The ILO Programme
|
Occupational safety and health in agriculture needs to be addressed with a well defined strategy and must be integrated into a rural development policy involving both commercial (plantations) and small-scale farming. The progressive extension of occupational care services to workers in agriculture requires the implementation of effective national policies, specific programmes and strategic plans of action with an emphasis on prevention. The delivery of occupational health should be integrated into the primary health care structure.
A model strategy for occupational safety and health in agriculture was developed and tested within the framework of the ILO’s Central American Project on Occupational Safety and Health in Agriculture, launched in September 1993. This project has demonstrated the need for an integrated approach including occupational, public and environmental health, which is consistent with current trends at national and international levels.
The project strategy was oriented towards the implementation of a national policy for the improvement of the occupational safety and health of rural workers, the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases in agriculture and the protection of the environment. It has six main components: 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 lessons learnt in this pilot phase will be used to develop similar projects in other regions of the world, mobilize international cooperation and promote network arrangements in order to progressively elaborate an international programme on occupational safety and health in agriculture.
In order to guarantee sustainable agricultural growth, the productivity of the workforce should be raised by supplying it with the means to meet its basic needs, providing agricultural workers and their families with adequate working and living conditions, protecting their health and welfare, as well as the environment. With new globalization trends, product quality standards should accompany improvements in working conditions. Working conditions in agriculture can be significantly improved in a viable and cost-effective way through safety and health measures. Investment on occupational safety and health provides improved working conditions, higher labour productivity and healthier labour relations. A prerequisite for such improvements is the adoption of adequate labour legislation and social protection measures.
There is worldwide recognition that agriculture is a particularly hazardous sector together with mining and construction. International standards and up to date codes of practice already exist for the last two. Although the ILO, as background work, has also elaborated a series of codes of practice and guides of direct concern to occupational safety and health in agriculture and related issues, these need to be consolidated and revised. In spite of the multitude of related standards and although agriculture is covered along with other sectors by the ILO’s framework Convention on Occupational Safety and Health, 1981 (No.155), which applies to all braches of economic activity, there is no Convention dealing comprehensively with the safety and health problems of agricultural workers. Due to the above the Governing Body of the ILO in its 271st Session decided to include as an item of the Agenda of the 88th International Labour Conference (2000) proposed international standards on safety and health in agriculture (first discussion).
griculture employs half of the world labour force and an estimated 1.3 billion workers are active in agricultural production world-wide. Although the proportion of the workforce engaged in agriculture is under 10% in the more developed regions (and under 3% in the United States), the proportion is 49% worldwide with almost 60% concentrated in developing countries. Nearly half of the latter are in waged labour. Agricultural work is often carried out on a family basis, involving to a great extent the worker's whole family (children, women, and the elderly). The proportion of women and children in agricultural employment is also increasing. Women now account for 20 to 30 % of total agricultural waged employment. Child labour is widespread in agriculture, according to ILO estimates in a number of developing countries, the rate of economically active children between the ages 5 to 14 may be as much as 30 % of the agricultural workforce.1
Agriculture is a sector traditionally neglected as a result of the emphasis placed on industrial development as well as the difficulties involved in dealing with its multiple problems. This situation may be explained by the fact that agriculture is a very heterogeneous and complex sector. One of the distinguishing characteristics of agricultural work is that it is carried out in an essentially rural environment where working and living conditions are interwoven.
Agriculture is practised using multiple complex technologies applied in very different environments. There are a number of specific working situations which vary from country to country and among developed and developing countries, from highly-mechanized agriculture in plantations to traditional methods in small-scale subsistence agriculture. Due to the characteristics of the rural environment and the nature of agricultural work the differences between the various kinds of agricultural work are far more marked than those between the operations of other productive sectors. It should not be overlooked that Aagriculture@ covers not only farming but many other associated operations such as, crop processing and packaging, irrigation, pest management, grain storage, poultry, piggery, fishery, manure and the associated domestic tasks (carrying water or fuel-wood, etc.). There are also environmental implications related to the degradation of natural resources and local and global environmental changes and their long-term impact on the availability of food which have to be considered. This clearly indicates that agriculture is both a specialized subject in itself and involves many sub-sectors which require specialized expertise.
