically active population over 10 years of age by branchof economic activity of main occupation, Brazil, 1996

Economic activity People occupied 1 (per cent)

Agriculture 24.5Manufacturing industry, construction and others 19.9Commerce 13.1Services 2 42.5

1 Total number: 68,040,206; 2 Includes: service providers, auxiliary services of economic activity, social service, publicadministration, transport and communication, and other activities.

Source: Adapted from Alves Filho, 1999 and from Fundaçao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadística (IBGE), 1998.

76

In Brazil, technology has brought agricul-t u re the conditions to increase production, but,unlike the industrialized countries, no policiesw e re set in place to protect workers against thee ffects of unemployment and to pre s e r v eincomes in the sector. Technology increases therate of rural exodus, substituting employeesand those that produce in family farms (Alves,1999). However, it is important to note that thenumber of people occupied in agriculturalwork still re p resented 24.5 per cent of the totaleconomically active population in the countryin 1996, or almost 18 million workers (AlvesFilho, 1999; IBGE, 1996). For example, thatnumber is 23 per cent more than the total num-ber of people occupied in industrial activities,as shown in Table 2.

Under-reporting aggravated

The poor social and economic conditionsand inadequate working conditions which ingeneral prevail in the rural sector, combinedwith the large number of people who work inagriculture, indicate that the situation in Brazilmust be much more critical in relation to thenumber and gravity of occupational diseasesand accidents than the countries previouslymentioned. The same is also reflected in the reg-istration and reporting of the occurrences of

diseases and accidents related to such work,because the peculiarities of agricultural pro-duction and of rural work further aggravate theunder-reporting of occupational diseases andaccidents, common to all sections of the Brazil-ian economy (Alves Filho, 1999).

The official registration of occupationalaccidents in Brazil is made by means of areporting instance called CAT (Comunicação deAcidente do Tr a b a l h o – Occupational accidentn o t i fication), which is only applied to the workf o rce that is covered by the INSS (NationalSocial Security Institute), which re p resents alittle more than a third of the total of the work-ing population in Brazil and includes a muchreduced number of rural workers, as can beseen in Table 3.

Accident statistics can also be obtained indi-rectly through the analysis of the data fromclaims for compensation for occupational acci-dents and diseases that are granted by the statewelfare department: accident supplements,disease supplements, disability retirement, anddeath pensions (Alves Filho, 1999).

Table 4 presents notification of fatal occu-pational accident data and disability leaveresulting from accidents.

Specific data on accidents and diseasesresulting from rural work are obtained throughpartial research projects.

77

Table 3. People in employment and workers registered by the INSS –National Social Security Institute, Brazil, 1996

People in employment Workers registered by the INSS

Brazil (all areas of economic activity) 68 040 206 24 311 448Agricultural activity 17 930 728 01 000 000 (approximately)

Source: IBGE, 1998 and Alves Filho, 1999.

Table 4. Distribution of frequency and ratio of fatal occupational accidentsand permanent partial disability, according to the groups of economic activities,per 100 000 workers, Brazil, 1997

Groups of economic activity Frequency Ratio(per 100,000 workers)

Fatal occupational accidentsAgriculture, cattle rearing and related activities 183 19.44Reafforestation, forest exploitation and related services 13 21.39

Sick leave for permanent partial disabilityAgriculture, cattle rearing and related activities 246 26.13Reafforestation, forest exploitation and related services 14 23.03

Source: Ministry of Labour and Employment, 1999.

Already over a hundred thousandaccidents in the seventies

A study carried out by the Secretariat ofAgriculture of the State of São Paulo more than20 years ago (1975/76) already indicated theseriousness of the problem: based on a sampleof 3,589 farms, it was verified that about 10 percent presented occupational accidents duringthe period (one year), with 1,331 accidents with24 deaths. The study extrapolates the data forthe State of São Paulo estimating that 28,378farms could have presented accidents and esti-mated the occurrence of 106,696 occupationalaccidents with 1925 deaths in that agriculturalyear (Lorena, 1977a).

The sequel to this study showed the distrib-ution of accidents according to cause, agricul-tural activity and location, as shown in Tables 5and 6 re s p e c t i v e l y. The highest occurrence ofaccidents is seen in the sugar cane plantations,w h e re the employment of manual cutting withthe use of hand tools is more re p re s e n t a t i v e .H o w e v e r, tractors and agricultural machinesa re also shown as important causes of accidents.

Accidents highest in the Stateof São Paulo with hand tools

Fundacentro carried out a study on theinformation contained in a sample of 32,494Rural CATs (Occupational Accident Notifica-tions) in eight states, recorded between 1983and 1985, where it could be observed, for exam-ple, that at least 94 per cent of the reported acci-dents resulted in sick leave, and in 62.2 per centof those cases the leave was for more than tendays, stressing the severity of the notified acci-dents (Meirelles, 1989).

That same study showed that in the State ofSanta Catarina, where agricultural pro d u c t i o nis mainly in smallholdings and where mecha-nization is widespread, accidents with m e c h a n-ical equipment re p resented 24.47 per cent of allaccidents, and accidents with hand toolstotalled 16.71 per cent. In the State of São Paulo,w h e re a large part of the production comesf rom extensive single-crop plantations (sugarcane, orange, re a ff o restation, coffee) which,besides the use of mechanization, still employl a rge numbers of temporary workers who

Table 5. Estimate of the distribution of occupational accidents, by cause,in the State of São Paulo, during the agricultural year 1975/76

Cause per cent

Hand tools 46.0Tractors and other agricultural machinery 12.4Animals 11.3Transport 10.3Pesticides 5.6Snake bites 2.3Others 12.1Total 100.0

Source: Adapted from Lorena, 1977.

Table 6. Estimate of the distribution of occupational accidents, by type of agriculturalactivity in the State of São Paulo in the agricultural year 1975/76

Type of agricultural activity per cent

Sugar cane 55.1Coffee 4.6Corn 3.8Oranges 3.3Cotton 3.0Rice 2.1Other plantations 3.9Cattle 14.9Not specified 9.3Total 100.0

Source: Adapted from Lorena, 1977.

78

work mainly with hand tools (machete, hoeand axe), it was again observed that the larg e s tp e rcentage of accidents were associated withthe use of hand tools, with 45.15 per cent whileaccidents with mechanical equipment re p re-sented 11.12 per cent of the total (Meirelles andYamashita, 1988).

Fatigue leads to poorcoordination

The changes in the forms of work organiza-tion in agricultural production have trans-formed the rural worker into the category ofsalaried worker, but without the employmentguarantees present in the industrial sector. Dueto remuneration for actual production (piece-work), the mobile or temporary workers carryout their work in exhausting conditions inorder to earn a living. It is these conditions that,as a result of fatigue, lead to accidents, becausethe workers are unable to coordinate theirthinking properly and consequently theirmovements.

Pesticides

In 1985, a study carried out by the Secre-tariat of Health of the State of São Paulo in theregion of the Vale do Ribeira, confirmed thatpesticide intoxication presented an adult mor-tality of almost six times that of contagious dis-eases notified in the area in the same period( L o rena, 1977a). In one study carried out byF u n d a c e n t ro during the same period, 28 percent of 5,143 workers and rural producers innine states declared that they had already suf-f e red from pesticide intoxication at least onceduring their working life, and 37 per cent of thesame had suff e red from this experience morethan once (Garcia, 1996). In the period fro m1983 to 1993, an average of 1,036 cases of acuteintoxication were re g i s t e red annually in theState of Paraná, according to Garc i a .

Data produced in 1997 by a joint studybetween the State Secretariat of A g r i c u l t u reand Fundacentro, covering 3,000 farms in 100municipal districts in the State of São Paulo,showed that 16 per cent of the farmers inter-viewed had already needed to seek medicaladvice due to health problems caused by pes-ticides (Ramos, 1999). Based on the data ofo c c u r rences of intoxication available nation-wide, collected and disseminated by theNational System of To x i c - P h a r m a c o l o g i c a lInformation of the Ministry of Health, Garc i aestimated that the number of cases of acute

79

Table 7. Accidents in the transport ofrural workers, notified by thepress in the State of São Paulo,1980 to 1990

Year Accidents Injured Deaths

1980 6 7 121981 8 102 191982 10 120 651983 17 278 731984 6 84 181985 8 126 231986 4 93 51987 1 11 121988 2 41 21989 1 11 121990 6 167 8Total 69 1 029 249

Source: Federation of Organs for Social and EducationalAttendance (FASE) 1991, cited by Adissi, 1997.

intoxication caused by pesticides amongworkers involved in the handling of thesep roducts in agricultural activities in Brazil isof the order of 150,000 to 200,000 cases annu-a l l y. It can be inferred from these numbers thatt h e re are at least 3,000 deaths per year, pro-voked by rural work with pesticides in thecountry as a whole.

If we consider that the number of occupa-tional accidents reported in recent years amongworkers covered by the INSS, which includesvery little data about agriculture, have been ofthe order of 400,000 cases per year and about3,000 to 4,000 deaths per year, we can see themagnitude of the numbers of accidents in therural work, not to mention what these figuresmust represent in terms of the consequentsocial and economic costs.

Transport of workers

Another important type of accident isrelated to the transport of rural workers intrucks or buses. Most of the time the vehiclescirculate in precarious conditions of mainte-nance and conservation and have been pro-voking a great number of serious accidents, ascan be seen in Table 7.

The precarious conditions in which theworkers were transported were eventually tolead to local legislation and collective agree-ments (agreements between workers and com-panies, ratified by the Government) obligingthe companies to use passenger transport vehi-cles (buses) and not trucks.

Poisonous animals

Accidents involving poisonous animals(snakes, spiders, scorpions, stinging caterpil-lars, ants and bees) are important in a tro p i c a lcountry like Brazil, especially during the peri-ods of high temperatures. This type of accidentis re g i s t e red by the Ministry of Health mainlyby checking the rate of distribution of seru m s .H o w e v e r, available data do not indicate howmany incidents are of occupational origin. Therate of accidents involving snakes in Brazil, inthe period from 1990 to 1993, was 13.5 acci-dents per 100,000 inhabitants, with the central-west area presenting the highest incidence.I n the same period, 81,611 accidents werereported in the country, with 359 deaths, i.e.0.45 per cent resulted in death (Ministry ofHealth, 1998).

Scorpions, spiders,ants and bees

Since a formal instance was set up in 1998for reporting scorpion accidents in Brazil, scor-pion stings have been contributing increasinglyto the number of reported cases of accidentswith poisonous animals. Ministry of Healthdata indicate the occurrence of 8,000 accidentsper year, with a rate of approximately threecases per 100,000 inhabitants and with thelargest number of reporting coming from theStates of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, respon-sible together for 50 per cent of the total.

With spiders, the rate is around 1.5 cases per100,000 inhabitants, with 18 deaths notified inthe period 1990-93, mostly in the south andsouth-eastern areas. There are also reports ofaccidents involving moths and butterfli e s ,caused by contact with stinging caterpillarsand moth bristles, and beetles, through theaction of toxic substances with a caustic andblistering effect liberated by compression orb rushing with the skin. Ants and bees are alsoincluded as the cause of accidents (Ministry ofHealth, 1998).

Mechanization

Development in the agricultural andforestry sectors, as in the other sectors of theeconomy, is increasingly leading to the use ofnew technologies. Historically, in Brazil, theintroduction of new technologies has not beenaccompanied by a study of their impact on theenvironment and human beings. Thus, despitehaving contributed to the increase in produc-

tivity and being responsible for the availabilityof more foodstuffs and raw material for humansurvival and comfort, they have also brought illeffects on workers’ health and the environment,previously unknown.

With the competition represented by theexternal market and the ensuing need to cutoperational costs and labour in some places, alot of companies have been adopting theemployment of modern technologies for theoptimization of the productive system. Theautomated process is already a reality in manyunits of agricultural and forestry production,mainly in flatter areas where the operation isviable.

Mismatch in technologytransfer

The process of agricultural production andthe adoption of mechanization depend on dif-ferent factors represented by location, climate,topography, labour availability, crops culti-vated, intended handling, availability and mas-tery of technology, labour qualification and thecost-benefit ratio. Thus, at each stage of theprocess, the adoption of new equipment occursat different moments, bringing different occu-pational problems, even among companies inthe same production sector. Similarly, theimpact of the transfer of technology from theindustrialized countries to the developingcountries must always be considered. Theresults obtained in the industrialized countriesdo not always attend to the characteristics ofthe developing countries, that is, the technol-ogy transfer does not always obey the transferof ergonomics (FAO, 1992).

Exposure to various hazards such as noise,vibration and excessive heat, worsened by theinadequacy of the workstation (location ofoperating controls, seat, etc.), can lead workersto contract diseases during their working life.This can happen because of the differencebetween the characteristics of the users ofmachines in the developed countries and in thedeveloping countries, the lack of safety equip-ment due to the lack of norms to regulate thecommercialization of products and the lack ofknowledge of the consumers.

In the developing countries, manufacturersdo not always offer machines, equipment andtools that satisfy standards of safety and com-fort that are in force in the country of origin.This may be due either to the lack of demandin the purchasing countries, or to the lack of leg-islation that regulates the area.

80

Checks on functionalityand durability

The contribution of mechanization in rais-ing the technological pattern of Brazilian agri-culture placed the farmer in contact with a greatvariety of machinery headed to perform severalagricultural operations. In order to check thefunctionality requirements and durability ofthis equipment, testing of agriculturalmachines was introduced in the country, whichat the beginning only measured the operationalattributes. Concern with aspects of safety andergonomics in agricultural machinery startedto grow around the eighties, when someresearch institutes began carrying out sometests. Certain models of agricultural tractorsthen started to incorporate the recommenda-tions suggested by these test reports, such asprotection for the power socket and transmis-sion shaft and improvement in visibility,among others.

Nowadays, the concern of the machinerymanufacturers with quality aspects in the pro-duction process, because of the ISO 9000requirements, and with aspects of environ-mental preservation, because of the ISO 14000requirements, opens the way for machinerysafety and ergonomics in agricultural equip-ment to be better observed and followed.