Working conditions will vary from country to country and among developed and developing countries, depending on the working methods: from highly-mechanized extensive methods in commercial plantations to traditional intensive methods in small-scale subsistence agriculture. In developing countries, many waged workers found in plantations are also involved in small-scale farming on family basis. Although new processes and new forms of work organization have made considerable progress in agriculture, in certain countries, dependence on weather changes to perform agricultural work proves to be an obstacle to more efficient operations and may completely modify working conditions, making them difficult and dangerous (e.g. a rainstorm while harvesting, or the gust of a sudden wind during the application of pesticides). Among the main limitations to deal with agriculture, the following factors should be mentioned: agricultural workers are usually dispersed in remote rural areas where public services are generally insufficient; a wide variety of jobs are performed by agricultural workers, especially in small-scale farming; most of the work is done in the open air and consequently workers are exposed to all types of weather; in all countries. In addition, traditional techniques in agriculture often obstruct the application of modern techniques and the agricultural sector suffers from a certain technical backwardness as compared with industry.
Recent economic and technological changes have had an impact on the employment and working conditions of agricultural workers and therefore on the quality of work and life. Most agricultural workers in developing countries have poor housing conditions an inadequate diet, are exposed to both endemic and occupational diseases and lack access to health care services.
Socio-economic, cultural and environmental factors determine the working and living conditions of farmers and agricultural workers. Environmental pollution causes occupational health and public health hazards to the workers, their families and the communities, the cattle and other farm animals, as well as the ecosystem. As agricultural work is carried out in the country side, it is also subject to the health risks inherent in a rural environment and at the same time to those of the specific work process involved (e.g. agrochemical exposure). Moreover, rural workers are dependent on the general standards of public health in rural areas and the provision of an adequate water supply and protection against vermin and insects. These factors have a considerable impact on the health problems of a particular rural area.
In developing countries, a large number of people below the poverty line live in a rural environment2. They may live in extremely primitive conditions, often isolated, without adequate food, water supply and sanitation systems. Roads are non-existent or inadequate and transportation is difficult. Rural communities often lack education and information on the health hazards they may face. Traditional health solutions have few effective mechanisms to reach local communities. The environment in which rural people work and live, their standard of living and their nutrition are as important to their health as the services available to them.
The most vulnerable groups are found in family subsistence agriculture, in plantations as daily paid labourers, seasonal or migrant workers without land and child labourers. This is particularly evident in the case of temporary workers and of small communities in remote areas. Temporary work in agriculture is characterized by casual forms of labour, precarious working conditions and little or no social protection. It is heavily present particularly in Asia and Central America. Around 45% of rural workers in Central America are temporary workers and 56% of those are landless wage workers. Temporary workers are more exposed to occupational hazards than other agricultural workers and are lower paid. Migrant workers may also have language and cultural difficulties at work and in their daily lives. Mobile and seasonal workers may suffer from multiple physical and chemical exposures that accumulate from different workplaces.
In the less developed countries, the situation is often worse because most men emigrate to urban centres seeking a job and women are left behind to till the land, produce and harvest the crops, while at the same time raising a family. In Asia, over 80% of the workforce in agriculture is represented by women. Their workload is heavy, their incomes are low as they depend on the sale of primary products, the prices of which are usually outside their control. In less developed countries, the challenge to provide health for the whole rural community is greater.
There is a low standard of health and medical services in rural areas. This is particularly true in developing countries compared to industrialized countries. This situation is reflected in the numerous communicable and vector-borne diseases, including diseases and health impairments which arise from poor sanitation, inadequate housing, malnutrition and a wide variety of parasitic and bacterial infections affecting the entire population. The high prevalence of epidemic and endemic diseases in most rural areas further aggravates rural communities’ poor health and misery.
The development of technology in the last fifty years has greatly improved urban living conditions, however, this does not apply to rural communities. Health status in rural areas is below that found in urban centres in both developed and developing countries. Even though this is more evident in the developing world. There is a trend towards the progressive deterioration of the health status with the greater distance from urban centres. The mortality rate is also higher in rural areas 3. The drift of the population to urban centres has resulted in a concentration of services for those who work and live in large urban centres with the resulting imbalance in the distribution of health resources between urban centres and rural communities to the detriment of the rural sector.
Health services in rural communities are usually less well developed than in urban centres. Resources are allocated more readily to city initiatives. In many countries, rural populations do not participate actively in policy-making. With economic development, health resources are often mainly devoted to the improvement of secondary and tertiary levels of attention, focusing on the development of medical technology (for surgical procedures, tests and specialized medical disciplines, genetic screening, research and hospital facilities, etc.) and limited funds are available for the primary health care area. These facilities and procedures are organized and provided by centres of excellence which tend to be located in large urban centres and it is often more difficult for rural communities to have access even to essential health services. Because of their remoteness,. small rural health centres or rural hospitals cannot offer the same services as their large urban counterparts and often find it difficult to attract and retain staff.
Agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations worldwide. In several countries the fatal accident rate in agriculture is double the average for all other industries. According to ILO estimates, from a total of 330,000 fatal workplace accidents worldwide, some 170,000 agricultural workers are killed each year.4 Contrary to mining, where fatal accidents have decreased in a number of countries, agriculture mortality rates remained consistently high in the past decade. This is particularly evident in developing countries where education, training and safety systems are largely inadequate to provide coverage to the sector.
Machinery such as tractors and harvesters have the highest frequency and fatality rates of injury. Exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicals constitutes one of the major occupational risks causing poisoning and death and in certain cases work-related cancer. Other hazards are due to the multiple contact with animals, plants, poisonous animals and biological agents which may give raise to allergies, respiratory disorders and lung diseases, zoonotic infections and parasitic diseases. Noise-induced hearing loss, musculoskeletal disorders (repetitive motion disorders, back disorders) stress and psychological disorders are also frequent. .
A study carried out by the Social Security Institute of Panama in the 80s5, in three agricultural sectors, (banana, sugar cane and coffee plantations) highlighted as the major causes of accidents: mechanical devices and manual tools, physical hazards such as noise and thermal stress; agrochemicals and biological agents. Concerning occupational diseases, the main causes identified were chemical substances, biological agents and static and dynamic workload .
The Brazilian Institute on Occupational Safety and Health FUNDACENTRO6 carried out a study on occupational accidents in the rural sector in the eight states where there is a higher concentration of agricultural activities from 1987 to 1990. The study showed that 39.45 % of the total injuries were due to manual tools 88 % of which were cutting tools, and 12.68 % of the injuries were caused by accidents with machinery of which 38.56 % were tractors. The rest were minor injuries due to different causes.
In Chile, the labour inspectorate reported in 1993 that injuries due to machinery and tools accounted for over one third (35 %) of all cases of occupational injury.7 In South Africa, according to an assessment of the annual reports of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (1987-1989), mortality in farming due only to non-chemical occupational accidents was twice that of other industries. 8
Agriculture is a particularly hazardous occupation even in the industrialized countries. The National Safety Council of the United States and the Australian Occupational Safety Institute: WorkSafe Australia have ranked agriculture as one of the three most hazardous industries. Although farmers and farm workers in the United States comprise only 3 % of the workforce, they suffered 7.4 % of work-related deaths for the period 1990-1995, according to the U.S. National Safety Council9.
The national traumatic occupational fatalities surveillance system of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the USA10 identified machinery-related accidents as the second leading cause of traumatic occupational fatalities in the United States between 1980 and 1989. These accidents resulted in 8,505 civilian workers deaths with an average annual fatality rate of 0.80 per 100,000 workers which comprises 13.7 % of work-related fatalities during the period.