Child and adolescent labour

In 1995, Brazil had approximately 8 millionchildren and adolescents, between 5 and 17years of age, working. Of these, most of the 522thousand children between 5 and 9 years of ageworked in agricultural activities. Most do notreceive any type of remuneration, because theywork helping their parents to increase produc-tion. Of the children in the age group from 10to 14 years old, more than half do not receiveany remuneration and they work from 15 to 39hours a week, absent from school. Of the ado-lescents from 15 to 17 years of age, 19.6 per centhad abandoned school once and for all to work.The long working day is one of the factors thatleads them to drop out school: 24 per cent of theworkpeople from 10 to 14 years old and 63 percent of the adolescents from 14 to 17 years oldwork 40 hours a week or more (Rizzini, 1999).

In a study developed by Fundacentro in1989 in citrus fruit cultivation, children of tem-porary workers, under 14 years of age, werefound working harvesting crops. They helpedto raise the income of their parents who werepaid by piecework. Those responsible for con-

81

tracting the labour force justified the children’spresence in the field as goodwill on the part ofthe employers, allowing the children to remainclose to their parents while they worked. How-ever, work began at seven o’clock in the morn-ing and finished at four o’clock in the afternoon,without considering the time spent in com-muting, which meant that these children wereabsent from school. The work of citrus har-vesting demands constant movements ofcrouching down and straightening up, andclimbing up and down ladders, with sacksweighing 30 kilos. The ladders used in the har-vesting frequently fell over (Yamashita, 1995).

The employment of children and adoles-cents also occurs in other insalubrious and dan-gerous work, such as in the plantations of sugarcane, sisal and tobacco, in charcoal productionand in extraction of precious stones.

Child labourers, victims of poverty

In 1997, there were 54 million poor peoplein Brazil (i.e. 34 per cent of the inhabitants ofthe country), of which 24 million are indigent(below the poverty level) (Lahóz, 1999). In Table8 it can be seen that 36 per cent of the poor arefound in the rural area.

Economic instability has been present in thecountry for a long time. In 1986, during the eco-nomic plan called Plano Cruzado, there was astabilization of the economy with a fall in thepoverty level: from 65 million poor people in1984, to 41.5 million in 1986. With the failure ofthe plan and the return of inflation, the numberof poor people returned to practically the samelevels as at the beginning of the decade. Withthe “Plano Real”, now in force, the number ofpoor again dropped by about 10 million andhas remained stable, according to data from theIPEA(Institute of Applied Economic Research)(Lahóz, 1999).

Table 8. Distribution of poor peoplein Brazil, 1997

Regions per centof poor people

Centre of metropolitan regions 09Outskirts of metropolitan regions 09Other large cities 13Medium-sized cities 14Small cities 20Rural area 36

Source: Adapted from Lahóz, 1999.

Since 1992, the International Programme forthe Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) has beene n f o rced in Brazil, and since 1994, the NationalF o rum for the Prevention and Eradication ofChild Labour, formed by government, non-gov-ernmental and multilateral institutions whichp romote jointly campaigns to combat childl a b o u r, has been active, with support from theInternational Labour Office. The Abrinq Foun-dation for Children’s Rights created the pro-gramme “Child Friendly Enterprise” whichcounts on the participation of more than a thou-sand companies, committed to eliminate childlabour in sectors such as the automobile andfootwear industries, and orange and sugar caneplantations (Rizzini, 1999).

In 1997, the Brazilian Government set up aprogramme to remove children from work inthe states where there is more exploitation, likeMato Grosso do Sul, Pernambuco and Bahia.Up until the beginning of 1988, 38 thousandchildren had benefited. Some state govern-ments have similar programmes, through pro-grammes which are integrated with those of theFederal Government (Rizzini, 1999).

Control actions and prevention

Due to the peculiarities of the rural sector,several strategies have been sought for thedevelopment of control actions and preventionof diseases and accidents resulting from ruralwork. Initiatives on the part of governmentorgans, trade unions and other organizations ofthe civil society have been attempting toaddress the problem as outlined.

The publishing on 12 April 1988 by the Min-istry of Labour of the NRRs – Rural RegulatoryNorms – that regulate questions of safety andhealth in rural work, was in recognition of theneed to establish policies for the sector. So 15years had elapsed since they had first been pre-scribed in article 13, LAW 5889, on 5 June 1973,until their publication. Despite having beenshelved for 27 years since first proposed and 12years since published, the implementation ofthese norms, for various reasons, is still incipi-ent. The inadequacy of some of the items andthe difficulties involved in enforcing thesenorms, imposed by the difficult conditions ofaccess and the immense geographical disper-sion of the units of production in the rural areaspartially account for the slow pace of imple-mentation.

The ILO partially recognizes the lack ofinfrastructure to deal with the legal questionsin the rural sector, commenting that: “Although

the conditions vary a lot from country to coun-try, agriculture tends to be excluded from manynational labour laws and it is not the object ofany comprehensive international norm. Whereregulations do exist, they are sporadicallyapplied due to the inadequacy of legal mea-sures, low level of union organization andinsufficient labour inspections” (ILO, 1997).

Through a government initiative, in the year2000 the Rural Regulatory Norms will bereviewed by means of tripartite discussions,i.e. with representatives from government,employers and workers.

Tripartite talks produce results

The policy of tripartite discussion involvingcompanies, workers and government estab-lished by the Ministry of the Labour andEmployment, has brought good results in therevision and establishment of norms and regu-lations in the area of occupational safety andhealth, including in the rural sector. An exam-ple of this is the regulation on the use and com-mercialization of chainsaws, in answer to ademand mainly from the State of Pará, in theAmazon area: the occurrence of serious andfatal accidents in the use of chainsaws in theextraction of timber from natural forests led theMinistry of Labour, as a result of tripartite nego-tiation, to publish in 1994 a Regulation control-ling the use and commercialization of chain-saws in the country in relation to aspects ofsafety and ergonomics and the obligation fortraining for the users of this type of equipment.

In addition, some localized actions, throughinitiatives by unions, government and otherentities, were or are being implemented to dealwith this question.

Partnerships

An interesting example was the recent ini-tiative by a trade union entity, CONTAG(National Confederation of Agricultural Work-ers) which, in partnership with Fundacentro,sought deeper penetration and coverage forrural people in the dissemination of informa-tion about safety and health by radio. FromAugust 1996 to May 1997, 30-second messagesand several interviews with technicians, union-ists and other personalities active in the sector,were widely broadcast by 544 radio stationscountrywide, and seven regional and onenational seminar were held to discuss the mainproblems and proposals to combat them (Sérieda Fundacentro, 1997).

82

Another recent example is the partnershipbetween Fundacentro and the Agriculture Sec-retariat of the State of São Paulo which is in fulldevelopment and has been obtaining impor-tant results. The activities of this partnershipmobilized various organs of the State and otherinstitutions with the aim to reduce the risks inpesticide use (the State of São Paulo consumes25 per cent of all pesticides sold in the country)and disseminate production techniques whichhave fewer ill effects on health and the envir-onment. Actions include data collection aboutthe use of pesticides and working conditions;dissemination of information among ruralworkers and producers; environmental educa-tion for children at rural schools; developmentof studies aimed at reducing pesticide use andworker exposure; improvements in the moni-toring of residues in foodstuffs and the envir-onment; health surveillance of the populationsexposed to pesticides; and strengthening andstructuring inspection activities to control pes-ticides (Ministry of Labour, 1997).

Initiatives like these are fundamental. But,international data and the more persuasivenational data, the poor working conditionswhich predominate in agricultural activitiesand the number of people working in the are a ,all demonstrate the pre-eminent need for fur-ther increased attention on the part of all socialand economic parties which act in this are a .I n c reased production and productivity andstriving for more sustained levels of agriculturalp roduction must not dispense with strategies todeal with safety and health in rural work.

References

Adissi, P. J. 1997. Processo de trabalho agrícola canavieiro:proposição de uma taxonomia das unidades produtivas eanálise dos riscos associados, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, doctoraldissertation, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Alves, E. et al. 1999. “O empobrecimento da agriculturabrasileira”, Revista de Política Agrícola, Año VIII, No. 3,pp. 5-19.

Alves Filho, J. P. 1999. “Segurança e saúde do trabalhadorrural: aspectos gerais”, Boletim Orgânica, Vol. 1 (1),p p . 11 -15.

Blair, A.; Zahm, S. H. 1991. “Cancer among farmers”, inCordes, D. H. and Rea, D. F. (eds.): Occupational medicine.Health hazards of farming, Philadelphia, Hanley andBelfus, inc., pp. 335-54.

Cordes, D. H.; Rea, D. F. 1991. “Farming: a hazardous occu-pation”, in Cordes, D. H. and Rea D. F. (eds.), op.cit.

Coye, M. J. 1985. “The health effects of agricultural produc-tion: I – the health of agricultural workers”, in Journal ofPublic Health Policy, No. 6, pp. 349-70.

Crutchfield, C. D.; Sparks, S.T. 1991. Effects of noise andvibration on farm workers, in Cordes and Rea, op. cit.

Cummings, P. H. 1991. “Farm accidents and injuries amongfarm families and workers. A pilot study”, AmericanAssociation of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, No. 39(9), pp. 409-15.

Ellis, J . L.; Gordon, P. R. 1991. “Farm family mental healthissues”, in Cordes and Rea, op. cit.

Erlich, S. M. et al. 1993. “Work-related agricultural fatalitiesin Australia, 1982-1984”, Scandinavian Journal of Work andEnvironmental Health, No. 19(3), pp. 162-167.

FAO. 1992. Introduction to Ergonomics in Forestry in Develop-ing Countries, Forestry Paper 100, Rome, 200 pp.

Fundacentro. 1997. Série para rádio ganha o prêmio Wlad-mir Herzog, Revista Fundacentro, No. 3.

Garcia, E. G. 1996. Segurança e saúde no trabalho rural coma g rotóxicos: contribuição para uma abordagem mais abrangente,doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Public Health, Univer-sity of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, 233 pp.

Government of Brazil, Ministry of Health. 1998. Manual dediagnóstico e tratament de acidentes por animais peçonhentos,Brasilia, Fundação Nacional de Saúde, 131 pp.

—. Ministry of Labour. 1999. Acidentes de Trabalho,www.mtb.gov.br/esta/acidentes/acidentes/97/fatais/fatais_c.htm and www.mtb.gov.br/esta/acidentes/aci-dentes/97/parcial/parcial_c.htm, 22 Dec.

IBGE (Fundaçao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadís-tica). 1998. Pesquisa nacional por amostra de domicílios 1996,www.ibge.gov.br

ILO. 1997. “New report on farm safety”, World of Work, No.22 (36), p. 13.

Kligman, E. W. et al. 1991. “Occupational infections in farmworkers”, in Cordes and Rea, op. cit.

Lahóz, A. 1999. “A pobreza do debate”, in Exame, 33 (20),pp.136-143.

Lorena, C. 1977a. “Nota prévia sobre um levantamento pre-liminar da ocorrência de acidentes no trabalho na agri-cultura paulista”, Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional,No. 5 (18), pp. 60-62.

—. 1977b. “Prevenção de acidentes do trabalho no meiorural”, Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, No. 5 (19),pp. 14-23.

Meirelles, C . E.; Yamashita, R. Y. 1988. “Segurança do Tra-balho: um pequeno panorama dos acidentes do trabalhona área rural”, Anais do XVII Congresso Brasileiro de Engen-haria Agrícola, Sorocaba, SP, pp. 709-723.

—. et al. 1989. “Cadastro de acidentes do trabalho ru r a l ” ,i n Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, No. 17 (68),pp.53-9 4 .

Ramos, H. H. et al. 1999. “Condições de trabalho com agrotóx-icos no Estado de São Paulo”,Caderno Informativo de Pre-venção de Acidentes, No. 20 (238), pp. 36-48.

Rizzini, I. 1999. “História das crianças no Brasil”, in Priori,M. (ed.): Organização, Editora Contexto, São Paulo,pp.376-406.

Schenker, M. et al. 1991. “Respiratory risks associated withagriculture”, in Cordes and Rea, op. cit.

Silva, F. C. 1988. Programa de vigilância epidemiológica em intox-icações exógenas: a experiência do Vale do Ribeira, São Paulo,Secretaria de Estado da Saúde, mimeographed, 18 pp.

Yamashita, R.Y. 1995. “Estudo das condições de trabalho nacultura de citros”, in Anais do simpósio Brasileiro de Erg o n o m i ae Congresso Latino-Americano de Erg o n o m i a, Florianópolis.

83

84

It is widely acknowledged that the level ofw o r k - related injuries, fatalities and ill healthexperienced in agriculture is unacceptably high,making it one of the most risky sectors ofemployment in the European Union (EU). A tthe same time, it is also recognized that the pre-vention of harm to agricultural workers facesconsiderable challenges that arise from the org a-nization and culture of work in the sector as wellas from the under- regulation and low levels ofinspection and enforcement with which the sec-tor is historically associated. Although they areoften present in an extreme form in agriculture ,many of these challenges are not unique to thes e c t o r. They are similar to those faced in othersectors such as the construction industry, inwhich small enterprises, casual and part-timework, peripheral work, contingent workers andthe shadow economy pre d o m i n a t e .

It was in part to meet such challenges thatat the beginning of the 1990s the EU adopted aseries of Directives in which a consistentapproach to the mandatory management ofoccupational health and safety (OHS) of allworkers in all sectors of employment is dis-cernible. Elements of this approach, which istypified by the provisions of the EU FrameworkDirective 89/391, include that employersobserve the following requirements:• develop a prevention plan;• undertake workplace risk assessment;• use or employ competent prevention ser-

vices; and• provide the means to enable workers and

their representatives to participate in allthese activities.