The three industry divisions with the highest fatality rates were agriculture (including forestry and fishing), mining and construction. Fatalities within agriculture and construction industries comprised nearly one half of all machinery-related fatalities. The highest industry-specific annual fatality rate was found in agriculture, forestry and fishing 7.47/100,000 which accounted for 30 % of the fatalities. Tractors had both the highest frequency and fatality rate of all machinery types and were associated with 2635 (38.2 %) of the 6904 cases that were coded to a specific machine or machinery group between 1980-89. Harvesting machinery and power takeoffs had the second and third highest machine specific fatality rates for the industry. Other high-risk machines involved in machinery-related fatalities were forklifts involved in 600 (8.7 %) of the fatalities, cranes, excavating machinery and loaders each accounting for more than 5 % of the fatalities for the same period.11
According to the survey, male workers were far more likely than female workers to be victims of machinery-related occupational fatalities, accounting for 98 % with a fatality rate of 35 times that for female workers. A possible explanation is the gender specific distribution within the industry because male workers predominate in activities with the highest risk. Machinery-related fatality rates also varied substantially by age, although, workers aged 25 to 34 years experienced the greatest number of machinery-related occupational fatalities.
Work-related agricultural fatalities were also examined in Australia12 as part of a larger population-based study of all work-related fatalities in the period from 1982 to 1984. A total of 257 farm related fatalities were identified where 223 came from the waged-labour force (19.4 deaths per 100,000 per year) and 34 deaths were registered for children less than 15 years of age. Mobile mechanical equipment (particularly tractors) were the main fatal agent and roll-overs accounted for many of the fatalities.
Exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicals constitutes one of the major occupational risks, accounting in some countries, for as much as 14 % of all occupational injuries in the agricultural sector and 10 % of all fatal injuries.13 There are limited reliable data on the extent of pesticide-related illness both in developed and developing countries due to difficulties in the accurate reporting of cases which leads to under-estimation. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates at between 20,000 and 300,000 the annual number of acute pesticide poisoning cases among agricultural workers and the WHO places the total cases of pesticide poisoning at between 2 and 5 million each year of which 40,000 are fatal. 14
Developing countries consume more than 20 % of the world production of agrochemicals and are responsible for approximately 70 % of the total number of cases of acute poisoning occurring in the world, which corresponds to more than 1.1 million cases. During the 80s, the importation and use of agrochemicals in the Central American region reached an annual average of 53,6 millions of kg. Only in Costa Rica, as much as 4 kg of pesticide per capita was used annually during the last decade, eight times the 0.5 kg estimated for the whole world population and twice the average use of the total Central American region. Only in Central America 27,745 cases of acute poisoning have been registered between 1980 and 1987 and this corresponds to more than 2000 cases per year.15
The magnitude of health damage caused by agrochemical exposure will vary according to the type of crop cultivated, the type of agrochemical used, the mode of application/exposure, the individual susceptibility and the climatic conditions. Some of the widely used substances are highly toxic according to the hazard classification of the WHO and many are banned or severely restricted in industrialized countries.
During 1986, a total of 1,880 acute poisoning, dermal and eye injuries due to pesticide exposure were reported to the National Social Security Institute of Costa Rica (INS). The annual pesticide poisoning rate for the total wage earning population for the period of 1980-86, was 5.3 per 1000 workers, 97 % of these occurred among young adults aged 20 to 29 years (23 per 1000). Female agricultural workers showed a higher incidence rate than male workers in all age groups (25 per 100). In the period from 1980 to 1986, 3,330 pesticide poisonings were found in the social security register (average annual rate of 20 per 100,000 inhabitants), 60 % of those corresponded to agricultural workers which accounts for an average annual rate of 115 per 100,000 for all poisonings. In the same period, 283 fatalities from pesticide poisoning were autopsied by the Forensic Medical Department of the Judicial Investigation Organism (OIJ), with an average annual rate of 1.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. More than half of the victims (56.5 %) were agricultural workers with an average annual rate of 9.2 per 100,000. All work-related fatalities autopsied occurred in the agricultural sector (1.8 per 100,000 agricultural workers), 90 % of the occupational poisoning occurred among agricultural field workers, 87 % during the application of the pesticides and 13 % during mixing, carrying of containers or cleaning equipment. Deaths due to non-occupational accidents and suicides were also more likely to occur among the agricultural population 16.
According to a national survey on occupational safety and health in agriculture carried out in Panama, the rural population exposed to pesticides in 1993 was 574,757 from which only 5 % have access compensation from the Social Security System 17. The records of the Social Security refer to only 15 % of the total cases. Up to 20-25 % of all permanent incapacities entitled of compensation came from the agricultural sector in the same period. In another study undertaken by the National University of Panama for the period from 1980 to 1989, the rate of acute poisoning due to occupational exposure was of 26.2 % 18 According to data from the Ministry of Health of Panama, the rate of intoxications due to pesticide exposure was 7.7 per 100,000 in 1990 and 5.6 per 100,000 in 1995. According to estimates from the Social Security Institute, the rate for 1995 should have been of 3000 per 100,000.19
During 1994, 237 cases of pesticide poisoning were registered by the Social Security Institute of Guatemala20, with 3 occupational fatalities. Another study carried out by the Faculty of Medicine from the National University of Guatemala based on data from the Ministry of Health and the Social Security Institute showed that in the period from 1986 to 1990, there were 5,571 cases of intoxications from pesticides with a fatality rate of 3.23 % .In 1994, a survey on the use of pesticides undertaken by the Ministry of Health concluded that it was not possible to have an accurate estimation of the number of intoxications from occupational exposure in the country due to under-reporting.
Although the figures provided above give an idea of the magnitude of the problem, official data on the incidence of occupational accidents and diseases are imprecise and notoriously underestimated in Agriculture, irrespective of the level of development of the country. This situation is more evident concerning occupational diseases. There are different arrangements for the reporting of occupational accidents and for occupational diseases. Accidents can be readily identified at the moment they occur, while occupational diseases require medical diagnosis.
Information on occupational diseases is closely linked to the systems of compensation which are based on a definitive list of prescribed diseases leading to long-term disability or death and associated specified occupations. None of these lists provides comprehensive coverage. Some of the constraints are due on one hand, to the fact that there is a substantial gap between the exposure to a hazardous agent and the development of the disease, and on the other, that the effects of a substance or agent are seen not only in recognized occupational diseases such as brucellosis, but also in conditions resulting from a combination of exposures which are recognized only in a few cases (e.g.: occupational asthma, allergic alveolitis, farmer’s lung disease). Work hazards could be the direct cause of a disease (e.g.: arsenic poisoning), a contributing cause (e.g.: coronary heart disease), or an aggravating factor in the onset of chronic diseases (e.g.: cancer due to the synergistic effect of exposure to toxic chemicals and smoking or alcohol consumption). Most work-related poisonings in agriculture are underestimated because they are not identified, diagnosed and treated unless they cause acute poisoning or death. Chronic exposure to low concentrations is rather frequent and in many cases is not diagnosed.
Information on workplace accidents is derived from statutory reporting and from social security claims and thus does not reflect the numerous un-reported non-fatal and minor injuries since only a small proportion of accidents in the workplace are fatal. They are however relatively reliable because almost all fatal occurrences come to the notice of the enforcement authorities. In the case of agriculture, this situation may be explained by the fact that particularly hazardous work is likely to leave visible and immediate effects such as serious accidents and acute poisoning and other hazards are more difficult to evaluate. This would be the case of chronic conditions due to noise, vibration, exposure to organic dusts or cumulative lower exposure to pesticides, which lead to difficulties in the diagnosis and therefore to under-reporting in most countries.
Available information from the Statistical Department of the Social Security Institute of Panama showed that between 1992 and 1994 there were 151 accidents and 468 occupational diseases recorded. Taking into account that the SSI covers only 8.8 % of agricultural workers, there is an under-estimation in the figures providing this data. For example, the total number of occupational accidents registered in 1994 was 3.991, taking into account the total number of economically active agricultural workers in the country, the expected number would be 9.651. In agriculture, the fatality rate was 1.23 per 100,000 among the insured workers in the same year. If the total working population was considered, the estimate would be approximately 22.3 per 100,000.21
The notifications to the Department of National Health and Population Development in South Africa for the year 1990 corresponded to 105 cases of agrochemical poisoning, of which 7 were fatal. However, according to a study of the epidemiology of agrochemical morbidity and mortality carried out in Western and Southern Cape in South Africa conflicting results were highlighted among different surveys and a high under-notification ranging from 50 to 500 % was evident. The study made a comparison between death registration forms and notifications of acute poisoning and death due to pesticide poisoning over a period of 4 years (1977-1980) and concluded that from 104 deaths registered due to agrochemical exposure in that period, less than 5 % have been notified.22
Under-reporting is also partially explained by the difficulties in establishing the employment status of agricultural workers: piece-rate, full-time or part-time work, seasonal, migrant work, etc. There are also other reasons namely that in many countries agricultural workers are excluded from any employment injury benefit or insurance scheme and the administrative machinery for collecting injury records and the incentive to report injuries are also insufficient. Nevertheless, agricultural workers suffer markedly higher rates of accidents and fatal injuries than workers in other sectors with very little resources for compensation. Fewer than 20 % of the world's agricultural wage earners are covered by one or more of the nine contingencies of the ILO's Social Security (minimum standards) Convention No. 102 (1952)23.