Making preventive strategiesrelevant to agriculture

While such measures are perhaps more eas-ily understood in relation to health and safetymanagement in large organizations, they arenevertheless intended to provide a framework

in which a systematic approach to the manage-ment of health and safety can be achieved in allenterprises. In this respect, worker participa-tion occupies a central position in EU preven-tive health and safety strategy. One reason forthis centrality relates to the growing evidencethat worker participation — and particularlyrepresentative worker participation — has abeneficial impact on health and safety perfor-mance within enterprises. Here again, how-ever, evidence on the effectiveness of partici-pation is far more readily available fromexperiences in large enterprises than it is for thekind of small enterprises which characterize theagricultural sector. Supports for such represen-tative participation are also more associatedwith large enterprises with stable workforcesthan with the small enterprises and the casualand contingent workforce that are characteris-tic of agriculture. The challenge for tradeunions, regulators and other organizationsinvolved in promoting better health and safetystandards in agriculture is how to make the pre-ventive strategies that are known to be effectivein large enterprises and in other sectors of theeconomy relevant to the kind of situations typ-ical of work in agriculture.

The aim of the following article is to con-sider the role that representative participationin health and safety management can play inimproving health and safety performance inworkplaces that are typical of those in the agri-cultural sector. Drawing on research findingsfrom a number of countries in Western Europeas well as North America and Australasia, itoutlines the evidence for the effectiveness ofrepresentative worker participation in healthand safety and identifies factors known to sup-port such effectiveness. The question of the rel-evance of representative participation to theagricultural situation is then addressed. A briefoutline of the characteristics of agriculturalemployment in Western Europe and the mainfeatures of health and safety performance in thesector serve to draw attention to the extent of

The role of worker representation in healthand safety in agriculture in Western Europe

David WaltersCentre for Industrial Safety and Health

London

the challenges that the sector poses for workerrepresentation and for its contribution to pre-ventive strategies on health and safety. Ways inwhich such challenges have been met are dis-cussed through examples of regulatoryapproaches, trade union initiatives and jointtrade union employer schemes in whichworker representatives are involved in improv-ing health and safety performance in variouscountries in Western Europe. Examples includesome from the agricultural sector but aremainly drawn from other sectors of employ-ment and used to illustrate the potential suchschemes may offer agriculture. The strengthsand limitations of these various approacheswill be discussed and the legislative and orga-nizational supports necessary to enhance theireffectiveness as well as the resource implica-tions of such support will be considered.

The effect of worker representationon health and safety performance

That the participation of workers in theo rganization of workplace health and safetyi m p roves occupational health and safety man-agement is widely recognized. Support for thisnotion is evident in a variety of studies from arange of industrial countries. Thus, British stud-ies show that better standards of health andsafety are achieved in unionized workplacesthan in non-unionized workplaces (Wa l t e r s ,1996a; Gru n b e rg, 1983; Walters and Gourlay,1990). They show that when employers managehealth and safety without consultation, perfor-mance (as measured by objective indices suchas injury rates) is considerably worse than whenthey consult with their workers on health andsafety management. Indeed, one study showedthat such organizations were likely to havetwice as many accidents as those in whichworker re p resentatives were involved in con-sultation with managers on health and safety(Reilly et al., 1995). Similar findings are re p o r t e din Australian work (Quinlan, 1993; Biggins et al.,1991; Wa r re n - L a n g f o rd et al., 1993). NorthAmerican authors show that trade union pre s-ence affects occupational health and safety stan-d a rds, even under non-participatory legislation(Dedobbeleer et al., 1990; Weil, 1991). In otherWestern European countries, comparative stud-ies indicate that re p resentative participationi m p roves health and safety outcomes and thatthe determinants of effective re p resentation andsupport for dialogue as well as backing for re p-resentatives in conflictual situations are similarto those identified in British and A u s t r a l i a n

studies despite diff e rent cultures of industrialrelations (Walters et al., 1993; Walters, 1990).

What makes health and safetyrepresentatives effective ?

If worker representation does make a posi-tive contribution to improved health and safetyperformance, it is important to know what arethe factors that support and strengthen its role.Key findings from research on the activities ofhealth and safety representatives in the contextof employment relations indicate that theireffectiveness is strongly influenced by:• a regulatory framework for employee rep-

resentation in health and safety that isactively promoted by the regulatory agen-cies/labour inspectorate;

• management commitment to both healthand safety and employee participation andthe centrality of the provision for preventivehealth and safety in management strategiesfor ensuring the quality and efficiency ofproduction;

• strong workplace organization, the prioriti-zation of health and safety issues, and theintegration of employee representation inhealth and safety into the workplace orga-nization for representation on other aspectsof industrial relations;

• information and training for health andsafety representatives; and

• consultation between health and safety rep-resentatives and the constituencies they rep-resent.

Links between accidentsand trade union influence

In other words, participation is unlikely tooccur in either an effective or sustainable waywithout support. This is evident from a numberof studies concerning the effectiveness of pro-c e d u res for re p resentation. Trade unions, larg e ,stable enterprises and a tradition of negotiatedcooperative arrangements feature signific a n t l yamong the manifestations of such support. Con-v e r s e l y, objective measures of health and safetyoutcomes suggest links between rising levels ofaccidents and the declining influence of tradeunions (Tombs, 1990; Nichols, 1997). Participa-tive health and safety organization is more likelyto be found in workplaces where there is someform of trade union organization present than inthe workplaces where it is absent.

85

Works councils or trade unions?

R e s e a rch on the operation of re p re s e n t a t i o ns t resses the importance of workers’ org a n i z a-tions in supporting the effectiveness of this formof participation. The meaning of “workers’ o rg a-nization” needs clarifying. It is used here fir s t l yto describe a form of workers’ org a n i z a t i o nwithin the workplace which is autonomous inrelation to management and which may involvetrade union re p resentatives but does not neces-sarily do so. For example, there are some workscouncils which have little or no trade unionp resence on them but which are neverthelessable to exert considerable autonomous influ-ence on worker re p resentation in health ands a f e t y. Secondly, it is also used here to describethe support for workers’ organizations insideenterprises by institutions of organized labourwhich operate from outside enterprises. Thesea re normally referring to trade union sectoral,regional and national infrastru c t u re s .

More problems if trade unionsare absent

In Anglo-American countries where workerorganization within enterprises effectivelymeans trade union workplace organization, thequestion of effectiveness of worker health andsafety representatives is largely related to theextent to which such representation can be saidto be trade union representation. In such coun-tries, little information is available on the experi-ences of health and safety representatives thatoperate without trade union support, but suchthat there is indicates that the same kind ofdeterminants of effectiveness would apply(Spaven and Wright, 1993; Woolfson, Fosterand Beck, 1996). However, in these situations,sustained support for achieving such effective-ness in the absence of trade unions is likely tobe more problematic and it is by no means clearfrom what source such support would come orhow it could be sustained (James and Walters,1997). In countries where worker organizationwithin the workplace is not necessarily tradeunion organization – as is the case in a numberof European countries where elections ofworker representatives may result in work-place organizations consisting of predomi-nantly non-union representatives – the inde-pendence of the workplace organization is stillimportant and trade unions still remain themain source of external support for its effec-tiveness through such things as their trainingand information services (Walters, 1994).

Enabling structures and procedures

Research on the activities of safety repre-sentatives and safety committees in the UnitedKingdom has concentrated upon other deter-minants of effectiveness than simply the role oftrade unions. However, many such determi-nants are more likely to be found in unionizedthan non-unionized firms. For example, Beau-mont’s work on joint safety committees (Beau-mont et al., 1982), much in the same vein as aprevious American study (Kochan et al., 1977),found that the more effective committees werethe ones where both employee representativesand management were well trained and whererepresentation operated through establishedtrade union channels. Other determinants iden-tified, such as regular meetings, regular atten-dance by representatives, and good communi-cation with other employees are also mostlikely to be met within unionized firms and thetrade unions in such firms will have played asignificant role in creating the structures andprocedures that make such situations possible.

Trade union training crucial

As well as the support of the workplaceorganization, trade unions outside the work-place, at both national and regional levels, alsohave an important role: the significance of boththe quality and quantity of trade union train-ing has emerged very clearly from Europeansurveys as crucial to both the development andintegration of representation in health andsafety at the workplace level (Walters, 1996b;Raulier and Walters, 1995). It is also unmatchedby any other source of provision. Trade unionshave an additional important role as instigatorsof change at local, national and internationallevels. The quality of their proactive role in theprocess of representation is an important fea-ture of its success. In addition, there is evidenceto suggest that their presence can enhance theactivities of other players in the organization ofpreventive health and safety, such as those ofthe regulatory authorities (Neil, 1991).

The characteristics of agriculturalemployment and its consequencesfor health and safety

Clearly, many of the above conditionsknown to support effective worker represent-ation in health and safety will not be met in agri-culture. With few exceptions in WesternEurope, agricultural employment means

86

employment in small enterprises. For example,of the 47,907 agricultural holdings in the UnitedKingdom in 1995, only 528 employed 15 ormore full-time workers (including familyworkers) and 64 per cent of agricultural work-ers worked in enterprises with less than fiveworkers.

Reduced labour force,lowest trade union density

High levels of part-time and casual employ-ment as well as extensive family labour are thenorm, and employment and domicile are oftenclosely interdependent in the sector. There hasbeen a continuing trend towards a reducedlabour force in the past decade with reductionsparticularly marked among regular hiredworkers. Trade union density is generally lowand declining further. In many countries it islower in agriculture than in any other sector.For example, in the United Kingdom it was 7per cent in agriculture in the mid-1990s com-pared with an average of 2 per cent for all indus-trial sectors.

Paternalism of the pre-industrial era

Such aspects of agricultural employment,while following trends characteristic of post-industrial labour markets which reduce jobsecurity and collective workers’ organization,also reflect a continuation of the conditions ofa pre-industrial era. Studies of the social rela-tions of farm-working have emphasized thepaternalism evident in the relationshipbetween farmers and their employees andexplain how such relations tend to promotehostility to most forms of outside influence onemployment and working conditions as well asencouraging intolerance of forms of collec-tivism and trade union organization. In addi-tion, at the same time as the sector facesincreased mechanization and its attendant risksto health and safety, it is rife with employmentpractices and traditions that are not compatiblewith conventional modern approaches to themanagement of health and safety.

Inspection and control havelittle direct impact

In most Western European countries, statu-tory regulation of health and safety in agricul-ture came as a belated addition to measuresaimed at protecting workers and regulatinghealth and safety in other sectors of employ-

ment. Indeed, its position in this respect is stillseparate from the mainstream of health andsafety regulation in some countries. Because ofthis and because of the large numbers and inac-cessibility of the small enterprises which makeup the vast majority of the employment unitsin agriculture, inspection and control practicestend to be underdeveloped and have littledirect impact on the majority of workplaces.

Second highest injury rateafter construction

All these factors contribute to the consid-erable risks to health and safety experiencedby agricultural workers and place the sectoramong the highest of industrial risk cate-gories. In the United Kingdom, for example,results obtained from the Labour Force Surveyfor the total workplace injuries indicate thatthe agricultural sector has the second highestinjury rate in the United Kingdom followingthe construction industry. The number of fatalinjuries are also alarmingly high and a partic-ularly disturbing feature of the injury datarelates to the proportionally large number ofserious injuries and fatalities which occur toc h i l d ren on farms.

The contribution of worker healthand safety representationto improving health and safetyin small enterprises

Although there is good evidence thatworker representation contributes to improvedhealth and safety performance in most indus-trial sectors, such evidence is largely absentfrom agriculture for the reasons already out-lined. It is plain that conventional approachesto health and safety representation will notwork in the sector: its culture, the attitudes ofemployers, the reduced presence of tradeunions, the low level of labour inspection andthe way in which work is organized in the sec-tor, all militate against orthodox approaches tohealth and safety management and especiallyagainst traditional practices of worker repre-sentation. However, in all these respects, agri-cultural undertakings typify an extreme ofsmall business culture. As such, they may bepotentially receptive to prevention strategies inhealth and safety which are specifically tailoredto the conditions of small enterprises and whichhave been tried with some success in the othersectors of employment in which small enter-prises predominate.

87

More a problem of management thanthe technical nature of the hazards

The problem of health and safety outcomesin small enterprises is recognized throughoutwestern Europe, where work in such enter-prises is a major feature of national economies.Evidence from a number of countries showsthat health and safety performance is weaker insmall enterprises than in larger ones and dataon injuries supports the conclusion that there isa size factor which influences their occurrenceat work (Nichols, Dennis and Guy, 1990). At thesame time, since in general the nature of haz-ards encountered in small workplaces are notnecessarily any more severe than those in largeones, the problem for prevention seems to bemore concerned with health and safety man-agement than with the technical nature of eitherthe hazards or their control.

Reasons for poor health and safety man-agement in small enterprises have been attrib-uted to a variety of factors such as:• limited resources;• limited knowledge of regulatory require-

ments;• poor awareness of the economic advantages

of health and safety;• poor knowledge and understanding of safe

working practices;• short-term economic pressure and competi-

tion;• inadequate enforcement; and• absence of prevention services (Walters, 1998).

A problem of communication

Whatever the reason or combination of rea-sons for poor health and safety performance,they are neither inevitable nor are they the nec-essary consequences of enterprise size. How-ever, they do indicate that there is a strong com-munication problem in persuading the ownersand managers of small enterprises of the bene-fits of good health and safety management. Thisapplies especially in agriculture where, as theprevious outline of its characteristics shouldindicate, the challenges for risk communicationare particularly extreme.

Small, under-resourced inspectorates

It has been awareness of the widespreadproblem concerning risk communication inhealth and safety management in small enter-

prises in general that has led regulatory author-ities in some Western European countries tofocus more of their attention on finding waysto improve communication within small enter-prises. In doing so, they have recognized thelimitations faced by small, under-resourcedinspectorates when trying to reach the hugenumbers of individual workplaces which con-stitute the small business sector. They have alsorealized that the image of the inspector/regu-lator may not be the most appropriate one toconvey the message they wish to deliver to thesector concerning the benefits of health andsafety management. For these reasons, theyhave started to explore the role that intermedi-aries in the small business environment mightplay in this respect. Such intermediaries covera wide range of organizations which have deal-ings with small enterprises. For example, theymight include insurance associations, trade andprofessional associations, local and regionalsmall business start-up services, preventionservices, training organizations, banks andaccountants, to name but a few.