For the above-mentioned reasons, occupational safety and health in agriculture needs to be addressed with a well defined strategy and must be integrated into a rural development policy involving both commercial (plantations) and small-scale farming. The progressive extension of occupational health services to workers in agriculture requires the implementation of effective national policies, specific programmes and strategic plans of action with an emphasis on prevention. The delivery of occupational health for the rural sector should be integrated into the primary health care structure.
Such an approach should provide flexibility in the implementation and support for the empowerment of social partners. The long-term impact and success of the interventions should be based essentially on national responsibilities in order to guarantee sustainability. It should be ensured by the identification of new opportunities for action and the creation of alliances among social actors, their mobilization and empowerment, through the promotion of a sense of commitment and ownership.
In order to guarantee sustainable agricultural growth, the productivity of the workforce should be raised by supplying it with the means to meet its basic needs, providing agricultural workers and their families with adequate working and living conditions, protecting their health and welfare, as well as the environment. Product quality standards should go hand by hand with improvements in working conditions. Investment on occupational safety and health is an added value which provides for improved working conditions, higher labour productivity and healthier labour relations. Working conditions in agriculture can be significantly improved in a viable and cost-effective way through safety and health measures. A prerequisite for such improvements is the adoption of adequate labour legislation and social protection measures.
Agriculture tends to be omitted from the occupational safety and health regulations of many countries. According to available information, comprehensive legislation on occupational safety and health addressing the sector is almost inexistent. Only a few countries have a set of special provisions on occupational safety and health relating to agriculture24. In addition, general labour laws may not be applicable in full to the agricultural sector. In certain cases, general laws such as Occupational Safety and Health Acts give a marginal reference to the sector, in others there are few specific regulations or decrees. Most of these regulations concern: safety of machinery and equipment (mainly tractors and harvesters); substances or agents used in agriculture (in particular pesticides); prohibitions on the employment of certain categories of workers; prohibitions on the operation of certain type of equipment for those under 18 years of age. Other regulations relevant to agriculture refer to social security measures and working conditions (wages, hours of work, etc).
In November 1976, the Council of the European Communities adopted a Resolution.25 concerning measures to simplify agricultural legislation among their members in order to implement a common agricultural policy. The Commission was requested to improve coordination between all bodies concerned for the preparation and implementation of the agricultural legislation. This initiative concerned mainly market relations and essential economic requirements for the implementation of common agricultural policy mechanisms. With particular reference to occupational safety and health directives, the debates on the programme of the European Commission concerning safety, health and hygiene which took place from 1987 to 1992, contributed to a dynamic process in which a number of Directives specifically addressing safety and health at work were adopted. Furthermore, the European Commission included agriculture as a high-risk sector in their action programme on safety, hygiene and health in 1988. ILO Conventions 155 and 161 on safety and health and occupational health services respectively, constituted an important precedent for the legislative reforms proposed during that period, and it included the introduction of a broader scope in national legislation. The Council Directive on Safety and Health at Work of 198926 constitutes the best example. It applies to all sectors of economic activity, including agriculture, without prejudice to more stringent European Union provisions to be adopted in the future. A number of safety and health directives based on this Framework Directive have been adopted since. However, existing Council Directives on safety and health at work, addressing specifically agriculture, deal mainly with pesticides, machinery safety and ergonomic design of agricultural and forestry machinery. In a number of occasions, the need for a directive on the protection of workers in agriculture has been discussed within the European Commission but the initiative has never been officially proposed.27
Although agricultural workers are protected by the Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110) and agriculture is generally covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), there is no comprehensive international standard dealing with the problems of safety and health in agriculture. The Governing Body therefore decided, at its 271st Session (March 1998), to place an item on this subject on the agenda of the 88th Session (2000) of the International Labour Conference. This item will be addressed under the double-discussion procedure foreseen in article 39 of the Standing Orders of the Conference.
The Office has prepared two reports to serve as a basis for the first discussion.
The preliminary report (Safety
and Health in Agriculture, Report VI (1), International Labour Conference, 88th
Session, 2000) was accompanied by a questionnaire to which Governments were
asked to reply, stating reasons for their reply. These replies have been summarized
in the second report (V(2)),
which also indicates the main points that the Conference may wish to consider.This
new international standards intend to contribute to set the framework on which
national policies on occupational health and safety in agriculture could be
developed.
A series of ILO Conventions and Recommendations concern occupational safety
and health issues relevant to agriculture or specific aspects of agriculture
relevant to occupational safety and health.
See comprehensive lists in the annexes of the Safety and Health in Agriculture, Report VI (1):
Technical cooperation activities: The ILO’s Central American project on agriculture.
The purpose of technical cooperation activities is to encourage national action on the improvement of working conditions for the protection of workers’ health and to provide assistance to member States in the implementation of specific programmes and projects in the field of occupational safety and health on a request basis. Technical cooperation may take various forms. These projects may deal with the promotion of occupational health and safety policies, the updating of legislation, the establishment of national safety and health institutes, the improvement of safety and health inspection services, the promotion of training programmes and in-service training, the provision of ad-hoc expert services and the direct support to enterprise-level action.
A model strategy for occupational safety and health in agriculture was developed and tested within the framework of the ILO’s Central American Project on Occupational Safety and Health in Agriculture, launched in September 1993. This project has demonstrated the need for an integrated approach including occupational, public and environmental health, which is consistent with current trends at national and international levels.The lessons learnt in this pilot phase will be used to develop similar projects in other regions of the world, mobilize international cooperation and promote network arrangements in order to progressively elaborate an international programme on occupational safety and health in agriculture.
The countries involved in the sub-regional project were: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. As a pilot exercise, extensive activities could not be undertaken in all countries at the same time. Therefore, in order to establish priorities, exploratory missions were undertaken to each country to assess the conditions and the commitment of the countries to participate in the project. Activities started in the country which provided the better conditions to launch the pilot phase (Costa Rica) in 1993, and the programme of work progressively extended its activities to the rest of the Central American countries based on the pilot experience in the first country. As a result, Guatemala and Panama started their own programme in 1995. The project had contacts with El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras from the beginning and visited periodically these countries in order to prepare the grounds for starting. As a result El Salvador and Honduras started preparatory activities in 1996 and more in-depth activities have been programmed for 1998 involving Nicaragua, if funds for the extension of the project are made available. The activities in Costa Rica will be limited in the near future to the follow-up and consolidation of the achievements in collaboration with the relevant national counterparts.
The target beneficiaries of the project were rural workers and their families (women and children) including rural temporary workers. Special attention has been paid to the participation of rural women in the project. Contacts have been established with rural women's organizations and through other ILO projects. A number of them have been trained as trainers and are actively participating in the project.
The project strategy was oriented towards the implementation of a national policy for the improvement of the occupational safety and health of rural workers, the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases in agriculture and the protection of the environment. It has six main components: 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.
Aware of the need for a holistic approach to deal with the agricultural sector, the ILO project had been promoting inter-institutional coordination involving all the relevant institutions at a national level: Ministries of Labour, Agriculture, Health and Environment, social security institutions, trade unions, employers' organizations and NGOs.