The trade union as intermediary

Trade unions re p resent an important formo f intermediary and one which is well placedt o make a significant contribution toward si m p roving health and safety management insmall enterprises: not only do they already havenetworks and support systems for re p re s e n t a-tion, but also, strong incentives to adapt andextend this function. It contains enormouspotential for trade unions that are currently con-cerned with their need to deal with the crisis ofre p resentation they are experiencing interna-tionally and to find the new identities they hopewill carry them forward. While relatively weakin agriculture, trade unions are nevertheless sig-n i ficant enough to be a potentially importantre s o u rce as an intermediary in the sector. It isalso possible that the development of this ro l ewould contribute to helping to increase theirp resence and importance in the sector.

The main ways in which trade unions haveexplored their contribution as intermediaries inhealth and safety management has been to tryto find means to increase access of workers insmall enterprises to representation on healthand safety bodies. There are several approachesthat have been tried with varying but signifi-cant measures of success. They have included:obtaining statutory rights to represent workersin small enterprises through regional or terri-torial health and safety representatives;

88

unilateral single sector initiatives by tradeunions to increase access to representationthrough schemes involving roving representa-tives; joint trade union employer schemes inwhich worker representatives often operatealongside actors nominated by employers; col-laboration between trade unions and the labourinspectorate/health and safety authorities; andschemes in which sectoral joint or tripartitestructures are set up to support workers andtheir employers in small enterprises. Someexamples of these schemes are outlined in thefollowing paragraphs.

Statutory approaches

Statutory measures for the appointment ofregional health and safety representatives forall sectors of employment, including agricul-ture have existed in Sweden since 1974. In Nor-way, similar measures have existed since 1981but only in relation to the construction indus-try. Swedish provisions allow for the appoint-ment by trade unions of health and safety rep-resentatives, usually with a brief to representworkers in small enterprises within a particu-lar industrial sector and geographical area. Theregional safety representatives are either full-time appointments, existing senior health andsafety representatives from large firms, or full-time trade union officials who undertake thetask in addition to other duties. Fundamentalto the approach in these Nordic countries hasbeen its resourcing from the outset by WorkEnvironment Funds. Although its details havechanged as new approaches to resourcing workenvironment schemes have been introduced,the regional representatives are still largelysupported by resources drawn from outside ofthe trade unions.

The Swedish provisions are widelyregarded as successful and recent evaluationhas mostly confirmed this (Frick and Walters,1998). They have also been influential in tradeunion thinking in other countries: strategies toachieve similar legislative measures have beena feature of trade union policies in several West-ern European countries in recent years. In somecases they have been at least partially success-ful. For example, in Italy, provisions on workerrepresentation on health and safety introducedunder Law 626 allow for the posssibility oftrade union appointment of territorial repre-sentatives. In the United Kingdom, similar mea-sures have been canvassed by the trade unionssince the Trades Union Congress (TUC)adopted a resolution to this effect in 1998. Cur-

rently, they are the subject of a public consulta-tion exercise organized by the Health andSafety Commission (HSC, 1999). The demandfor such measures is also being debated withinthe French trade union confederations and acall for legislative change in this area is likelyto become trade union policy in France in thenear future. In addition, the French unions arediscussing the creation of health and safetyadvisors at regional level in all the federations.Although they would not have the statutoryrights of territorial representatives — to enterworkplaces, for example — they would be ableto provide health and safety information adviceand support for trade union members withinsmall workplaces.

In G re e c e , an interesting variation of the useof statutory measures exists in relation to jointsafety committees in shipbuilding and re p a i rw h e re under the provisions of Law 1767/88,joint health and safety committees have been setup for the many small enterprises and contrac-tors involved in the shipbuilding and re p a i rzone of Piraeus-Drapetsona-Keratsini-Perama-Salamina. Under the law, the committees havethe right to control the implementation of healthand safety legislation. The committees are com-posed of one re p resentative of each of the LabourInspectorate, the Merchant Marine and the Te c h-nical Chamber of Greece, and two elected re p-resentatives of the workers. The Labour Inspec-tor is the chairperson of the committee. Theyt h e re f o re do not have any employers’ re p re s e n-tatives. Among the functions of the committeea re regular joint inspections of the worksitesunder their jurisdiction. If there are enforc e m e n tactions following such inspection, these areundertaken solely by the labour inspectorate.

Trade union initiatives

Trade unions that organize in sectors inwhich there are large numbers of workers insmall enterprises have had strategies on re p re-sentation which accounted for the problems ofsize and fragmentation for many years. Thus, forexample, in the United Kingdom the shop work-ers’ trade union has a well developed system forre p resenting its members in small workplacest h rough the appointment of organizers thatcover large numbers of diff e rent workplacesusually within a particular region. Incre a s i n g l y,as health and safety issues grow among the con-cerns of workers, such organizers becomeinvolved in health and safety issues and re q u i retraining and support from the trade union ino rder to function effectively at such tasks.

89

Roving representatives

In addition to such practices which haveevolved slowly, and in response to changingdaily demands, trade unions have alsoattempted to introduce schemes in whichregional or territorial representatives have beenspecifically designated to deal with health andsafety. Such efforts have usually been influ-enced by the Nordic provisions but specificallyadapted to suit the climate of the industrial sec-tor and the national context in which they havebeen implemented. Perhaps one of the most rel-evant and interesting of such efforts is the rov-ing safety representative scheme initiated bythe Rural and Agricultural Workers section ofthe Transport and General Workers’ Union inthe United Kingdom in 1996. It facilitated theappointment of a number of roving safety rep-resentatives from among existing lay officials ofthe union in the south of England in 1996.

The limitations ofa unilateral approach

The scheme was introduced unilaterallybecause of the trade union’s increasing fru s-tration at the failure to establish joint initiativest h rough the tripartite national stru c t u re forhealth and safety for the industry (the A g r i-c u l t u re Industry Advisory Committee).Although the Health and Safety Executive(HSE) gave its moral support to the scheme, theemployers’ organization, the National Unionof Farmers (NFU) refused to support it and alsorefused to undertake any action to encourageits members to cooperate and allow the re p re-sentatives to gain access to farms. As a re s u l t ,in an evaluation of the scheme that was carriedout in the second year of the operation, it wasfound that few visits to farms had been possi-ble and that the re p resentatives’ activities had,in the main, concentrated on awareness raisingoutside the workplace, including among themembership of their trade union branches,agricultural employees and the general public( Walters, 1997). Although it demonstrated thesuccess of the scheme in these respects andhighlighted its overall potential, the evaluations t ressed the limitations of this type of appro a c hwhen enacted unilaterally and without thebacking of legislation or the full voluntary sup-port of all the parties affected. The point aboutlegislative support was taken up by the tradeunions when, following the evaluation, theTUC adopted a resolution calling for suchl e g i s l a t i o n .

Meanwhile, the scheme in agriculture hascontinued to operate and appears to be slowlygaining greater credibility with the employers.Most of the representatives originallyappointed are still in place and they have nowbeen able to gain access to workplaces(although this is still limited in some cases).They have also received further training andbecome better integrated into the relevant tradeunion support mechanisms.

In S p a i n , the CC.OO has a system of makingcontact with workers in small enterprisest h rough outreach teams of trade union off i c i a l s( S L F, 1997). The system was set up in 1991 andit targets companies of between six and 49 work-ers. It was designed primarily for the purposeof union organization, particularly in relation toestablishing trade union elections for workers’re p resentatives. However, there is a widespre a drecognition of the fact that entry to small enter-prises, where there is often employer hostilityto union organization, is facilitated thro u g hfocusing on areas which are of interest to bothemployers and workers. Health and safetyissues fall into this category and outreach work-ers are able to demonstrate that the union hassome expertise to offer in this are a .

The outreach team members tend to beactivists of long standing and have undergonea number of union training courses. They havea general knowledge of health and safety buthave not normally undergone specialist train-ing in this area. Their activity is directed at com-panies with no union organization. Followingan initial meeting with management, the out-reach workers normally hold several meetingswith the workforce before the election of tradeunion representatives is held. Once these havetaken place the team worker may stay in touchwith the enterprise for up to six months after-wards, offering support, but the responsibilityfor the newly unionized small enterprise istransferred during this period to the corre-sponding union federation.

In Denmark, trade union support for repre-sentatives in small firms normally includesadvice, information seminars and training.Recent changes in legislation mean that there isnow a requirement concerning the election ofsafety representatives in workplaces with fiveor more employees, and trade unions haveincreased their efforts to provide support andnetworking for such representatives. There isan awareness within the trade unions that if sig-nificant numbers of new representatives are tobe elected in small enterprises, the unions needto develop their role and identity to encompass

90

not only the traditional inspection and controlmodel but also one in which a more participa-tive and advisory role can be achieved.

Joint schemes for worker/employerrepresentative involvement in healthand safety management in smallenterprises

The Agricultural Workers’ Initiative describedabove is gradually transforming into a joint ini-tiative as the Agricultural Industry AdvisoryCommittee (AIAC), and has succeeded in per-suading the NFU to cooperate following theevaluation of the original scheme. As a result,a joint initiative sponsored by the AIAC inwhich more roving representatives will beappointed alongside a number of health andsafety advisers is currently under discussion.Together, they are to be supported in gainingaccess to farms and other agricultural work-places. A further research project has been com-missioned to evaluate the initiative by compar-ing the experiences of agricultural enterprisesthat make use of the representatives and advis-ers with another group who make no use ofsuch support.

Need for collective agreements

Schemes in other countries and other sectorshave been joint ventures from the start. Forexample, in Italy, where Decree 626/94 imple-ments the EU Framework Directive and allowsthe possibility for the creation of territorialsafety representatives, collective agreementshave to be signed in order to operationalizesuch possibilities. This has occurred in severalsectors such as crafts and commercial under-takings. In the Emilia-Romagna region a jointorganization for craft companies (enterpriseswith less than 20 employees from all sectorsexcept agriculture and the retail and wholesaletrades) known as the Emilia-Romagna BilateralAuthority (EBER) was set up in 1991 to promotedialogue between employers and workers inthe sector. In 1996, an agreement between theemployers and trade union organizations in thesector was reached to provide resources (froma modest tax on employers of 5 Euro peremployee per year) to enable EBER to deliverinformation, training and support for territor-ial representatives who are active in the craftsector. Operational support for the represen-tatatives is also provided through territorialjoint committees that are present in differentdistricts of the region.

In Spain, the development of bipartite ini-tiatives is predictable, given the high degree ofinstitutionalization of union management rela-tions outside the firm and the tradition of cor-poratism in the country. For example, in the col-lective bargaining agreement for constructioncovering Asturias, provision is made for theappointment of joint employer/union dele-gates for health and safety outreach work withcompanies in the sector. These are supervisedby a health and safety committee set up underthe same agreement. Their role is seen as com-plementary to that of other intermediaries andtheir main function is to sensitize employersand workers to accident prevention and thetasks which need to be carried out in order tocomply with the legislation. They are envisagedas acting as a “collaborating adviser” (asesorcolaborador) rather than an inspector.

In Denmark, trade unions and employers’organizations have concluded agreements onoutreach working which involve joint visits ofemployers and trade union representatives tosmall enterprises. Such arrangements exist, forexample, in construction and hairdressing.

Other joint initiatives

T h e re are a number of joint approaches totraining provision for small enterprises in var-ious western European countries. One exam-ple is the three-year (1999-2001) training planadopted in Valencia, Spain, with the support ofthe regional authority: employers and tradeunions seek to train 25,000 small enterpriseowner/managers, 15,000 safety re p re s e n t a-tives and 10,000 employees designated asresponsible for OHS. Training initiatives, in asense, re p resent the easiest option for initia-tives involving trade unions and employers.Funding tends to be forthcoming: it does notinvolve any direct intervention in the companyand each social partner can look after the train-ing of its own constituency, as will be the casein Valencia where the unions will org a n i z etraining for safety re p resentatives, andemployers’ associations for their own mem-bers. Similar joint schemes between individualtrade unions and employers’ org a n i z a t i o n shave existed for a number of years in theUnited Kingdom where, for example, tradeunions in engineering, electricity and con-s t ruction run joint courses with employers’associations in the sectors in which small enter-prises and contractors are targ e t e d .

91

Extra pair of eyes in CC.OO

Although most joint initiatives involvingworkers’ representatives are between tradeunions and employers, there are also examplesof agreements between the trade unions andenforcement authorities. For example, in Spaintrade unions also intervene to support theenforcement role of the inspectorate. In Valen-cia, the officials of the Construction Federationof CC.OO tour the city by car to act as an extrapair of eyes for labour inspectors. Typically,they park outside a building site, note down,while seated in the car, any obvious infractionsand then report them to the inspectorate.

No reported accidents on sites visitedby trade union representatives

Such an enforcement role also has moreinstitutionalized outlets: in Valencia, tradeunions have negotiated an agreement with theinspectorate whereby the latter notify the unionat regional level of any improvement ordersmade so that the union can monitor whether thefirm is taking action. In the construction sector,unions have reached agreement with localauthorities to inspect public sites, such as thesite of the Madrid underground. In the sameregion, there are agreements with local author-ities for the inspection of major public buildingsites by trade union represesentatives. In thetown of Gandia in 1998, 146 sites were visitedon which 1,180 workers were employed. Theagreement is considered to have contributed tothe absence of any reported accidents on thesites and of any days lost through accidentsduring the year. In the city of Valencia, similarsuccess has been achieved via an agreementwith the Housing Department in respect ofpublic housing building sites.

In Sweden, regional safety representativeshave participated with the labour inspectoratein various ad hoc campaigns aimed at particu-lar aspects of health and safety performance insmall enterprises, such as in reducing machin-ery accidents in the baking industry throughjoint inspection campaigns and in checkingcontainers in the transport industry.

Joint Health and Safety Committeesfor Small Enterprises

In most countries in Western Europe, thereare examples of regional or sectoral joint safetycommittees that have a role in health and safetymatters in small enterprises in their area. In

some cases, these committees have little morethan an information distribution function. Theyare often involved in training initiatives inwhich health and safety training is commis-sioned, developed or delivered to small enter-prise employers, workers and workers’ repre-sentatives. In other cases, they may oversee theactivities of regional/territorial representa-tives, as in the health and safety committee inconstruction in Asturias and the district com-mittees in Emilia-Romagna that have alreadybeen mentioned. Occasionally, they undertakeinspection themselves as is the case in the Greekstatutory joint committee for shipbuilding andrepair, also mentioned previously. Generally,however, they represent an infrastructuraldevice in which stakeholders can meet todevelop policies and practices on health andsafety in small enterprises.

Factors which influence the successof representation on health and safetyfor workers in small enterprisesand their relevance to agriculture

Although, in most cases, awareness of theneed for special strategies on re p resentation forworkers in small enterprises in Western Euro p eis a relatively recent development, it should beevident from the examples in the previous sec-tion that there is already a rich variety of expe-rience available. Analysis of such experiencepoints to a number of factors which seem to becritical in determining the success of re p re s e n-tation. While some of these factors re flect whatis already known about the determinants ofe ffectiveness for worker re p resentation in healthand safety in general, others are more specific tothe situation of work in small enterprises.

The extent of the challenge

Clearly, industrial relations culture, thedegree of union density and the attitude ofowners/managers to both health and safetyand worker participation are critical issueswhich will influence the extent of the success ofstrategies on health and safety representationaimed at small enterprises. These are undoubt-edly variables which help to explain the successof the Swedish scheme and at the same timemake clear the extent of the challenge such rep-resentation faces in other countries where socialattitudes and trade union densities are lessfavourable. Nevertheless, evaluation of the fac-tors influencing the success of initiativesinvolving the representation of workers’ health

92

and safety interests in small enterprises by rep-resentatives from outside the workplace hasshown a number of common features which areshared to a greater or lesser extent by most ofthese representation initiatives in WesternEurope.

Issues of legitimacy and credibility

In this respect, it is clear that the task ofregional/territorial representatives is differentfrom that of traditional worker representativesoperating within their own workplaces. Thereare major issues of legitimacy and credibilitythat regional representatives confront not onlywith owner/managers in small enterprises butalso with the workers themselves. Traditionalapproaches to worker representation on healthand safety such as the inspection and controlstrategies which characterize many of theapproaches of internal worker representativesin larger workplaces may be counterproductivewhen used by regional health and safety repre-sentatives.

Need for negotiating skillsand alliances

Regional/territorial representatives requirerepresentational and negotiating skills suited tothe conditions of informal relations of employ-ment that characterize small firms. These char-acteristics include the absence of forms ofworker organization and procedural structuresand arrangements for dealing with managersand their employers which are familiar to tradeunion representatives from large organizations.They also mean that representatives may needto form alliances with actors and organizationssuch as health and safety prevention services,labour inspectors, local health and safetygroups, public administrators, and others withwhich and with whom they may be unfamiliarif their experience is based in traditional indus-trial relations scenarios. They may also need tomake greater effort to communicate with work-ers in small enterprises and even with membersof the public in the communities in which theenterprises operate.

Using the media

Examples of regional representative initia-tives such as the Agricultural Workers’ Schemein the United Kingdom show that the repre-sentatives engage in many activities, such asspeaking at local farming events and using

local or sectoral media to promulgate messagesabout their role in health and safety whichwould not be anticipated by worker represen-tatives inside large organizations.

Major resource implicationsin terms of required skills

These different roles require differentapproaches, personal qualities and skills of therepresentatives themselves if they are to be suc-cessful. They may be acquired with the aid ofexperience and training, but it is important torecognize that there are significant resourceimplications inherent in the provision of thetraining and organization necessary to supportthem in this achievement. Resource allocationis also implied by the need for regional/terri-torial representatives to avoid becoming iso-lated. They require support in this respect fromtheir regional trade union organizations as wellas from the regional and sectoral committeesthat exist in some of the schemes previouslydescribed. Indeed, very few schemes have beendeveloped without the injection of resourcesfrom one source or another. However, thesecosts should be placed in perspective. Althoughsuch resources are not insignificant and obtain-ing them and sustaining their supply may be amajor challenge, especially in industrial sectorssuch as agriculture, they are relatively minorcompared with the potential benefits in reduc-ing the costs of accidents and ill health in smallenterprises.

Different communication methodsto win support

Another lesson that would seem to berepeated in the various schemes described pre-viously is that they are unlikely to be success-ful unless they have the widespread support ofthe social partners, the public authorities andother stakeholders in the small business sector.Gaining such support is one of the reasons whythe worker re p resentatives need to adoptmethods of communication in health andsafety which may be diff e rent from those usedin the forms of employment relations that arefamiliar in large enterprises. This pre s e n t sg reater challenges for some industrial sectorsthan others. Indeed, experience in agricultureto date would suggest that its culture and tra-ditions may re p resent formidable obstacles toschemes involving worker re p re s e n t a t i o n .H o w e v e r, as the British example of ro v i n gsafety re p resentatives indicates, even marked

93

employer opposition can be overcome. Suchhostility to the scheme at the outset has subse-quently given way to cooperation in a jointscheme following demonstration of some ofthe benefits and potential of the originals c h e m e .

Legislative rights seldom extendto small enterprises

Linked to institutional support of the mainactors involved is the question of legislativesupport for the kind of health and safety inter-ventions that use worker representation. Leg-islative rights for workers to be represented onhealth and safety, and attendant requirementsfor employers to make provisions to allow theelection of their representatives and facilities toenable them to function, are features of mostEuropean national provisions as well as thoseof the EU. However, such rights rarely extendoperationally to workers in small enterpriseseven if they exist in theory, for all of the reasons,already outlined, which make representation inindividual workplaces difficult to eitherdevelop or sustain. To effect access to repre-sentation for workers in small enterprises per-haps special provisions may need to apply. Thiscourse has been resorted to by several coun-tries, as illustrated by the examples of Sweden,Norway, Italy and Greece. There is little doubtthat the widespread success of the Swedishscheme is accounted for, at least in part, by itsstatutory backing, or that the existence of theItalian territorial representatives, or the Greeksectoral joint health and safety committees,were stimulated by provision for their creationin legislation. From the evidence presented, itseems that schemes for worker representationon health and safety in small enterprises aregreatly aided by statutory support. However,this does not mean that such statutory supportis by any means the sole reason for their suc-cess.

Conclusion: the relevance of workerrepresentation for health and safetyin agriculture

Work in agriculture is dangerous. Healthand safety performance is poor, and health andsafety management is underdeveloped. Assuch, it is a cause for concern and is justifiablya target for the prevention strategies of the reg-ulatory agencies and others involved inimproving health and safety standards. How-ever, it is a sector which does not lend itself eas-

ily to regulatory interventions. Many of theextremes of labour relations associated withsmall business culture are the norm in agri-c u l t u re and it is largely resistant to tradi-t i o n a l forms of autonomous collective workero rg a n ization.

Links with economic interests,market regulation, and the businessenvironment

There is growing recognition that health andsafety management in small firms in WesternEurope will not be achieved by reliance on tra-ditional command and control approaches toregulation and inspection. New approaches inwhich health and safety can be linked to eco-nomic interests, market regulation and thebusiness environment in which small firmsoperate are becoming more widely used inefforts to improve health and safety perfor-mance in the sector. These approaches fre-quently make use of organizations and agen-cies that are part of the small businessenvironment and from which workers, man-agers and owners of small enterprises havedemonstrably something to gain. Trade unionscan and should be part of this environment,even though they may need to modify theiridentities and their organizational strategies tomaximize the opportunities for the representa-tion of workers in the sector.

New possibilities of workerrepresentation considerable

This article has demonstrated that there areforms of worker re p resentation which fit thisnew awareness and which offer considerablepotential for improvements in health andsafety management and performance that aremuch needed in the agricultural sector. A c c e s sto re p resentation on health and safety forworkers in agriculture has never been easy.H o w e v e r, while the sector presents formidablebarriers to traditional approaches to workerre p resentation, the possibilities off e red by newstrategies involving diff e rent forms of re g i o n a lre p resentation are considerable. A l t h o u g hsuch schemes by no means overcome all of theobstacles to re p resentation in the sector, expe-rience of their development in other sectors inwhich small enterprises predominate, as wellas of their limited application in agricultureitself, suggest many reasons to be optimisticabout their development in the sector in thef u t u re .

94

Costs offset by gains

Such schemes need support from stake-holders and regulators and some degree ofresourcing. This is no less the case in agricul-ture than in any other sector where small firmspredominate. However, there is sufficient evi-dence to suggest that traditional worker repre-sentation makes a significant impact on healthand safety performance and this would also bethe case for schemes involving regional workerrepresentation. The costs of such schemes aretherefore small and easily offset by the eco-nomic and social gains from improved healthand safety that would be achieved from theirsuccessful operation in agriculture as well as inother sectors of employment.

References

Beaumont, P. B.; Coyle, J. R.; Leopold, J. W.; Schuller, T. E.1982. The determinants of effective joint health and safety com-mittees (Centre for Research into Industrial Democracyand Participation, University of Glasgow, Report to ERSC).

Biggins, D.; Phillips, M.; O’Sullivan, P. 1991. “Benefits ofworker participation in health and safety”, in Labour andIndustry, Vol. 4(1), pp. 138-59.

Dedobbeleer, N.; Champagne, F.; German, P. 1990. “Safetyperformance among union and non-union workers inthe construction industry”, in Journal of OccupationalMedicine, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1099-1103.

Frick, K.; Walters, D. R. 1998. “Regional safety representa-tives: a Swedish approach to worker representation onhealth and safety in small enterprises”, in InternationalLabour Review, Vol. 137, No. 3, pp. 367-89.

Grunberg, L. 1983. “The effects of the social relations of pro-duction on productivity and workers’ safety”, in Inter-national Journal of Health Services, Vol. 13(4), pp. 621-34.

Health and Safety Commission. 1999. Discussion Document:Employee consultation and involvement in health and safety(Sudbury, HSE Books).

James, P.; Walters, D. 1997. “Non-union rights of involve-ment: The case of health and safety at work”, in Indus-trial Law Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 35-50.

Kochan, T. A.; Dyer, L.; Lipsky, D. B. 1977. The effectiveness ofunion-management safety and health committees (Kalama-zoo, Michigan, W. E. Upjon Institute for EmploymentResearch).

Nichols, T. 1997. The sociology of industrial injury (London,Mansell).

—. op. cit., Ch. 7.—.; Dennis, A.; Guy, W. 1995. “Size of employment unit and

industrial injury rates in the British manufacturingindustry: A secondary analysis of WIRS, 1990, Data”, inIndustrial Relations Journal , Vol. 26, pp. 45-56; and No. 4,pp. 625-41, New York, Baywood.

Quinlan, M. 1993. “The industrial relations of occupationalhealth and safety” by Quinlan, M. (ed.): Work and health,

the origins, management and regulation of occupational ill-ness (Melbourne, Australia, Macmillan), pp. 126-69.

Raulier, A.; Walters, D. R. 1995. Trade union training in healthand safety (Brussels, European Trade Union TechnicalBureau for Health and Safety).

Reilly, B.; Paci, P.; Holl, P. 1995. “Unions’ safety committeesand workplace injuries”, in British Journal of IndustrialRelations, Vol. 33(2), June.

SLF. 1997. “Health and safety in small enterprises in Europe:The significance and sustainability of the translator func-tion of intermediaries in preventive health and safety indifferent European national settings”. A research projectfunded under the Joint Programme for Working LifeResearch in a European Perspective (SALTSA). This pro-gramme was set up in 1997 to initiate research and devel-opment on labour market and employment, work orga-nization and work environment. The Programme is anundertaking by the Swedish Confederation of TradeUnions, Professional Associations and ProfessionalEmployees, and the National Institute for Working Life.The project will be completed by June 2000 when a fullreport of its findings will be published.

Spaven, M. ; Wright, C. 1993. The effectiveness of offshore safetyrepresentatives and safety committees. A report to the HSE(London, HSE).

Tombs, S. 1990. “Industrial Injuries in British Manufactur-ing”, in The SociologicalReview, May, pp. 324-43.

Walters, D. R. 1990. Worker participation in health and safety : AEuropean comparison, Institute of Employment Rights.

— . 1994. “The conditions for successful employee involve-ment in health and safety”, in European Participation Mon-itor, No. 8, pp. 25-38. European Foundation for theImprovement of Living and Working Conditions, 1994.

— . 1996a. “Trade unions and the effectiveness of worker rep-resentation in health and safety in Britain”, in Interna-tional Journal of Health Services, Vol. 26.

— . 1996b. “Trade unions and the training of health and safetyrepresentatives in Europe”, in Employee Relations, Vol. 18,No. 6, MCB University Press.

— . 1997. The role of regional health and safety representatives inagriculture: An evaluation of a trade union initiative on rov-ing safety representatives in agriculture. HSE ContractResearch Report, No. 157/1997 (Sudbury, HSE Books).

— . 1998. “Employee representation and health and safety: Astrategy for improving health and safety performance insmall enterprises” in Employee Relations , Vol. 20, No. 2,pp. 180-95.

—; Gourlay, S. 1990. Statutory employee involvement in healthand safety at the workplace. A report on the implementa-tion and effectiveness of the Safety Representatives andSafety Committees Regulations, 1977. HSE ContractResearch Report, No. 20/1990, HMSO.

—; Dalton, A. J. P.; Gee, D. 1993. Worker representation on healthand safety in Europe (Brussels, European Trade UnionTechnical Bureau for Health and Safety).

Warren-Langford, P.; Biggins, D.; Phillips, M. 1993. “Unionparticipation in occupational health and safety in West-ern Australia”, in Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 35(4),pp. 585-606.

Weil, D. 1991. “Enforcing OSHA: The role of the labourunions, industrial relations”, Vol. 30, Winter.

Woolfson, C.; Foster, J.; Beck, M. 1996. Paying for the piper: Cap-ital and labour in Britain’s offshore oil industry (London,Mansell).

95

Working and living conditions of agricul-tural workers as well as their health largelydepend on the level of economic developmentand the agrarian policy applied in any particu-lar country. In the recent decade, most EasternEuropean nations have revised and substan-tially altered their key principles of agrarianpolicy.

In Ukraine, the Russian Federation and someother Eastern European countries, agrarianreforms have been facing a concurrent declinein agricultural output which necessarily entailsfurther deterioration in the social and economicstatus of the rural population (Kross, 1998;James, 1996; Kundiev, 1994). The main conclu-sions which follow this analysis re flect ane x t remely negligent attitude towards the work-ing and living conditions of rural people. Theb a c k w a rdness of the countryside in certaincountries in terms of social development larg e l yaccounts for migration of rural youth to townsresulting in the ageing of the rural populationand other unfavourable demographic changes.

Measures to speed up socialdevelopment in the countryside

At present, the agrarian policy in manycountries is evolving towards a more general-ized democratization of economic life. Variousforms of management are operating in the Con-federation of Independent States (CIS): collec-tive and state farms; agro-industries; agro-centres; peasant farms; and private subsidiarysmallholdings. The family farm has regained itsoriginal status and leases became very popularin the countryside. These measures aredesigned to accelerate social development inthe countryside which is considered to be themain target of the current agrarian policy. Inthis respect, particular attention should be paidto significant improvement of women’s work-

ing and living conditions with regard to theirtwofold function as workers and housewives.

To make strides in agricultural develop-ment, find solutions to environmental pro b l e m sand undertake major social re o rganization as awhole re q u i re the active involvement of expertsin many fields. A number of new and complexp roblems need to be urgently addressed by spe-cialists in the areas of public health, safety ande rgonomics in order to adopt policies and mea-s u res to safeguard the health and workingcapacity of collective and state farm workers aswell as that of individual farmers.

Medical and demographic situation

A socio-economic crisis that swept mostEastern European nations has led to negativemedical and demographic developments, i.e.dwindling population, lower birth rates,increasing mortality and a shorter lifespan.These consequences were most acutely felt inthe countryside where they were widespread.In Ukraine alone, from 1991 to 1997, the ruralpopulation decreased by 805,000. In 1998 therural population accounted for 16.2 millionpeople or 32.1 per cent of Ukraine’s total pop-ulation (Glukanova, 1998).

All countries recognize the increased ageingof the rural population: persons beyond theproductive age make up 30 per cent. The shareof the able-bodied in the countryside keepsshrinking. In 1998, in Ukraine, it amounted to49 per cent, i.e. 1,041 persons of non-productiveage (young children and the elderly) per 1,000persons of productive age. In addition, birthrates in the countryside are constantly falling:from 1990 to 1996, the birth rate (number ofnewborns per 1,000 of population) droppedfrom 12.7 to 10.7. The rural birth rate in Ukraine,Russia, Belarus and other countries in theregion is below the rate of simple reproduction.

96

Eastern Europe: Occupational health servicesare remote from workers and have not yet

become an integral part of primary health care

Professor Yuri I. KundievInstitute of Occupational Health

Ukraine’s Academy of Medical SciencesKiev (Ukraine)

97

One third of injury-induced deathsin agriculture

An extremely unfavourable feature of today’smedical and demographic situation is high mor-tality among productive age individuals, espe-cially among males. In Ukraine, the mortality rateof this group was 1,132, or 5.5 per 100,000 of thepopulation in 1995. The mortality rate amongmales of productive age is three and a half to fourtimes higher than the rate among females.

The main causes of death among the pro-ductive age people are accidents, injuries andpoisonings, blood circulation problems, andc a n c e r. In the past five years in Ukraine, thedeath toll from injuries in the agricultural sec-tor approached 3,236 or almost one-third ofinjury-induced deaths in all sectors in aggre g a t e(Tkachuk, 1998). The rural death toll fro minjuries, poisonings and accidents among thep roductive age group exceeds the urban one byfar (see Table 1).

Shortest ever lifespan

Most injuries occur among agriculturalmachine operators, stock farmers and re p a i r-men. The main causes of injuries are workingconditions which do not comply with safetyre q u i rements and hygienic standards. Opera-tion of faulty or obsolete machinery, poor worko rganization, lack of skill and alcohol abuse allcombine to produce the conditions in whichmost tractor drivers, repairmen and stock farm-ers work. In Ukraine alone, over 400,000 peoplework in conditions dangerous to health. Socio-economic hardships are often re flected by alco-hol abuse. Figures show that the rural death tollf rom alcohol intoxication among pro d u c t i v eage people exceeds the urban one (see Table 2).

In the nineties, in the Newly IndependentStates (NIS) the shortest ever lifespan in apeaceful time has been observed, equally affect-ing urban and rural areas (see Table 3). TheUkrainian example shows positive changes

Table 1. Mortality rates among productive age individuals from injuries, poisonings,and accidents 1993-98, per 100,000

Type of area Both sexes Males Females

1993 1997 1998 1993 1997 1998 1993 1997 1998

Urban 159.9 177.0 162.2 268.2 296.2 273.5 48.6 54.0 49.4Rural 200.7 212.7 200.0 326.7 346.8 328.2 55.7 57.1 52.2

Table 2. Morbidity among productive age individuals from alcohol intoxicationin 1993-98, per 100,000

Type of area Both sexes Males Females

1993 1997 1998 1993 1997 1998 1993 1997 1998

Urban 20.5 24.3 20.4 34.6 41.0 34.8 5.9 7.2 5.6Rural 33.7 32.5 28.4 55.3 52.5 46.4 9.0 9.4 7.6

Table 3. Life expectancy in Ukraine in 1990-98 (years)

Years Males Females

All Urban Rural All Urban Ruralpopulation population population population population population

1990 65.4 66.3 64.2 74.9 74.9 74.61993 63.3 63.7 62.1 73.4 73.4 73.11994 62.5 62.9 61.6 73.0 72.9 72.81995 61.3 61.4 61.0 72.6 72.4 72.61996 61.7 61.8 61.0 72.8 72.8 72.71997 62.3 62.8 61.3 73.2 73.2 73.01998 63.3 63.8 62.2 73.7 73.9 73.5

over the last three years: the lifespan amongmales increased by 1.6 years (2 in urban areas,1.2 in rural areas), and among females by 0.9years (1.1 in urban areas, 0.8 in rural areas).However, despite these positive developments,the lifespan among both the urban and ruralpopulation in the region remains rather short.

In 1998, the difference in the lifespanbetween Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and WesternEuropean nations was 10-12 years among malesand 7-8 years among females, but a gradualwidening of this gap is being observed, espe-cially in rural areas. In Ukraine for example, thedifference in 1990 was 8.2 years but 10.4 yearsin 1998 (10.1 in urban areas, 11.3 in rural areas).It may be expected, however, that the demo-graphic situation which developed in ruralareas in Eastern European countries can onlyimprove once the worst years of the socio-economic crisis have passed, ceding place to anera where new forms of management wouldprevail, enhancing social protection for womenand setting in place a reliable public healthservice.

Rural morbidity features

In recent years, most countries of the re g i o nhave faced a sharp increase in tuberculosis inci-dence among people. A c c o rding to official sta-tistics, 8,700 rural residents in Ukraine devel-oped tuberculosis for the first time, accountingfor 53.7 cases per 100,000. As compared with1990, the rate has risen by 37.7 per cent or is10.7 per cent higher than in 1997.

The incidence of tuberculosis in rural com-munities stands at 245.9 cases per 100,000 whilethe urban population indicates a substantiallylower rate, 217.7 cases. The growing incidenceof tuberculosis among rural residents, includ-ing workers, is primarily attributed to a declinein economic living standards, deterioration ofworking and household conditions, a sharpreduction in health services – preventive mea-sures in particular, an increase in stressful situ-ations resulting from unregulated land owner-ship, and concern about the future.

Similarly, the steady yearly rise in the inci-dence of sexually transmitted diseases andAIDS among rural residents is alarming. Thesame causes apply as in the case of tuberculo-sis, but in addition the lack of rural health carehas to be recognized as a key contributor:instead of investing in preventive measures,specialized rural health care services are actu-ally being reduced due to the lack of fundingfrom national programmes.

Cancer and Chernobyl

Oncologic morbidity has always beengreater in urban areas where carcinogenic fac-tors affecting people in their occupational andhousehold activities were more numerous.However, the situation has recently started tochange dramatically with the result that theoncologic morbidity rates in urban and ruralareas are on par. In Ukraine, some years evenindicated the rural rate exceeding the urban.From 1995 to 1998 the cancer incidence amongrural residents has risen by 7.2 per cent. InUkraine and in a number of other countries, thisoutcome is not only produced by an extensiveuse of chemicals in agriculture and pollution ofthe air with traffic fumes; it is also linked to thenuclear power sector and, in particular, to theconsequences of the accident in 1986 at theChernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.

Poor preventive measures

A degenerating lifestyle in the countrysidealso gives rise to more of the carcinogenic fac-tors: tobacco smoking, sniffing and alcoholabuse have recently been catching on with therural population. In recent years, the rate oftumour discovery as a result of preventive med-ical examinations has dropped severely – stand-ing at 16.5 per cent in 1998, for example – owingto an insufficient number of such examinations,absence of screening programmes, poor qualityof diagnostic facilities and the lack of skillsamong health workers. The mental health of therural population is growing worse. A d o l e s c e n t sa re increasingly tending to develop mental dis-o rders. In Ukraine, in 1998, adolescentsaccounted for 781.1 cases per 100,000 of therespective age population; children 431.9 andadults 93.6. For many years chronic alcoholismhas been widespread in rural communities,mainly among productive age people. In 1997,in Ukraine, this stood at 1,463.5 cases per100,000, exceeding the urban rate of 8.9 per cent.

Jobless people most affected

An analysis of these and other official sta-tistics yields evidence of unfavourable trendsin the state of rural health as a whole, includ-ing the health of working people. To someextent, this evidence corroborates a specialstudy (Protsek et al., 1999) conducted inUkraine in 1998. The same study also focuseson the status of rural workers’ health in othercountries. It has been brought to light that the

98

99

highest level of primary morbidity in ruralcommunities affects the jobless (1,215 cases per1,000); then, second in rank, managerial per-sonnel (1,121), and lastly, unskilled workers(1,118). Skilled and office workers revealed alower morbidity rate and entrepreneurs thelowest (445 cases per 1,000). The same trendapplies to disease incidence among differentsocial groups. For example, among the jobless,the incidence was 1.5 times higher than amongprivate entrepreneurs.

Rural workers and their childrenmost vulnerable

A health survey of rural children from dif-f e rent social groups showed that children of theunemployed suff e red the poorest health. Thedisease incidence among the latter amounted to957 cases per 1,000: among children of unskilledworkers, 922; whereas among children of man-agerial and office workers, 822 and 838 casesre s p e c t i v e l y. A study of morbidity among agri-cultural workers and their children in re l a t i o nto the level and number of occupational hazard sis of particular interest. The lowest rates of mor-bidity and chronic pathology incidence werefound in a group of workers who had had vir-tually no contact with obvious occupationalh a z a rds. Any increase in the level and numberof the hazards pushed the morbidity and inci-dence rates upwards. For example, a group ofworkers whose working conditions are veryfavourable in so far as they are characterized byno obvious occupational hazards, accounted fora primary morbidity rate of 628 cases per 1,000,a group with one or two hazards, 1,155, a gro u pwith other four hazards, about 2,000 cases. Thet rend is similar for chronic disease incidence inthe diff e rent groups as well as for morbidity ofc h i l d ren whose parents are affected by variousharmful factors at work. Thus, rural workers incontact with obvious occupational hazards arethe most vulnerable. To safeguard their health,special preventive measures of a medical, org a-nizational and engineering nature are needed.

Health risk factors amongagricultural workers

Agricultural production substantially dif-fers from industrial despite industrializationand the use of scientific and technological inno-vations. The key feature of the sector is that itsmain means of production are the soil and liveorganisms – plants and animals. No amount ofscientific or technological progress can eradi-

cate the dependence of agricultural productionon the natural environment.

Certain features of agricultural productionneed to be underlined, as follows:• agriculture is organized according to sea-

sonal production schedule that accounts fora lot of strain on workers at particular timesof the year. This feature is becoming increas-ingly evident as farming tends to move fur-ther into northern areas.

• work is done in the open air from earlyspring till late autumn and partially in win-ter. This practice necessarily has repercus-sions on the health of the workers owing tovariable combinations of weather factors,depending on the climatic zone, time of theyear and weather conditions.

• agricultural production involves a high fre-quency of alternating operations performedby the same individual, particularly in thecase of manual operations. The scientificand technological strides in all branches ofagriculture demand professional skills toperform such operations. The most commonadditional operations are being mecha-nized, with the result that the need forskilled operators is even more acute.

• the processes of agricultural production andoperation cover long distances. Hence work-places are remote from places of re s i d e n c e .In terms of workers’ health, a considerableamount of energy is spent walking long dis-tances of 10 kilometres and more .

• chemicals and pesticides are extensivelyused in agricultural production, inevitablypolluting the air in the working area as wellas the biosphere. In addition, a number ofother biologically active substances arebeing used: stimulators of growth, mineralfood additives, etc.

Health risk factors among agriculturalmachine operators include noise, vibration,unfavourable microclimatic conditions, dustand chemicals. As a rule, these factors producea combined impact. Their intensity and dura-tion of exposure correspond to the yearly cycleof agricultural operations (Kundiev, 1981).

A high degree of intensity and long hours ofe x p o s u re, well above the allowable level, lead toa more rapid development of some health pro b-lems. For instance, tractor drivers are likely todevelop occupational hearing impairment whenregularly exposed to a noise level of 99 dBA

e q u i v. (Kundiev, Cherniuk and Vitte, 1997). Sim-i l a r l y, heavy manual labour poses a risk ofdeveloping locomotor problems. There is a highincidence of lumbar radiculitis among agricul-tural workers. Milkmaids tend to have hand dis-eases because of manual milking (see Figure. 1).

Health services not accessibleto rural workers

Although health risk factors for rural work-ers are inherent in most operations they carryout, and their effect on health comparable withthat in industry, the occupational diseasesinduced by those factors are too often not dis-covered.

In recent years, in Ukraine, occupationalmorbidity rates per 10,000 workers stood at 40.0in the coal industry, 1.6 in the building materi-als sector, 1.2 in machine building, and less than0.5 in agriculture (Kundiev et al., 1999). In otherwords, the official record does not reflect thereality. The fact that agriculture accounts foronly 3 to 4 per cent of all occupational diseasesbut at the same time is the leading sector interms of injuries, especially those with a fataloutcome, indicates that occupational healthservices are not easily accessible to workers inthe countryside. Between 1993 and 1998, inUkraine, the most common diseases werechronic bronchitis, hearing impairment, anddiseases connected with vibration effects.

A c c o rding to the Agricultural Social Insur-ance Fund (Solecki, 1999) in Poland, re s p i r a t o r ydiseases lead the re c o rd (65 per cent), withf a r m e r’s lung and bird bre e d e r’s lung, bro n c h i a lasthma, and allergic diseases of the upper re s-piratory ducts, resulting mostly from inhalingo rganic dust. They are followed by zoonoses likeb o r reliosis, tick-borne encephalitis and menin-gitis, toxoplasmosis and dermatomycosis. InPoland, farmers quite often developed spondy-losis, arthrosis and so-called “rheumatism ofsoft tissues”. These types of pathology fall underpara-occupational diseases.

In summing up, it may be generally main-tained that no Eastern European country hassolved the problem of complete timely discov-ery of occupational diseases among rural work-ers. Such a situation prevails because occupa-tional health services are remote from workersand have not yet become an integral part of pri-mary health care.

Ineffectual measures, poor delivery

The poor state of health in rural communitiesand among agricultural workers thro u g h o u tEastern Europe is largely a consequence of thesocio-economic crisis the nations in the re g i o na re traversing. Reversing the situation must rankhigh among the strategic tasks with re g a rd toa d d ressing the significance of this sector to theeconomies of the countries in the region. Ag ro w-

100

Figure. 1. Occupational health problems in agriculture

Agriculture

Riskfactors

Noise,vibration

Pesticides,fertilizer,

etc.

Biologicalhazards

Contactwith ani-mals andbioprepa-

rations

Use of thenew tech-

nologyand

machinery

Riskof trau-matism

Over-heating,

over-cooling

Dustdiseases

Hearingloss, vi-brationdiseases

Chemicalpollutionof the e n -v i ro n m e n t

Zoo-anthro-ponoses

Physicalworkstress,

accumula-tion

offatigue

Seasons,unstableloading

Weathercondi-tions,dust

Openair

work

The over-tensiondiseases

Sensibili-zation,allergicdiseases

101

ing concern, the question of the inequality ofhealth services for urban and rural populations,i n e ffectual medical, social and preventive mea-s u res, and insufficient infrastru c t u re for deliver-ing rural health care. Some countries are re f o r m-ing their rural health services by even re d u c i n gthe number of rural outpatient clinics, thus mak-ing primary health care even less accessible.

Patterns of ownership

Those responsible for reforms in rural healthc a re and their improvement programmes alsoought to consider the existing variety of patternsof ownership in agriculture as well as the newones emerging. In rural areas, the state healthsystem is still serving as a basis. However, theinvolvement of medical institutions other thans t a t e - run ones should be envisaged.

The countries of the region have to base theire fforts on a sustainable development concept.For agriculture, this implies a reduction in theuse of harmful chemicals, a decrease in the useof arable soil, re a ff o restation, energy conserva-tion and waste reduction, and rational storageand processing of agricultural products. Ifimplemented, the sustainable developmentconcept will result in diminishing health riskfactors for workers.

References

Clive, James. 1996. Agricultural research and development: Theneed for public-private sector partnership. Issues in agricul-ture in the Ukraine. World Bank, Washington DC, p. 48.

Glukanova, G.G. 1998. Features of demographic crisis in Ukrain-ian villages during the period of transition. International

Conference on Environmental and Occupational Healthand Safety in Agriculture on the Boundary of the SecondMillennium, Kiev, 8-11 Sep., pp. 32-33. (In Ukrainian)

Jacob, P. 1 9 9 9. “ T h y roid cancer among Belorussian and Russ-ian population exposed to the Chernobyl accident”, inInternational Journal of Radiation Medicine, Vol. 3-4, pp. 7-10,Morion LLC, Kiev.

Kross, B. C. 1998. “Research needs for rural and environ-mental health in Central Europe”, in International Journalof Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, Vol. 11 ,No. 1, pp. 3-7, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine,Lodz, and Polish Association of OccupationalMedicine.

K u n d i e v, Y. 1981. “Scientific and technological pro g ress andc o n c u r rent problems of occupational health in agriculturaloperations”, a manual, M e d i t s i n a, Moscow, Ch. 1, p. 17. (InRussian)

—. 1994. “Actual medical and ergonomic problems in agri-culture in the Ukraine”, in International Journal of Occu-pational Medicine and Environmental Health , Vol. 7, No. 1,pp. 3-11, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz,and Polish Association of OccupationalMedicine.

—; Cherniuk, V. I.; Vitte, P. N. 1977. “Occupational risk as anup-to-date problem of occupational medicine” , in I n t e r n a-tional Medical Journal, No. 1, pp. 6-8, Ao Bisseness Inform,K h a r k o v. (In Russian)

—; Krasniuk, E. P.; Gvozdenko, L.A.; Ershova, M.A. 1999.“Update on occupational morbidity in Ukraine”, inVrachebnoye, No. 5, Kiev, pp. 146-149. (In Russian)

Protsek, O. G.; Nagorna, A. M.; Gruzeva, T. S.; Ocheredko,O. M. 1999. “Features and tendencies in rural morbidity inUkraine”, in The herald of social hygiene and health care,in Ukraine, No. 2, Kiev, pp. 20-24. (In Ukrainian)

Solecki, L. 1999. “Occupational and para-occupational dis-eases in agriculture”, in Annals of Agricultural and Envi-ronmental Medicine, Sixth International Seminar onErgonomics, Work Safety and Occupational Hygiene,Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 171-172, Lublin, Poland.

Tkachuk, S. 1998. Labour protection problems in agriculture andsolutions to them. Kiev, International Conference onEnvironmental and Occupational Health and Safety inAgriculture on the Boundary of the Second Millenium,8-11 Sep., pp. 4-5. (In Ukrainian)

The following findings are based on a ques-tionnaire sent to 52 countries in Africa, 32 coun-tries in the Americas, 33 countries in Asia and41 countries in Europe and Central Asia. Theresponses to the questionnaire give an indica-tion of the basic minimum age for employmentand the exceptions for light work, hazardouswork, work in family undertakings and inagriculture.

Africa

The basic minimum age for employment is12 in Egypt, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan andM o rocco; 14 in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso,C a m e roon, Cape Ve rde, Central African Repub-lic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, EquatorialGuinea, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Liberia,M a d a g a s c a r, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome andPrincipe, Senegal, Togo and Zambia; 15 inBotswana, Comoros, Ghana, Lesotho, Mauri-tius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, SouthAfrica and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; and 16 inAlgeria, Burundi, Congo, Gabon, Kenya andTu n i s i a .

In the case of light work, for example domes-tic work and light agricultural work, the mini-mum age is 12 in Benin, Burkina Faso, Buru n d i ,Cape Ve rde, Central African Republic, Chad,Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Mali, Niger,Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sey-chelles, Somalia, Uganda and Zimbabwe; 13 inEquatorial Guinea, Lesotho and Tu n i s i a .

The minimum age for hazardous work is 14in Cameroon and Ethiopia; 15 in Botswana,Egypt, Namibia and Tanzania; 16 in Cape Ve rd e ,Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côted ’ I v o i re, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea,M a d a g a s c a r, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, SaoTome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Somalia, Sudan and Uganda; 18 in A l g e r i a ,Angola, Benin, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea Bissau,Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius,Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swazi-land, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Exceptions are given to work in familyundertakings, especially in agriculture wherec h i l d ren as young as 12 years old are permit-ted to work with their parents’ consent, subjectto light work and restrictions. Discre t i o n a r ypowers are vested with regulatory authorities,e.g. the minister, to decree exceptions of thisn a t u re. Legislation, however, recognizes thatemployment of children must not pose a healthh a z a rd to them, or affect their normal school-ing and education. It also recognizes the role ofa p p renticeship in the training of youngw o r k e r s .

Americas

The basic minimum age for employment is12 in Costa Rica, Saint Lucia and Trinidad andTobago; 14 in Argentina, Bahamas, Belize,Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana,Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru,

102

A summary of findings on the basic minimum agefor employment and the exceptions for light work,

h a z a rdous work, work in family undertakings,and in agriculture

The following article draws on the findings of re s e a rch conducted bythe Norwegian-funded workers’ education project “DevelopingNational and International Trade Union Strategies to Combat ChildLabour (INT/96/M06/NOR). (See Box). The purpose of the re s e a rch pro-ject was to examine legislation on child labour in agriculture and itsapplication. In order to disseminate the findings, the second part of theoriginal re p o rt has been summarized, providing details of the exam-ples of legislation in diff e rent countries. The full text of the re p o rt, enti-tled “Child labour in agriculture: a survey of national legislation”, maybe obtained from the ILO Bureau for Workers’ Activities.

Suriname and Venezuela; 15 in Barbados, Chile,Cuba, Dominica, Haiti, Jamaica, Paraguay andUruguay; 16 in Antigua and Barbuda.

In the case of light work, for exampledomestic work, light agricultural work andindustrial work outside school hours, the min-imum age is 12 in Belize, Colombia, Jamaica,Panama, Paraguay, Saint Lucia and Uruguay;14 in Antigua and Barbuda, Chile and theUnited States.

The minimum age for hazardous work is 14in Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago; 16 inBahamas, Belize, Guatemala, Guyana, Hon-duras, Jamaica, Mexico and the United States; 17in Canada and Cuba; 18 in A rgentina, Barbados,Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Sal-v a d o r, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,P e ru, Suriname, Uruguay and Ve n e z u e l a .

Exceptions are given for family undertak-ings and in the case of A rgentina, the law doesnot apply to agrarian workers. However, re s t r i c-tions include the concern for education andwork for young persons is restricted to workoutside school hours for parents or guard i a n s .

Asia

The minimum age for employment is 12 inFiji, Solomon Islands and Syrian Arab Repub-lic; 13 in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Thailand;14 in Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,Kuwait, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singaporeand Sri Lanka; 15 in Afghanistan, Cambodia,Iran, Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lao

P e ople’s Democratic Republic, the Philippines,Viet Nam, United Arab Emirates and Yemen;16 in China, Jordan, Mongolia, New Zealandand Papua New Guinea.

In the case of light work, which includesdomestic work, light agricultural work andindustrial work, which do not affect the health,psychological development, training and edu-cation of the young persons, the minimuma g e for employment is 12 in Cambodia, Fiji,Japan, Singapore and Solomon Islands; 14 inIndonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka; 15 in theP h i l i p p i n e s .

The minimum age for hazardous work is 16in Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lebanon,Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Papua NewGuinea, Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka; 18 inAfghanistan, China, India, Indonesia, Iran,Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic, Mongolia, the Philippines, SaudiArabia and Thailand.

Exceptions are given for family undertakingsand for occupations in the agricultural sector.

Europe and Central Asia

The minimum age for employment is 15 inAustria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan,Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzer-land, Tajikistan and Turkey; 16 in Albania,Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, France, Ireland,Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Repub-

103

Project INT/96/M06/NOR: Developing National and International TradeUnion Strategies to Combat Child Labour

This project has been operational in many different sectors via the International Trade Sec-retariats: textile and garment, building and construction, domestic workers, tourism, diamondand gemstone, among others. In addition to its support for the production of this report, theproject has been cooperating with the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restau-rant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) in their effort to combat childlabour throughout the agricultural sector in Africa in areas such as tobacco growing and teaplantations.

As of January 2000, the project began cooperating with trade unions via their national cen-tres to develop policies and action plans for combating child labour. It also supports trade cam-paigns for the ratification of ILO Convention No. 182 on Eliminating the Worst Forms of ChildLabour (1999) and its implementation.

The ILO Bureau for Workers’ Activities has also launched another project: INT/98/M10/NOR –Action against child labour through education and training. Its aim is to involve teachers in theelimination of child labour. The Bureau is jointly implementing this project with IPEC (Interna-tional Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour), with the involvement of teachers’ orga-nizations and other relevant international groups.

lic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

In the case of light work, which includeswork performed in the school holidays and isnot prejudicial to health, education and moraldevelopment, the minimum age of employ-ment is 12 in Albania, Austria and France; 13 inDenmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Nether-lands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland andTurkey; 14 in Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Kazakhstan, Portugal and Russia; 15 inBulgaria and Poland.

The minimum age for hazardous work is 16in Albania, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,France, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Switzerlandand the United Kingdom; 18 in Belarus, Bel-gium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ger-many, Iceland, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzs-tan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slova-kia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, Turkeyand Yugoslavia.

Exceptions are given for agricultural workin family undertakings and to other work sub-ject to restrictions on the nature of work per-formed, hours of work, health and safety andeducation of the child concerned.

Conclusion

Responses to the questionnaire indicate thatlegislation provides for a wide latitude for min-imum age of employment of between 12 and 21and is subject to further conditions, whichensures that the health, education and moraldevelopment is not affected. Parental consentand supervision are also included in somecountries. The nature of occupations and termsand conditions of employment are alsorestricted to suit the young workers. Appren-ticeship training is particularly emphasized.Hazardous occupations are given special con-sideration especially in seafaring and miningoccupations where the minimum age ofemployment is higher.

In spite of formal legislation and decrees,employment of young workers in agricultureand domestic services is subject to exceptionswhich render formal legislation and decreesineffective in prevention of child labour andabuse of young workers.

The agricultural sector is the least protectedeconomic sector with regard to utilization ofchild labour as liberal exceptions are providedfor this sector in legislation.

104

1. Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 110).

2. Guarding of Machinery Convention, 1963 (No. 119), and its accompanying Recommendation(No. 118).

3. Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121), and its accompanying Recommen-dation (No. 121) [Schedule I amended in 1980].

4. Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127), and its accompanying Recommendation(No. 128).

5. Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and its accompanying Recom-mendation (No. 133).

6. Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 146).

7. Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139), and its accompanying Recommendation(No. 147).

8. Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148), andits accompanying Recommendation (No. 156).

9. Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and its accompanying Recom-mendation (No. 164).

10. Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161), and its accompanying Recom-mendation (No. 171).

11. Safety in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and its accompanying Recommendation(No. 175).

12. Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 177).

105

Annex I

ILO Conventions and Recommendationsof direct relevance to safety and health

in agriculture adopted since 1919

Convention

C.110 Plantations Convention,1958 [and Protocol, 1982]

C.119 Guarding of MachineryConvention, 1963

C.121 Employment InjuryBenefits Convention, 1964[Schedule I amended in 1980]

C.127 Maximum WeightConvention, 1967

C.129 Labour Inspection(Agriculture) Convention, 1969

106

Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; Ecuador; Guatemala;Mexico; Nicaragua; Panama; Philippines;Sri Lanka; Uruguay.

Algeria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Brazil; Central AfricanRepublic; Congo; Croatia; Cyprus;Democratic Rep. of the Congo; Denmark;Dominican Rep.; Ecuador; Finland;Ghana; Guatemala; Guinea; Iraq; Italy;Japan; Jordan; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan;Latvia; Madagascar; Malaysia; Malta;Morocco; Nicaragua; Niger; Norway;Panama; Paraguay; Poland; Russian Fed.;San Marino; Sierra Leone; Slovenia;Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian ArabRep.; Tajikistan; The Former YugoslavRep. of Macedonia; Tunisia; Turkey;Ukraine; Uruguay; Yugoslavia.

Belgium; Bolivia; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Croatia; Cyprus;Democratic Rep. of the Congo; Ecuador;Finland; Germany; Guinea; Ireland;Japan; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;Luxembourg; Netherlands; Senegal;Slovenia; Sweden; The Former YugoslavRep. of Macedonia; Uruguay; Venezuela;Yugoslavia.

Algeria; Brazil; Bulgaria; Chile; CostaRica; Ecuador; France; Guatemala;Hungary; Italy; Lebanon; Lithuania;Madagascar; Malta; Moldova, Rep. of;Nicaragua; Panama; Poland; Portugal;Romania; Spain; Thailand; Tunisia;Turkey; Venezuela.

Argentina; Belgium; Bolivia; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Burkina Faso; Colombia;Costa Rica; Côte d’Ivoire; Croatia;Denmark; El Salvador; Finland; France;Germany; Guatemala; Guyana; Hungary;Italy; Kenya; Latvia; Madagascar;Malawi; Malta; Moldova, Rep. of;Morocco; Netherlands; Norway; Poland;Portugal; Romania; Slovenia; Spain;Sweden; Syrian Arab Rep.; The FormerYugoslav Rep. of Macedonia; Uruguay;Yugoslavia; Zimbabwe.

Numberof ratifications

10

49

22

25

38

Ratifications of ILO Conventions of direct relevanceto safety and health in agriculture

107

Convention

C.138 Minimum AgeConvention, 1973

C.139 Occupational CancerConvention, 1974

C.148 Working Environment(Air Pollution, Noise &Vibration) Convention, 1977

C.155 Occupational Health andSafety Convention, 1981

Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Albania; Algeria; Antigua and Barbuda;Argentina; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium;Bolivia; Bosnia and Herzegovina;Botswana; Bulgaria; Costa Rica; Croatia;Cuba; Cyprus; Denmark; Dominica; ElSalvador; Equatorial Guinea; Finland;France; Georgia; Germany; Greece;Guatemala; Guyana; Honduras; Iraq;Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jordan; Kenya;Kyrgyzstan; Libyan Arab Jamhiriya;Luxembourg; Malaysia; Malta; Mauritius;Nepal; Netherlands; Nicaragua; Niger;Norway; Philippines; Poland; Romania;Russian Fed.; Rwanda; San Marino;Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden;Tajikistan; The Former Yugoslav Rep. ofMacedonia; Togo; Tunisia; Ukraine;Uruguay; Venezuela; Yugoslavia; Zambia.

Afghanistan; Argentina; Belgium; Bosniaand Herzegovina; Brazil; Croatia; CzechRep.; Denmark; Ecuador; Egypt; Finland;France; Germany; Guinea; Guyana;Hungary; Iceland; Iraq; Ireland; Italy;Japan; Nicaragua; Norway; Peru;Slovakia; Slovenia; Sweden; Switzerland;Syrian Arab Rep.; The Former YugoslavRep. of Macedonia; Uruguay; Venezuela;Yugoslavia.

Azerbaijan; Belgium; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Brazil; Costa Rica; Croatia;Cuba; Czech Rep.; Denmark; Ecuador;Egypt; Finland; France; Germany; Ghana;Guatemala; Guinea; Hungary; Iraq; Italy;Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Malta;Niger; Norway; Portugal; Russian Fed.;San Marino; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain;Sweden; Tajikistan; Tanzania, UnitedRep. of; The Former Yugoslav Rep. ofMacedonia; United Kingdom; Uruguay;Yugoslavia; Zambia.

Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Croatia;Cuba; Cyprus; Czech Rep.; Denmark;Ethiopia; Finland; Hungary; Iceland;Ireland; Kazakhstan; Latvia; Mexico;Mongolia; Netherlands; Nigeria;Norway; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia;Spain; Sweden; The Former YugoslavRep. of Macedonia; Uruguay; Venezuela;Viet Nam; Yugoslavia.

Numberof ratifications

63

33

40

29

108

Convention

C.161 Occupational HealthServices Convention, 1985

C.167 Safety and Health inConstruction Convention, 1988

C.170 Chemicals Convention,1990

Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; BurkinaFaso; Croatia; Czech Rep.; Finland;Germany; Guatemala; Hungary; Mexico;San Marino; Slovakia; Slovenia; Sweden;The Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia;Uruguay; Yugoslavia.

Colombia; Czech Rep.; Denmark;Dominican Rep.; Finland; Germany;Guatemala; Hungary; Iraq; Lesotho;Mexico; Norway; Slovakia; Sweden.

Brazil; Burkina Faso; China; Colombia;Mexico; Norway; Sweden.

Numberof ratifications

17

14

7

1. Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11).

2. Workmen’s Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 1 (No. 12).

3. Unemployment (Agriculture) Recommendation, 1921 (No. 11).

4. Living-in conditions (Agriculture) Recommendation, 1921 (No. 16).

5. Social Insurance (Agriculture) Recommendation, 1921 (No. 17).

6. Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), and its accompanyingRecommendation (Revised) (No. 86).

7. Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) Convention, 1951 (No. 99), and itsaccompanying Recommendation (No. 89).

8. Holidays with Pay (Agriculture) Convention, 1952 (No. 101), and its accompanyingRecommendation (No. 93).

9. Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103) and its accompanyingRecommendation (No. 95).

1 0 . P rotection of Migrant Workers (Underdeveloped Countries) Recommendation, 1955 (No. 100).

11. Co-operatives (Developing Countries) Recommendation, 1966 (No. 127).

12. Tenants and Share-croppers Recommendation, 1968 (No. 132).

13. Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130) and its accompanyingRecommendation (No. 134).

14. Rural Workers’ Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141) and its accompanyingRecommendation (No. 149).

15. Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142) and its accompanyingRecommendation (No. 150).

1 6 . Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160) and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 170).

17. Indignenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).

109

Annex II

Other existing ILO Conventionsand Recommendations relevant to agriculture

adopted since 1919

1 Most of its provisions are incorporated in C.110.

110

Convention Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Numberof ratifications

C.11 Right of Association(Agriculture) Convention, 1921

Albania; Algeria; Antigua and Barbuda;Argentina; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan;Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belarus;Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Brazil; Bulgaria; BurkinaFaso; Burundi; Cameroon; CentralAfrican Rep.; Chad; Chile; China;Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Costa Rica;Côte d’Ivoire; Croatia; Cuba; Cyprus;Czech Rep.; Democratic Rep. of theCongo; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica;Ecuador; Egypt; Estonia; Ethiopia; Fiji;Finland; France; Gabon; Germany;Ghana; Greece; Grenada; Guatemala;Guinea; Guyana; Iceland; India; Iraq;Ireland; Italy; Jamaica; Kenya;Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Lesotho; Lithuania;Luxembourg; Madagascar; Malawi;Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Mauritania;Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco;Mozambique; Myanmar; Netherlands;New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria;Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Papua NewGuinea; Paraguay; Peru; Poland;Portugal; Romania; Russian Fed.;Rwanda; Saint Lucia; Senegal; Seychelles;Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; SolomonIslands; Spain; Sri Lanka; Suriname;Swaziland; Switzerland; Sweden; SyrianArab Rep.; Tajikistan; Tanzania, UnitedRep. of; The Former Yugoslav Rep. ofMacedonia; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey;Uganda; Ukraine; United Kingdom;Uruguay; Venezuela; Yugoslavia; Zambia.

118

Ratifications of other existing ILO Conventions and Recommendationsrelevant to agriculture adopted since 1919

111

Convention Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Numberof ratifications

C.12 Workmen’s Compensation(Agriculture) Convention, 1921

C.97 Migration forEmployment Convention(Revised), 1949

C.99 Minimum Wage FixingMachinery (Agriculture)Convention, 1951

Angola; Antigua and Barbuda;Argentina; Australia; Austria; Bahamas;Barbados; Belgium; Belize; Bosnia andHerzegovina; Brazil; Bulgaria; Burundi;Chile; Colombia; Comoros; Croatia;Cuba; Czech Rep.; Democratic Rep. of theCongo; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica; ElSalvador; Estonia; Fiji; Finland; France;Gabon; Germany; Grenada; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Hungary; Ireland;Italy; Kenya; Latvia; Luxembourg;Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Malta;Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco;Netherlands; New Zealand; Nicaragua;Norway; Panama; Papua New Guinea;Peru; Poland; Portugal; Rwanda; SaintLucia; Senegal; Singapore; Slovakia;Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Spain;Swaziland; Sweden; Tanzania, UnitedRep. of; The Former Yugoslav Rep. ofMacedonia; Tunisia; Uganda; UnitedKingdom; Yugoslavia; Zambia.

Algeria; Bahamas; Barbados; Belgium;Belize; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil;Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Cuba; Cyprus;Dominica; Ecuador; France; Germany;Grenada; Guatemala; Guyana; Israel;Italy; Jamaica; Kenya; Malawi; Malaysia;Mauritius; Netherlands; New Zealand;Nigeria; Norway; Portugal; Saint Lucia;Slovenia; Spain; Tanzania, UnitedRepublic of (Zanzibar); The FormerYugoslav Rep. of Macedonia; Trinidadand Tobago; United Kingdom; Uruguay;Venezuela; Yugoslavia; Zambia.

Algeria; Australia; Austria; Belgium;Belize; Brazil; Cameroon; Central AfricanRep; Colombia; Comoros; Costa Rica;Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; Czech Rep.;Djibouti; El Salvador; France; Gabon;Germany; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea;Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Kenya; Malawi;Malta; Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco;Netherlands; New Zealand; Papua NewGuinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines;Poland; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone;Slovakia; Spain; Sri Lanka; Swaziland;Syrian Arab Rep.; Tunisia; Turkey;Uruguay; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

73

41

51

112

Convention Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Numberof ratifications

C.101 Holidays with Pay(Agriculture) Convention, 1952

C.103 Maternity ProtectionConvention (Revised), 1952

C.130 Medical Care andSickness Benefits Convention,1969

C.141 Rural Workers’Organisations Convention,1975

Algeria; Antigua and Barbuda; Austria;Barbados; Belgium; Belize; Brazil;Burundi; Central African Rep.; Colombia;Comoros; Costa Rica; Cuba; Djibouti;Ecuador; Egypt; France; Gabon;Guatemala; Hungary; Israel; Mauritania;Morocco; Netherlands; New Zealand;Paraguay; Peru; Poland; Saint Lucia;Senegal; Sierra Leone; Spain; Suriname;Swaziland; Syrian Arab Rep.; Tanzania,United Republic of (Tanganyika).

Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Bolivia;Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Chile;Croatia; Cuba; Ecuador; EquatorialGuinea; Ghana; Greece; Guatemala;Hungary; Italy; Kyrgyzstan; Libyan ArabJamahiriya; Luxembourg; Moldova, Rep.of; Mongolia; Netherlands; Poland;Portugal; Russian Fed.; Slovenia; Spain;Sri Lanka; Tajikistan; The FormerYugoslav Rep. of Macedonia; Ukraine;Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Yugoslavia;Zambia.

Bolivia; Costa Rica; Czech Rep.;Denmark; Ecuador; Finland; Germany;Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; Luxembourg;Norway; Slovakia; Sweden; Uruguay;Venezuela.

Afghanistan; Austria; Brazil; BurkinaFaso; Costa Rica; Cuba; Cyprus;Denmark; Ecuador; El Salvador; Finland;France; Germany; Greece; Guatemala;Guyana; Hungary; India; Israel; Italy;Kenya; Mali; Malta; Mexico; Netherlands;Nicaragua; Norway; Philippines; Poland;Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; UnitedKingdom; Uruguay; Venezuela; Zambia.

36

35

14

36

113

Convention Countries that have ratifiedthe Convention (by June 1998)

Numberof ratifications

C.142 Human ResourcesDevelopment Convention, 1975

C.160 Labour StatisticsConvention, 1985

C.169 Indigenous and TribalPeoples Convention, 1989

Afghanistan; Algeria; Argentina;Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus;Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Cuba;Cyprus; Czech. Rep.; Denmark; Ecuador;Egypt; El Salvador; Finland; France;Georgia; Germany; Greece; Guinea;Guyana; Hungary; Iraq; Ireland; Israel;Italy; Japan; Jordan; Kenya; Korea, Rep.of; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Lithuania;Mexico; Netherlands; Nicaragua; Niger;Norway; Poland; Portugal; Russian Fed.;San Marino; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain;Sweden; Switzerland; Tajikistan;Tanzania, United Rep. of; The FormerYugoslav Rep. of Macedonia; Tunisia;Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom;Venezuela; Yugoslavia.

Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus;Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Colombia;Cyprus; Czech Rep.; Denmark; ElSalvador; Finland; Germany; Greece;Guatemala; India; Ireland; Italy; Korea,Rep. of; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Mauritius;Mexico; Morocco; Netherlands; Norway;Panama; Poland; Portugal; Russian Fed.;San Marino; Slovakia; Spain; Sri Lanka;Swaziland; Sweden; Switzerland;Tajikistan; Ukraine; United Kingdom;United States.

Bolivia; Colombia; Costa Rica; Denmark;Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico;Netherlands; Paraguay; Peru.

58

42

10