The activities carried out by the project supported the improvement and strengthening of the institutional capacity for an integrated management approach in order to develop a national programme on OSH in agriculture. This included the updating of OSH legislation, the preparation and implementation of national policies and plans on OSH for the agricultural sector, the creation of tripartite national committees in each of the countries where activities are carried out involving all the relevant above-mentioned institutions, as well as employers and workers organizations. The designation of a focal point from each one of the relevant institutions involved in the project, as well as a national coordinator in each of the countries where the project was carried out, was essential in order to guarantee inter-institutional coordination, provide advice and follow-up the network of trainers and the Tripartite National Committee on Agriculture. For the development of curricula on OSH in agriculture, a close involvement of the Ministries of Education and other training institutions in the development and implementation of training materials was undertaken.
Awareness, information and training on OSH for rural workers, inspection services, health care personnel and extension workers were used as the main tools. The network of trainers was chosen from each of the above-mentioned institutions and relevant associations of rural workers. The target groups are trained as trainers and their instruction includes the evaluation of working conditions, the enforcement of legislation through inspection, safety measures in the use of tools and machinery, the diagnosis of intoxications and other health hazards. The training programme has been organized in such a way as to contribute to the effective accomplishment of their ongoing tasks, to avoid overlapping and guarantee sustainability. A responsible person from each institution acts as a focal point to coordinate their participation in the project. The group of trainers is being followed up by the ILO project training coordinator on a monthly basis to discuss findings and to help with problem-solving. This also included the creation and support of information systems/databases on OSH in agriculture at the local level in the inspectorates and health centres. A focal point at each information centre has been trained in the use of a database and information centre.
. The project placed an emphasis on the development of a sustainable approach to agriculture wich foresees the use of different and complementary agricultural methods which should be safe for the worker and his family, safe for the consumer, protect the environment and be productive at the same time. Therefore, safety in the use and management of agrochemicals, alternative methods of pest control, integrated pest management, organic farming and other agro-ecological methods were introduced as part of the training programme.
. As a high proportion of occupational hazards among agricultural workers in Central America is due to the exposure to agrochemicals, training included safety in the use and management of agrochemicals in agricultural work, agrochemical waste management and environmental protection based on IPCS criteria and the development of safety data sheets on those agrochemicals which are mostly used in the Central American Region.
In 1995, the ILO/WHO Joint Committee on Occupational Health identified a number of areas for intensified cooperation between the ILO and WHO. One of them is agriculture: there should be "Joint or coordinated activities at the international, regional and national levels, to improve the health of agricultural workers which would also coordinate the delivery of existing agricultural health-related programmes such as chemical safety (including pesticides), injury prevention, manual handling and the prevention of zoonoses, utilizing primary health care structures and functions supplemented with requisite expert support".
As recommended by the Joint ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health, a close cooperation has been established with PAHO which is also the Regional Office of WHO for the Americas. In particular, the ILO has been collaborating with the PAHO/WHO Programme on "Environment and Health in the Central American Itsmus" MASICA/PLAGSALUD in this specific area of concern. The ILO/DANIDA Programme has been working in coordination with the PAHO/DANIDA Project PLAGSALUD, in order to avoid the overlapping of activities and with the purpose of achieving a better impact through combined efforts. number of successful joint activities have been carried out in those areas where the projects have common objectives.
The ILO Meeting of Experts on Workers' Health Surveillance held in September 1997 discussed the surveillance of workers' health within the framework of a comprehensive system of protection, prevention and promotion of workers' health and the improvement of the working environment. An overall approach which is closely related to the health surveillance system elaborated and tested within the framework of the Central American project.
This an other initiatives have been taken into account for development of an international programme on agricultural safety and health under the umbrella of the proposed ILO’s Global Programme on Safety, Health and the Environment28.
It is foreseen to establish networking arrangements between developing and industrialized countries which should deal with policy-making in rural development, safety and health and environmental management in agriculture, for the identification of resource persons, key institutions and social partners which could be involved in the mobilization of an integrated management approach to safety and health interventions in this field. The purpose would also be that those responsible for coordinating issues related to agriculture be given an opportunity to update their knowledge and have contacts at a national and international level, including tailor-made training programmes to allow those in charge of programmes on OSH in agriculture, to upgrade their skills.
ILO has been active in the field of agriculture since the early 60's. The following ILO publications concern directly occupational safety and health in agriculture and related issues (see also under separate title):
Industrial committee and analogous meetings are important means of action of the ILO. Those relevant to agriculture concern: