CONTENTS

List of recurring abbreviations

Introduction

Replies received and commentaries

Proposed conclusions

List of recurring abbreviations
 

Algeria	CAP CNA	Algerian Confederation of Employers National Chamber of Agriculture
Argentina	UATRE	Argentinian Union of Rural Workers and Stevedores
Australia	ACCI	Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Austria	BAK PKLK LAKT ÖGB	Federal Chamber of Labour Presidents' Conference of the Chambers of Agriculture of Austria Austrian Chamber of Farmers Austrian Confederation of Trade Unions
Azerbaijan	ATUC	Azerbaijan Trade Unions Confederation
Barbados	BEC BWU	Barbados Employers' Confederation Barbados Workers' Union
Belgium	CNT	National Labour Council
Botswana	BFTU	Botswana Federation of Trade Unions
Brazil	FUNDACENTRO FS CNT	Jorge Duprat Figueiredo Occupational Safety and Health Foundation Força Syndical National Confederation of Transport
Canada	CLC	Canadian Labour Congress
China	ACFTU	All-China Federation of Trade Unions
Colombia	SAC	Colombian Farmers' Association
Croatia	CEA UAFPTIW	Croatian Employers' Association Union of Agriculture, Food Processing and Tobacco Industry Workers
Cyprus	PEO	Pan-Cyprian Federation of Labour
Czech Republic	CACC TUWAF	Confederation of Agriculture Cooperatives and Companies Trade Union of Workers in Agriculture and Food
Denmark	SiD	General Workers' Union in Denmark
Dominica	WAWU	Waterfront and Allied Workers' Union
Egypt	FETU	Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions
Finland	FAE LTK MTK TT SAK	Federation of Agricultural Employees Employers' Federation of Service Industries Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions
France	MEDEF CFDT CFTC FGA	Movement of French Enterprises French Democratic Confederation of Labour French Confederation of Christian Workers General Agro-Food Federation
Germany	BDA DGB	Confederation of German Employers' Associations German Confederation of Trade Unions
Ghana	TUC	Trades Union Congress
Greece	PASEGES	Pan-Hellenic Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives' Unions
India	NFITU	National Front of Indian Trade Unions
Iraq	GFTU	General Federation of Trade Unions
Jamaica	SPFJ JCTU	The Sugar Producers' Federation of Jamaica Jamaica Confederation of Trade Unions
Japan	JTUC-RENGO	Japanese Trade Union Confederation
Kenya	FKE COTU	Federation of Kenya Employers Central Organization of Trade Unions
Lebanon	ACCIA	Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture
Malawi	MCTU	Malawi Congress of Trade Unions
Malaysia	MAPA NUPW	Malaysian Agricultural Producers' Association National Union of Plantation Workers
Mauritius	MEF	Mauritius Employers' Federation
Mozambique	SINTAF	National Trade Union of Agricultural and Forestry Workers
New Zealand	NZEF NZCTU	New Zealand Employers' Federation New Zealand Council of Trade Unions
Norway	NHO LO	Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
Pakistan	PNFTU	Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions
Philippines	NTA ILS PAKISAMA AMMMA-KATIPUNAN	National Tobacco Administration Institute of Labour Studies National Movement for Farmers Organization of Farmers, Fishermen and Agricultural Workers
Portugal	CCP CAP CGTP-IN	Confederation of Portuguese Business Confederation of Farmers of Portugal General Confederation of Portuguese Workers
South Africa	BSA	Business South Africa
Spain	ASAJA	Young Farmers' Agricultural Association
Sri Lanka	LJEWU	Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union
Switzerland	USP/SBV USS/SGB	Swiss Farmers' Union Swiss Federation of Trade Unions
Turkey	TÜRK-IS HAK-IS	Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions The Confederation of Turkish Real Trade Unions
Uganda	FUE KSW TMTC UNFA UTA	Federation of Uganda Employers Kinyara Sugar Works Limited Toro and Mityana Tea Co. Ltd. Uganda National Farmers Association Uganda Tea Association
Ukraine	FTUU	Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine
United Kingdom	TUC	Trades Union Congress
United States	USCIB	United States Council for International Business
Venezuela	CODESA	Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions

 Introduction

At its 271st Session (March 1998) the Governing Body decided to place the question of safety and health in agriculture on the agenda of the 88th Session (2000) of the International Labour Conference.

In accordance with article 39 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, which deals with the preliminary stages of the double discussion procedure, the Office drew up a preliminary report,⁽¹⁾ intended to serve as the basis for the first discussion of this question. This report contains the introduction to the question and an analysis of the law and practice in agriculture in various countries. It was accompanied by a questionnaire and communicated to the governments of the member States of the ILO, which were invited to send their replies so as to reach the Office by 30 June 1999 at the latest.

At the time of drawing up this report, the Office had received replies from the governments of the following 85 member States:⁽²⁾ Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

The attention of governments was drawn to article 39, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders of the Conference, in which they are requested "to consult the most representative organizations of employers and workers before finalizing their replies". Governments were asked to indicate which organizations had been so consulted.

The governments of the following 57 member States reported that their replies had been drawn up after consultation with employers' and workers' organizations (and some included in their replies — or referred to — the opinions expressed on certain points by these organizations): Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Other governments sent the observations from employers' and workers' organizations separately without referring to them, and in some instances replies were received directly at the Office. Certain governments also consulted other relevant authorities, such as ministries of agriculture, health and environment, for the preparation of their replies — some of which replied directly to the questionnaire. In a few cases, various departments within the Ministry of Labour sent separate replies which have been recorded in the commentaries to each question. A number of governments did not reply to the questionnaire, but the workers' and employers' organizations in their countries did; their replies have also been included in the commentaries to each question.

This report has been drawn up on the basis of the replies received, the substance of which, together with brief commentaries, is given in the following pages. The proposed conclusions appear at the end of the report.

If the Conference decides that it is advisable to adopt one or more international instruments, the Office will draw up, on the basis of the Conclusions adopted by the Conference, one or more draft instruments to be submitted to governments. It will then be for the Conference to make a final decision on the subject at a future session.

Replies received and commentaries

This section contains the substance of the general observations made by governments and of the replies to the questionnaire contained in Report VI(1), as well as of replies received from employers' and workers' organizations.

Each question is reproduced and followed by a list indicating the governments that replied to it, grouped in accordance with the nature of the replies (affirmative, negative or other). Whenever there is an observation from a government, an employers' organization or a workers' organization qualifying or explaining the reply, the substance of each observation is given, in alphabetical order by country, after the above-mentioned list. Where a reply deals with several questions, or refers to an earlier question, the substance of the reply is given where appropriate. Affirmative or negative replies from the employers' and workers' organizations which were not accompanied by comments are quoted only when they are contrary to the reply from the government, or when the government has not replied to the question. The summary of the observations on each question is followed by a brief Office commentary referring to the relevant point (or points) of the proposed conclusions at the end of this report.

A number of countries stated that the preliminary report constituted a satisfactory basis for discussion and made general comments without answering specific questions. Some governments reported on their national law and practice; others provided detailed information on their countries' situation concerning agriculture. While this is most useful for the work of the Office, this information has not been reproduced unless it is necessary for the understanding of the reply.

In reply to Question 3 a number of governments and employers' organizations expressed their preference for a Recommendation only, but nevertheless replied to subsequent questions which concern the content of a Convention; their observations should be understood accordingly. A few governments stated that they would prefer a general framework, such as that provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), rather than sectoral standards. At this point, the Office feels it relevant to recall that it was the Governing Body itself, at its March 1998 session, which decided to include this item in the agenda of the 88th Session of the International Labour Conference. As mentioned in the Report of the Director-General to the 85th Session of the International Labour Conference:⁽³⁾ "The temptation is great indeed to prescribe merely the adoption of ‘national policies' as a means to meet goals defined in such a general way that they leave scope for complete freedom of action — or create confusion about how they may be accomplished." A limited number of countries have a comparative advantage in the field of safety and health in agriculture, as they have sufficient provision and complementary guidelines and codes of practice. They can therefore ensure enforcement and carry out preventive action on the basis of framework laws and a well-established system. However, in the majority of the countries where agricultural workers represent a high proportion of the population, such a legal framework is inadequate or inexistent. The Office feels that in this particular case the general policy guidance intended for a Convention should be drafted in sufficiently specific terms as to be able to give rise to the appropriate and adequate rights and obligations.

The Office noted the substantial participation of rural workers' organizations both in the national tripartite consultations for the preparation of the replies and in the fair number of direct replies to the questionnaire. The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers (IUF) actively promoted a widespread consultation process among their members for the preparation of the replies, which proved to be positive.

General observations

Australia. Australia does not support the development of sectoral Conventions unless there are compelling reasons to do so. An exception is the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), which was justified in view of the special and unique dangers inherent in mining occupations. In the present case, there are no forceful reasons why a sectoral Convention or Recommendation should be adopted. The ILO's core Convention on safety and health, the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 164) apply to all branches of economic activity, including agriculture. They also establish principles and standards relevant to other matters raised in the questionnaire. In view of the comprehensive prescription of safety and health standards by Convention No. 155 and Recommendation No. 164, if a new instrument is to be adopted, it should be a Recommendation which supplements the above-mentioned Convention and Recommendation. Concerning questions 5-41, if there is to be a Recommendation, it should focus strictly on agricultural activities and not deal with any matters that are already addressed in the provisions of Convention No. 155 and Recommendation No. 164.

Belgium. CNT: The Council stresses that, when both drafting and implementing the envisaged standards, attempts should be made to try and incorporate them in the overall policy of the sector and ensure their consistency with existing standards as a whole.

India. The application of biotechnology in agriculture is on the increase. The hazards inherent in this trend, as well as the consequent safety and health hazards for agricultural workers, are being documented mainly in developed countries. A greater awareness of the biological repercussions on human beings, animals and crops have now created a movement of resistance among the public and activists in the developed countries and, consequently, these technologies are being tested in the developing countries where the illiterate and poor agricultural workers are used as guinea pigs. Bio-safety procedures in developing countries are relatively low and, as such, safety and health concerns have not received adequate attention. The proposed instrument should therefore also emphasize the need to adopt and implement internationally accepted bio-safety standards and regulations. In many developed countries agriculture has emerged as an organized activity and agricultural workers are governed by labour laws and regulations and provided with social security and protection. On the other hand, the agriculture sector in developing countries constitutes the largest section in the informal sector; indeed it is mostly beyond the realm of labour laws and regulations and social security. It has been the practice in the recent past to adopt very prescriptive and detailed Conventions. However, these Conventions have not been easily accepted and widely ratified because of their prescriptive nature. The ILO should thus adopt a framework Convention, leaving the details of the implementation to national governments in consultation with representatives of workers and employers, as well as others concerned. An accompanying Recommendation giving details of the procedures to be followed is not considered necessary.

NFITU: It is extremely necessary that the ILO should adopt an instrument in the form of a Convention to provide all workers in agriculture with the same level of health protection as those in other sectors of economic activity. Needless to say, the term "agriculture" should have a wide connotation and include all activities, including those supporting the rural "unorganized" economy — regardless of its size or nature and irrespective of the category of worker, whether they are migrant, landless, seasonal or temporary workers, sharecroppers or tenants. Given that agricultural activities and the health and safety awareness of agricultural workers may differ from country to country, from region to region and from time to time, the proposed Convention should provide for flexibility in its application. Excessive hours of work, the carrying of heavy loads and fatigue, and the employment of children and the elderly should be clearly defined and restricted to reasonable limits. Agricultural workers should be brought under the coverage of insurance, pensions, education for children and other similar welfare measures and social security benefits. The Convention should also provide for the setting-up of equipped medical centres at accessible locations where the workers may receive immediate and emergency medical aid, whenever necessary.

New Zealand. The Government does not support the adoption of ILO instruments on safety and health in agriculture. It does not believe that special instruments should be set for specific sectors of the workforce but rather that minimum universal standards should be established to provide a framework of minimum protection for workers' employment and working conditions across all sectors. It considers that the outcome sought is healthy and safe workers, and that the wide variety of work circumstances requires a systematic and general, rather than a piecemeal and specific, response. However, should the ILO proceed with the adoption of instruments on safety and health in agriculture, the following principles should be included: (1) Coverage should be comprehensive. The instrument(s) should set the framework for each country to develop a comprehensive and a consistent approach to the management of safety and health in all types of agricultural activities. This is important as there are diverse categories of types of farms (holdings), methods used and roles of the workers. By adopting this approach the need for regional or differing standards can be avoided. (2) Effective systems should be established. The instrument(s) should set the parameters of what should be contained in an effective health and safety strategy. That would include effective methods or systems to ensure the health and safety of all agricultural workers, through: the identification of hazards; the control of hazards; health surveillance where exposed to significant hazards; the provision of information on hazards to employees; the training and supervision of employees; the recording, investigation and reporting of accidents; effective emergency procedures; and situations involving the services of contractors. (3) Supporting standards, codes of practice and guidelines should be allowed for. The instrument(s) should allow for individual countries to develop supporting material to provide information on minimum standards for specific agricultural hazards, processes, working arrangements, facilities and situations such as the employment of young persons of a particular age. To support framework legislation, regulations and guidelines are required for high-risk sectors including agriculture. Guidelines provide useful information to assist employers in the agricultural sector to comply with their duties under the framework Act and regulations. They also provide information relating to particular hazards and situations. At a lower level there are information fact sheets, information bulletins and a "critical factors chart" on specific agricultural hazards. (4) Active administration should be established. The instrument(s) should require that national laws ensure that there is a competent authority responsible for the implementation and enforcement of laws and regulations on occupational safety and health, including agriculture. (5) Rights and responsibilities of employers and workers should be considered. The instrument should require that national laws specify the rights and responsibilities with respect to safety and health in agriculture. (6) Provision should be made for an appropriate labour inspection. The instrument(s) should provide for an appropriate inspection service to cover employers and workers in the agricultural sector and an authority to whom to refer complaints.

NZEF: The Federation is in complete agreement with the Government that it is not desirable to have separate Conventions/Recommendations directed to specific sectors of the economy and that ILO instruments should operate on a non-sector-specific basis. The Federation's answer to the questionnaire's initial question is, therefore, a firm "no". It does not, therefore, support the Government's view that an international standard on safety and health in agriculture would be of assistance to developing countries, since such a standard would inevitably contain an unacceptable level of prescription.

NZCTU: The Council supports the adoption of ILO instruments on safety and health in agriculture. It does not agree that in all cases specific instruments should not be set for specific sectors but considers that instruments tailored to the demands of specific sectors may recognize the structural differences between sectors. Coverage should be comprehensive and an effective system to ensure the health and safety of all agricultural workers established, including the elements listed in the comments of the Government. However, the NZCTU does not consider that an instrument must in all cases restrict itself to general provisions relating to systems. Where particular hazards are known within a sector, it is appropriate to have specific minimum standards or provisions relating to those hazards. New Zealand's Health and Safety in Employment Act (1992) is a "general duties" type of legislation which does not regulate specific hazards but creates a hazard identification and prevention scheme with distinct levels of employer and employee duties and some state powers to prohibit or prosecute breaches. There is no legislative guarantee of employees' rights to be informed.

Portugal. Irrespective of the international and national legal coverage concerning the prevention of occupational hazards and the occupational safety and health protection of agricultural workers, it is necessary and urgent — as is already the case in other sectors of activity and for even more urgent reasons in this particular case — that specific regulations be adopted in order to guarantee efficient protection of the safety and health of workers in this sector. It is particularly important that specific provisions should be geared to small family-type enterprises and that safety and health measures should also apply to all members of the agricultural worker's family. Even those who do not carry out activities which are strictly agricultural but who live on the farm may be exposed to certain hazards. Furthermore, the instruments should also stress that the subject of "occupational safety and health" should not be examined separately from those of agrarian policies and rural development, and requires institutional cooperation and coordination between the various bodies responsible for each area of intervention (labour, health, education, agriculture, environment).

The Proposed Conclusions have been prepared in the light of the answers to the questionnaire provided by governments and other constituents and taking into account somewhat differing views. It was felt that there should be clear and flexible provisions to ensure that workers in agriculture, who have often been left outside national systems of safety and health protection, should be included within the scope of such protection. Flexibility is required in order to cover a very heterogeneous sector, in terms of working methods and practices, categories of workers and the very different conditions prevailing in industrialized countries, developing economies, and economies in transition. However, given the particular situation of workers in agriculture and the special hazards affecting them, there is also a need for some provisions to be drafted in such a way that the proposed Convention might give a precise indication of rights and obligations, while the proposed Recommendation might provide proper guidance for national legislators on their implementation. Nonetheless, texts of this kind can only provide basic guidance, which would need to be explained and complemented with a view to supporting implementation by Members at the national level. The necessary details could be elaborated in guidelines or codes of practice adopted by the Governing Body. The Conference may wish to adopt a resolution to this effect.

The Proposed Conclusions contain a number of terms specific to agriculture and some Members, in their replies to the questionnaire, have suggested that these should be defined. The Proposed Conclusions with a view to a Convention (Point 4) contain a detailed definition of what might be included in the term "agriculture" for the purposes of the Convention; the term "workers in agriculture" is to be interpreted accordingly. A legal definition does not appear necessary for other terms used in the Proposed Conclusions as they either have the same meaning as that given to them in other international labour Conventions or the meaning conventionally ascribed to them in an agricultural context. With respect to terms used in other instruments, reference might be made, for example, to the term "plantation" which should be interpreted as defined by the Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110). For the purposes of the Proposed Conclusions, the Office considers that the following terms may be understood as follows:

1. the term "occupational safety and health surveillance" would cover both workers' health surveillance and the surveillance of the working environment for the prevention and control of work-related health impairments and injuries. Health assessment may include, but is not limited to, medical examinations, biological monitoring, radiological examinations, questionnaires or a review of health records. The surveillance of the working environment concerns the identification and evaluation of environmental factors, which may affect workers' health and the design of control systems to prevent, eliminate and reduce them, taking into account working conditions, working processes, the materials, tools and equipment used in conjunction with them, work organization and psychosocial factors.
2. the term "self-employed farmer" would cover tenants, sharecroppers or small owner-occupiers who derive their main income from agriculture and who work the land themselves, with the help only of their family or of occasional outside labour and who do not permanently employ workers or employ a substantial number of seasonal workers; the term would also apply to other workers in agriculture, not listed, as may be specified by national laws or regulations.
3. the term "undertaking" would cover all agricultural workplaces where workers need to be or to go by reason of their work, including workplaces in the open or any agricultural site at which outside activities concerning the processes or operations described in Point 4 of the Proposed Conclusions are carried out;
4. the term "agricultural facilities" would cover buildings, installations and structures which are enclosed, covered or open, whether fixed or movable, including lightweight structures for the production, storage, fermentation or preservation of plant products, feeding materials or substances or animal manure;
5. the term "nurseries" would cover establishments mainly engaged in the growing of garden vegetables and horticultural products, seeds, plants and young trees for transplanting;
6. the term "animal husbandry areas" would cover areas to which workers in agriculture may have access and where grazing, farming and breeding of animals is undertaken or where livestock or other animals are accommodated;
7. the term "animal handling activities" would cover activities bringing a worker in agriculture into direct or indirect contact with domestic animals or livestock;
8. the term "chemicals in agriculture" would cover chemical elements and compounds, and mixtures thereof, whether natural or synthetic used in agriculture, including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and veterinary and pharmaceutical products;
9. the term "aquaculture" would cover the farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustacean and aquatic plants. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding and protection from predators.

Form of the international instrument
 

Qu. 1

Do you consider that the International Labour Conference should adopt an instrument or instruments concerning safety and health in agriculture?

Total number of replies: 85

Affirmative: 82. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative: 3. Australia, Islamic Republic of Iran, New Zealand.

Australia. If there is to be an instrument, the Government would consider supporting a Recommendation only.
ACCI: Yes.

Barbados. BEC and BWU: Yes.

Botswana. BFTU: Yes.

Egypt. FETU: Yes.

Iraq. GFTU: Yes.

Lebanon. Yes, agricultural workers are one of the most vulnerable categories.

Malawi. MCTU: Yes.

New Zealand. No, the ILO instruments should operate on a non-sector-specific basis. However, an international standard (Convention) could assist the developing countries.
NZCTU: Yes.

United States. USCIB: Agriculture does not require industry-specific safety and health regulations.

Since almost all the replies received from member States were affirmative, the Proposed Conclusions provide for the adoption of international standards on safety and health in agriculture (Point 1).
 

Qu. 2

If yes, should the general intention be to ensure that all workers in agriculture enjoy safety and health protection that is, as far as possible, equivalent to that provided to workers in the other sectors of the economy?

Total number of replies: 84

Affirmative: 83. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative: 1. Luxembourg.

Algeria. Yes, in view of the professional hazards and specific manpower conditions in this sector (seasonal, family work, etc.).

Argentina. UATRE: Yes, the Union does not accept the qualification "as far as possible"; it should be equivalent to other sectors, without conditions.

Australia. If there is to be a Recommendation, it should encourage member States to provide the same standards of safety and health to workers in agriculture that apply to all other workers, and be consistent with Convention No. 155 and national law and practice.

Austria. Yes, and full account should be taken of the specific conditions in agriculture and the forestry sector.
PKLK: No; however, account should be taken of the specific conditions inherent in the sector.

Azerbaijan. Safety standards relating to working conditions in agriculture should not only be no lower than those in other branches of the economy, but should in some subsectors be even higher.

Bahrain. Yes, half the world's labour force is engaged in agriculture, which involves the highest risks and rates of accidents, injuries and death compared with other sectors.

Barbados. BEC: Yes.
BWU: Yes, but we do not accept the qualification "as far as possible". The protection should be equivalent to that provided in other sectors.

Belgium. Yes, but Belgium adopts a horizontal approach and tends to reject sectoral laws, as in the case of mines and quarries.

Botswana. BFTU: Yes, agricultural workers need the same protection as other workers. Everyone depends upon agricultural products for their survival.

Brazil. Yes, the conditions required to guarantee such equality of treatment and promote the ratification of the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 133) should be fulfilled.
CNT: Yes, it is necessary to promote safety and health regulations for agricultural workers. Given that agriculture is an important sector of activity employing a high number of workers, agricultural workers should not be less protected than those in other sectors.

China. This situation cannot be achieved in China because of its present level of productivity. However, it should be considered as one objective of the Government's efforts to ensure that rural and urban employees enjoy equal rights. It is therefore a matter for a Recommendation.
ACFTU: While concurring in principle with the Government's replies to questions 1 and 2, the Federation does not agree with its comments. China has almost 10 million agricultural workers, who constitute the backbone of economic development. Although, at present, there is still disparity between the safety and health protection of these workers and that enjoyed by workers in other economic sectors, the Government attaches great importance to reducing these differences. International instruments will contribute towards promoting its efforts in this field.

Colombia. Yes, agriculture is one of the most hazardous sectors.

Costa Rica. Yes, only 41 per cent of agricultural workers are covered by an insurance scheme for occupational accidents and diseases.

Cyprus. PEO: Yes, even if agricultural workers are covered by Conventions Nos. 110 and 155, agriculture is a very hazardous sector.

Ecuador. The Convention should focus on agro-industry and the Recommendation on the self-employed.

Egypt. Yes, but the inspection of family holdings and provision of full protection would prove difficult, as most of the agricultural sector consists of individual producers and their families.

El Salvador. Yes, providing the same level of protection to agricultural workers as that of workers in other sectors would constitute a major step forward in the modernization of our agriculture and act as an incentive for the rural population to continue working in this sector.

Ethiopia. Yes, the situation in agriculture is severe compared to that in other industrial sectors.

Finland. Yes, but the most representative organizations of the self-employed should be consulted and provisions should be in the Recommendation.
MTK: Yes, for member States in which the self-employed will also need some labour protection.

France. In France, the same safety and health protection is extended to all workers.
MEDEF: Yes, provided that the instrument remains sufficiently wide in scope or leaves enough freedom for it to be adapted to the specific characteristics of the sector.

Ghana. Occupational hazards are also faced by workers in the agricultural sector. Indeed, these are determined by a combination of living and working conditions and, therefore, are no less than in other sectors.
TUC: The activities of the national factory inspectorate do not cover agriculture.

Guatemala. Agriculture is one of the most important productive activities in the country and incorporates a great number of workers.

Hungary. National Health Office: It is hardly feasible because of the great number of individual producers.

India. Yes, today, agriculture has become more capital-intensive and promotes indiscriminate use of hazardous chemical substances and agents.

Iraq. GFTU: No, it is not possible in developing countries.

Ireland. Yes, 95 per cent of our farms are family farms and most people working in Irish agriculture are self-employed. Our occupational safety and health legislation covers all categories of workers including the self-employed.

Italy. In Italy, workers involved in the agricultural sector benefit to a very great extent from all the standards applicable to workers in other productive sectors.

Jamaica. SPFJ: Yes, especially with respect to the guarding of machinery and use of chemicals.

Kenya. Agriculture is a major employer and an important contributor to the Kenyan economy and workers in agriculture should be protected like workers in other industries.

Lebanon. As far as possible, provided that the instrument explicitly defines areas of application with the possibility of excluding from the provisions whatever is deemed necessary or dictated by working conditions.

Luxembourg. No, at national level, only agricultural wage-earners come under occupational medicine.

Madagascar. The national project to extend social protection aims at such a goal.

Malawi. MCTU: Yes, workers in the agricultural sector work very hard and produce more for the livelihood of the national economy; nevertheless they face many difficulties and their rights are usually violated.

Malaysia. There should be no exceptions.
MAPA: No, the specific characteristics of the industry — for example, the effects of weather changes — have to be taken into consideration.

Mali. This socio-occupational group is the largest in the country and is exposed to many occupational hazards.

Mauritius. MEF: Yes, all workers should be covered, as far as possible, in the same manner.

Mexico. Agricultural workers in Mexico are provided with the same level of protection as workers in other sectors; however, it would be appropriate to provide for specific regulations.

Mozambique. Most of the country's population is engaged in agriculture without safety and health protection.

New Zealand. Provided that these workers are employed for gain and reward.

Nigeria. National agriculture provides employment to more Nigerians than any other sector.

Philippines. AMMMA-KATIPUNAN: Most agricultural workers in the Philippines do not enjoy any safety and health protection, especially the self-employed and workers in small enterprises.
Bureau of Working Conditions: Yes, but the Department of Labor and Employment can only monitor the formal sector of agriculture.
ILS: Yes, safety and health measures should be appropriate and applicable to agriculture.

Portugal. CGTP-IN: The level of protection of agricultural workers should not, under any circumstances, be less than that provided to workers in any other sector.

Russian Federation. From the point of view of human rights and social protection, agricultural workers should have the same rights as workers in other sectors.

Slovakia. Yes, and it is necessary to consider specific problems occurring in this branch.

South Africa. The effect of exposure is the same to all human beings and therefore every effort must be made to protect workers in the agricultural sector.

Spain. Excluding the self-employed, who are not traditionally covered by occupational safety and health legislation.

Sri Lanka. The extensive use of technology and chemicals in agriculture has exposed workers to health and safety hazards; they should therefore enjoy protection equivalent to that provided in other sectors.

Switzerland. Yes, however, the structure of the agricultural sector and the specific characteristics of the work in this sector make it difficult to implement this principle. The Convention must therefore be flexible. The support of training and information institutions is necessary.
USS/SGB: Yes, working conditions in agriculture are more strenuous despite mechanization, and occupational safety and health protection is inadequate.

Syrian Arab Republic. As agriculture represents one of the main activities of our economy, legal protection must be extended to workers by means of the adoption of a Convention to place them on an equal footing with other branches of activity.

Thailand. If possible, protection should be higher in this sector.

Togo. Yes, there should be no discrimination with respect to protection of workers in the agricultural sector compared with workers in other sectors.

Turkey. TÜRK-IS: Yes, but we do not accept the qualification "as far as possible". Protection should be equivalent to other sectors.

Uganda. FUE: Yes, although this is desirable, it may be difficult to implement, especially with regard to peasant farmers who constitute the majority within the agricultural sector in developing countries.

United Arab Emirates. Statistics indicate that agricultural hazards are similar to those in other sectors; agricultural workers thus require the same protection as workers in other sectors.

United Kingdom. This approach is already reflected in United Kingdom legislation which applies to all those working in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and allied industries. This includes self-employed, casual and part-time workers.

United States. USCIB: No.

With one exception, all the replies received from member States were affirmative. The Proposed Conclusions were drafted with the aim of ensuring that all workers in agriculture enjoy safety and health protection that is equivalent to that provided to workers in the other sectors of the economy, and keeping in mind the principles embodied in the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) and the Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161) (Points 1 to 35).
 

Qu. 3

Do you consider the instrument or instruments should take the form of: Convention? Recommendation? Convention supplemented by a Recommendation?

Total number of replies: 85

Affirmative to clause (a): 12. Algeria, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda.

Affirmative to clause (b): 15. Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Cape Verde, China, Estonia, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey.

Affirmative to clause (c): 57. Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Other: 1. Ghana.

Austria. PKLK: Yes to (b).

Barbados. BWU: Yes to (c).
BEC: Yes to (b).

Belgium. CNT: Given the importance of the subject and the impact that new standards might have, especially in Eastern European countries and the third world, they should be given the widest possible scope — provided that all the principles and basic components of protection are included in the Convention itself.

Botswana. BFTU: Yes to (c).

Brazil. CNT: Yes to (b).

Colombia. SAC: Yes to (b).

Czech Republic. CACC: Yes to (b).

Denmark. A Convention, which should lay down the overall, general guidelines for safety and health in agriculture.

Germany. BDA: Yes to (b). If the majority are in favour of a Convention, the text should only establish the essential principles on this matter.
DGB: The instrument should take the form of guidelines, but they should be more binding, similar to the national occupational accident prevention regulations for agriculture.

Ghana. Factories Inspectorate: Yes to (a).
Labour Department: Yes to (c).

Iraq. GFTU: Yes to (b).

Jamaica. SPFJ: Yes to (b).

Japan. JTUC-RENGO: Yes to (c).

Lebanon. The Convention should be flexible and as concise as possible. The Recommendation should take the form of guidelines to be used in the development of legal provisions on safety and health in agriculture (i.e. it should not include provisions to be applied in conjunction with those of the Convention, to ensure the independence of the two texts in principle).

Mauritius. MEF: Yes to (b).

New Zealand. The Convention should describe the broad principles supplemented by a Recommendation containing the details.

Norway. NHO: Yes to (b).

Pakistan. PNFTU: Yes to (c).

Philippines. NTA: Yes to (a).

Portugal. The Convention should include broad principles; and the Recommendation should develop these principles and envisage the specific measures for their application.
CAP: Yes to (b).
CGTP-IN: Yes to (c).

South Africa. BSA: Yes to (c); the choice of the instruments will largely depend on the contents thereof. Directives suitable for national legislation should be incorporated in the Convention, other directives might only be useful as guidelines and could be incorporated in a Recommendation.

Spain. ASAJA: Yes to (b).

Turkey. HAK-IS: Yes to (c).

Uganda. UTA: Yes to (a).
FUE, TMTC: Yes to (b).
KSW, UNFA: Yes to (c).

United Kingdom. The Convention should set down the aims and objectives in simple broad terms and the Recommendation contain the details.

United States. USCIB: No to all.

Since a majority of the replies received from member States proposed that the instruments should take the form of a Convention supplemented by a Recommendation, the proposed Conclusions have been drafted accordingly (Points 1 and 23).

Preamble
 

Qu. 4

Should the instrument(s) include a preamble referring to: Conventions and Recommendations containing provisions of direct relevance to safety and health? Other Conventions and Recommendations relevant to agriculture? The Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, adopted by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office?

Total number of replies for clause (a): 82

Affirmative to clause (a): 75. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (a): 7. Australia, China, Ecuador, Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Moldova, Pakistan, United Kingdom.

Total number of replies for clause (b): 72

Affirmative to clause (b): 52. Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (b): 19. Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Kuwait, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Pakistan, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand.

Other replies to clause (b): 1. Ghana.

Total number of replies for clause (c): 68

Affirmative to clause (c): 51. Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (c): 16. Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Dominican Republic, Greece, Hungary, Kuwait, Malaysia, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey.

Other replies to clause (c): 1. Ghana.

Algeria. (a) Include Conventions Nos. 119, 138 and 127.
Ministry of Agriculture: (a) Include Conventions Nos. 110, 121, 129, 138, 155, 161 and 170; (b) include Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 16, 17, 99, 101, 127, 132, 130, 141, 142 and 160; yes to (c).
Ministry of the Environment: Yes to (c), no to (a) and (b).

Argentina. (a) Include Conventions Nos. 110, 119, 121, 127, 129, 138, 148, 155, 161 and 170, as well as their accompanying Recommendations; (b) include Conventions Nos. 141 and 160, as well as Recommendations Nos. 86, 100, 127, 132, 148 and 170.
UATRE: Yes to (a). All aspects of health, safety and environment affecting rural/agricultural workers should be covered including hours of work, safety representatives/committees, safe systems of work, etc.; the principles and language in Convention No. 155 should  be used as a basis for the Convention — but specific health, safety and environmental issues in agriculture should be addressed; include Convention No. 170 and its accompanying Recommendation. Yes to (b); include Conventions Nos. 141, 110 and 129; reference should also be made to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Yes to (c).

Australia. (a) and (b): If there is to be a Recommendation, the preamble should describe the relationship between the new Recommendation and Convention No. 155 and Recommendation No. 164. It would thus supplement and provide guidance on ways of implementing these instruments; (c) the preamble to Convention No. 155 does not mention the Tripartite Declaration.
ACCI: Yes to (a) and (b).

Austria. PKLK: (a) Include the worker protection Directives of the European Union; no to (b).

Azerbaijan. ATUC: (a) Include Conventions Nos. 127 and 138, and Recommendations Nos. 128 and 146; (b) include Conventions Nos. 99 and 101, and Recommendations Nos. 89 and 93; yes to (c).

Bahrain. (a) Include Conventions Nos. 110, 119, 129, 161 and 170, and Recommendations Nos. 110, 118, 133, 171 and 177; (b) include Convention No. 12.

Barbados. BWU: (a) Include Conventions Nos. 121 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations, and Convention No. 119; (b) include Conventions Nos. 99 and 129, and their accompanying Recommendations, Conventions Nos. 12, 141 and 110, Recommendation No. 16 and a reference to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides; yes to (c).
BEC: Yes to (c); no to (a) and (b).

Belarus. (a) Conventions Nos. 155 and 129, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Convention No. 12.

Belgium. (a) Delete the reference to Convention No. 167 and its accompanying Recommendation.

Botswana. BFTU: (a) Conventions Nos. 121, 129, 148, 155, 161 and 170, and Recommendations Nos. 121, 133, 156, 164, 171 and 177; (b) Conventions Nos. 11 and 12 and Convention No. 140 which is not listed under Annex II but is relevant to workers' further training.

Brazil. (a) Convention No. 129 and Recommendation No. 133; (b) Conventions Nos. 12, 25, 99, 103, 105, 138 and 141; (c) as attention provided to rural workers is clearly different from that provided to urban workers, it is important to incorporate the following Conventions: Nos. 12, 25, 99, 103, 105, 138 and 141.
CNT: (a) All.
FUNDACENTRO: (a) All instruments in Annex I, including those ratified by Brazil; (b) all instruments in Annex II.

Bulgaria. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 129 and 155, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 127, 138 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations.

Canada. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 119 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 129 and 141, and their accompanying Recommendations.
CLC: (a) Incorporate Conventions relating to farm workers including those dealing with machine operation, farm chemicals (application, storage, handling), confined spaces, nurseries and greenhouse safety.

Colombia. SAC: Yes to (b).

Costa Rica. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 161 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 170, 161, 151, 139, 115, 119, 127 and 145, and Recommendations Nos. 31, 97, 164, 171, 147, 114, 4, 118 and 128.

Croatia. (a) Conventions Nos. 129, 12 and 25.

Cuba. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 121, 138, 148 and 155; (b) Conventions Nos. 103, 141 and 142.

Cyprus. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 129, 138, 155 and 170, and Recommendations Nos. 118, 133, 146, 164 and 177.
PEO: (a) All the Conventions and Recommendations quoted in Annex I of Report VI(1); (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 97, 99, 101 and 110, and Recommendations Nos. 11, 16, 17, 86, 89 and 93.

Czech Republic. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 167 and 161; (b) Conventions Nos. 129, 148 and 170.

Denmark. SiD: Yes to (c).

Ecuador. (c) The Tripartite Declaration of Principles would be acceptable in order to establish a principle of reciprocity and safety in agro-industries, particularly where there are multinational enterprises.

Egypt. (a) Conventions Nos. 148 and 139; (b) Convention No. 129 and its accompanying Recommendation.
FETU: (a) Conventions Nos. 139, 148 and 170, and Recommendation No. 177; (b) Conventions Nos. 97, 129, 142 and 101, and Recommendation No. 133.

El Salvador. (a) Conventions Nos. 155 and 110 (Part XIII) and Recommendations Nos. 97, 112 and 164; (b) Conventions Nos. 170, 174, 12, 99, 119 and 141, and Recommendation No. 177; (c) yes, to guarantee countries' rights ("state of law") in the case of transnational investments.

Ethiopia. (a) International instruments indicated in Annex I; (b) international instruments indicated in Annex II of Report VI(1).

Finland. (a) Particularly Conventions Nos. 119, 121, 129, 138, 139, 148, 155, 161 and 167; (b) at least Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 140, 141, 142 and 160.

France. CFTC: (a) All Conventions and Recommendations with direct relevance to safety and health.
FGA and CFDT: (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 119 and 148, and Recommendations Nos. 164, 118 and 156; (b) Conventions Nos. 12 and 110, and Recommendations Nos. 132 and 110.
MEDEF: No to all; reference to a non-ratified instrument should not serve as a pretext not to ratify the envisaged instrument.

Georgia. (a) All those relating to occupational safety and health; (b) Conventions Nos. 99 and 101, and Recommendations Nos. 17, 89 and 93.

Germany. (b) Decision on which Conventions and Recommendations to include or only indicate should depend on the legal content of the new Convention.
BDA: Yes to (a); no to (b) and (c); (a) Conventions Nos. 110, 129 and 155; (b) the preamble should only make reference to ILO standards directly relevant to occupational safety and health in agriculture.

Ghana. Factories Inspectorate: Conventions Nos. 119, 155, 170, 148 and 127.

Greece. (a) Conventions Nos. 110, 119, 121, 127, 129, 138, 139, 148, 155, 161, 167 and 170; (b) the Conventions in Annex II could be included in the preamble of the Recommendation; (c) yes, in the Recommendation.

Guatemala. (a) Convention No. 161.

Hungary. National Health Office: Yes to (b)
Workers' organizations: Yes to (b).

India. (a) Convention No. 155 and its accompanying Recommendation; (b) Convention No. 121 and its accompanying Recommendation.

Iraq. GFTU: No for all.

Ireland. (a) Conventions Nos. 121, 138, 139 and 155, and Recommendations Nos. 121, 146, 147 and 164; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 99, 142 and 160, and Recommendation No. 89.

Israel. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 129, 138, 139 and 148; (b) Conventions Nos. 41, 101, 103 and 142.

Italy. From Annex I: Conventions Nos. 119, 127, 129, 138, 139 and 148; from Annex II: Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 97, 99, 103, 141, 142 and 160.

Jamaica. (a) It should contain instruments relating to: the rights of workers to a safe workplace; hazardous chemicals; ergonomic hazards and injuries; use of chemicals; use of tools; working conditions; and general farm safety, health and welfare.
JCTU: (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 161, 130, 170, 127, 27, 28 and 167, and Recommendations Nos. 97, 147, 177, 128 and 175; (b) Conventions Nos. 87, 64, 66, 98 and 100.

Japan. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 121, 138 and 139, and their accompanying Recommendations; (c) the rationale proposing the reference to "the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy" is not clear.
JTUC-RENGO: Yes to (a) and (b).

Kenya. (a) Instruments relating to machinery and equipment, agro-chemicals, indirect hazards caused by specific farming activities, (e.g. paddy rice production, exposing workers to malaria, bilharziasis, etc.); (b) any instruments dealing with environmental protection.
COTU: (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 170 and 174.

Lebanon. (a) Instruments cited in the preamble are generally Conventions Nos. 155, 161, 119, 138, 148, 127, 139 and 115; (b) the preamble may refer to Convention No. 129 and Recommendation No. 133; (c) not necessary.
ACCIA: No to (b); yes to (c); (b) it should be restricted to matters related to agriculture.

Luxembourg. (a) Conventions Nos. 161 and 155; (b) Convention No. 148.

Madagascar. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 161, 12, 17 and 130, and Recommendations Nos. 164, 171 and 134; (b) Conventions Nos. 110, 141 and 11, and Recommendations Nos. 110 and 149.

Malawi. MCTU: (a) Convention No. 155; (b) Convention No. 119.

Malaysia. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 138, 110 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12 and 97.
MAPA: No to (a) and (b).
NUPW: Yes to (c).

Mali. (a) Provisions basically concerning protective equipment for certain work, health centres, pharmacy kits and toxic products; (b) provisions relating to protection of the environment and health measures.

Mauritius. (b) Convention No. 12 and Recommendation No. 17.
MEF: No to (b) and (c); (a) general provisions on health, safety and protection of the environment.

Mexico. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 161, 167 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 99, 141 and 169; (c) it would be appropriate to include it, in order to become acquainted with the views of the different sectors involved in agricultural activities.

Morocco. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 170, 129 and 161.

Mozambique. (a) Those Conventions and Recommendations that guarantee safety and health and those that place obligations on the employers and enforcement authorities; (c) yes.
Ministry of the Environment: (c) Yes, the application of their principles would be very helpful for third world countries.
SINTAF: (b) Convention No. 99; minimum wages in agriculture should be the same as those in industry.

New Zealand. (a) and (b), to be dealt with in the Recommendation.
NZCTU: Yes to (c).

Nigeria. (a) Conventions Nos. 155 and 161; (b) any other instruments relevant to occupational safety and health in agriculture.

Pakistan. (a) and (b): All possible aspects of safety and health should be covered.

PNFTU: (a) All; they should be contained in both the Convention and Recommendation in order to ensure complete safety and health protection; no to (b).

Panama. (a) Yes, instruments concerning chemicals, general working conditions, ergonomics, work organization, occupational safety and health and others applying to the agricultural sector; (b) Conventions Nos. 29, 155, 138, 170, 121 and 161, and Recommendations Nos. 31, 97, 164 and 171; (c) yes, the Government would support action by agricultural multinationals in Panama.

Philippines. Bureau of Working Conditions: Convention No. 81 and its accompanying Recommendations, Convention No. 138, and Recommendations Nos. 14 and 95.
Bureau of Women and Young Workers: (a) Conventions Nos. 129, 155, 161, 110 and 141, and Recommendations Nos. 133, 164, 14 and 149.
ILS: Yes to (a), Convention No. 155, and Recommendation No. 164; no to (b).

Poland. (b) Convention No. 129.

Portugal. Conventions Nos. 110, 129, 155 and 161, and their accompanying Recommendations. Refer to Convention No. 182 and its accompanying Recommendation, highlighting Article 3(d) of the Convention and the respective provisions in the Recommendation.
CAP: (a) and (b): All.
CCP: (a) Yes, instruments concerning fundamental rights at work and human rights.

Romania. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 121, 127, 129, 138, 148, 155, 161, 167 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 110, 99, 101, 130 160 and 169, and Recommendation No. 134.

Russian Federation. (a) Conventions Nos. 119, 127, 129, 138, 148, 155, 170, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 103, 130 and 160, and Recommendations Nos. 11 and 101.

Slovakia. (a) Conventions Nos. 129, 139, 148, 155, 167 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12 and 101.

Slovenia. (a) Conventions Nos. 155 and 161.

South Africa. (a) Yes, those that have specific relevance to health and safety in agriculture such as Conventions Nos. 110, 119, 121, 129, 138, 155 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 12 and 97.
BSA: No to (b) and (c); the employers' organization does not believe that reference to any of these will serve a useful purpose in the Preamble.

Spain. (a) Those directly related to agricultural hazards, Conventions Nos. 129, 155, etc.; (b) those directly related to occupational safety and health in agriculture, including Convention No. 12 and Recommendation No. 86; (c) the Government does not feel that the Declaration is necessary in this context but does not oppose it.
ASAJA: (a) All should be included, to disseminate its basic principles; (c) no, agricultural enterprises usually have a narrower scope.

Sri Lanka. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 161, 121, 127, 148 and 170, and Recommendations Nos. 164, 171, 177, 128 and 121; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18 and 129, and Recommendation No. 133.

Switzerland. (a) Conventions Nos. 139, 155 and 138; (b) it would be better to avoid overloading preambles with references to a wide range of texts, declarations and Conventions.
USP/SBV: No to (a).
USS/SGB: (a) Yes, instruments concerning health protection and occupational safety and health.

Syrian Arab Republic. (a) Conventions Nos. 10, 12, 33, 60, 78, 115, 119, 121, 127, 138, 139, 148, 162 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 17, 18, 121, 129, 55, 160 and 161, and their accompanying Recommendations, as well as the related United Nations Conventions.

Thailand. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 119 and 170.
Ministry of Agriculture: (b) Yes, Convention No. 170.

Togo. (a) Conventions Nos. 25, 112, 121, 138, 148 and 155, and Recommendations Nos. 31, 97, 156 and 164; (b) Conventions Nos. 11, 12, 36, 38, 40, 78, 99, 101, 110, 127, 129, 138 and 141, and Recommendations Nos. 93, 110, 127, 132, 133 and 149.

Turkey. (b) Conventions Nos. 119 and 170, and Recommendations Nos. 128, 133 and 177.
TÜRK-IS: (a) Conventions Nos. 155 and 170, as well as its accompanying Recommendation (No. 177); (b) Conventions Nos. 141, 110 and 129, and reference to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides; (c) yes.

Uganda. (a) Conventions Nos. 110, 121, 129, 148, 155 and 161; (b) Conventions Nos. 11 and 12, and Recommendations Nos. 16 and 17.
FUE: (a) Conventions Nos. 138, 148 and 170; (b) Conventions Nos. 11 and 99.
KSW: (a) All listed in Annex I of Report VI(1); (b) all listed in Annex II of Report VI(1).

Ukraine. (a) Conventions Nos. 155, 119, 121, 127, 129, 138, 148, 167 and 170, and their accompanying Recommendations; (b) Conventions Nos. 11 and 12, and Recommendations Nos. 11, 16 and 17, as well as Conventions Nos. 99 and 101, and their accompanying Recommendations.

United Kingdom. (a) The Convention should concentrate on agricultural health and safety issues.
TUC: (a) Yes, Conventions Nos. 155, 161 and 170; (b) other Conventions and Recommendations quoted in Annexes I and II of Report VI(1).

United States. USCIB: No to all.

Venezuela. (a) All in Annex I of Report VI(1); (b) all in Annex II of Report VI(1).
CODESA: Include Conventions Nos. 10, 12, 25, 36, 38, 40, 50, 99 and 101, and Recommendation No. 12.

Viet Nam. (a) Conventions Nos. 30 and 155; (b) Convention No. 99.

The great majority of the replies favoured the inclusion of a Preamble to the Proposed Conclusions that refers to instruments of direct relevant to the social protection of workers in agriculture (Questions 4(a) and (b)). Some Members made specific reference to the ILO standards they would like to see in the Preamble. A number of Members were concerned with the reference to ILO standards in the Preamble of the proposed instruments. The reference to "the principles embodied in" a certain standard, is a recognized legal principle which implies that the universal value of the instruments referred to is kept in mind in the application of the Convention and does not impose an obligation to comply with the specific provisions of the instrument in question. A number of replies, particularly from trade unions, suggested the inclusion in this Preamble of other international guidelines such as the FAO's International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (1985) and the WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification (1998-99). In order to provide Members with flexibility so that they may select those guidelines more appropriate to their needs and update them, a general reference to the need to take into consideration relevant standards, guidelines and codes of practice adopted by recognized national or international organizations, was incorporated in the Proposed Conclusions with a view to a Recommendation (Point 26).

A majority of the replies received from Members also favoured the inclusion in the Preamble of a reference to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO in 1977 (Question 4(c)). The reference to the Tripartite Declaration was incorporated in the general provisions of the Proposed Conclusions with a view to a Recommendation (Point 25). The Office decided to select the standards considered directly relevant to safety and health in agriculture and make reference to the principles embodied in other ILO standards concerning the labour protection of agricultural workers. The Office also decided to include in the Preamble the ILO Codes of Practice on Recording and Notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases, 1996, and on Safety and Health in Forestry Work, 1998, due to their relevance to the subject. With the intention of avoiding a cumbersome Preamble, the decision on the possible reference to other instruments in the text was left to the first discussion of the Proposed Conclusions. The Preamble has been drafted accordingly (Point 3).

 I. Definitions and scope
 

Qu. 5

Should, for the purposes of the instrument(s), the term "agriculture" (or "agricultural") cover: all activities (whether indoor or outdoor) related to cultivating, growing, harvesting and primary processing of agricultural products? livestock breeding and production of animal husbandry products? fish farming? any process, operation or transportation which occurs in an agricultural workplace? the services related to agricultural production?

Total number of replies for clause (a): 84

Affirmative to clause (a): 79. Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (a): 2. Jamaica, Pakistan.

Other replies to clause (a): 3. Austria, Japan, Lebanon.

Total number of replies for clause (b): 84

Affirmative to clause (b): 69. Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (b): 12. Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Lithuania, Pakistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (b): 3. Austria, Japan, Lebanon.

Total number of replies for clause (c): 85

Affirmative to clause (c): 58. Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom.

Negative to clause (c): 24. Belarus, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Guatemala, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, South Africa, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (c): 3. Austria, Finland, Lebanon.

Total number of replies for clause (d): 85

Affirmative to clause (d): 68. Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (d): 13. Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lithuania, Madagascar, Pakistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (d): 4. Austria, Finland, Ghana, Japan.

Total number of replies to clause (e): 84

Affirmative to clause (e): 54. Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (e): 29. Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (e): 3. Austria, Finland, Japan.

Algeria. Ministry of Agriculture: Under Algerian regulations, fishing activities are considered of an agricultural nature.
Ministry of the Environment: The future instrument must include all activities related to cultivating, growing, harvesting, livestock breeding and the primary processing of agricultural products.

Argentina. UATRE: all categories in paragraphs (a) to (e) should be covered to ensure that the major activities involved in agricultural production are covered, including agro-forestry. The production of seed should also be included.

Australia. ACCI: Yes to (a); no to (b)-(e).

Austria. The inclusion of the forestry sector should be considered.
PKLK: Yes to all, (a) family farming enterprises with no employees should be excluded from the scope of the instrument.
LAKT: Yes to all.
ÖGB: Yes to (a) and (d); no to (b), (c) and (e).

Azerbaijan. ATUC: (a) yes. No to (b)-(e).

Barbados. BWU: All paragraphs should be considered to ensure that activities involved in agricultural production are covered, including forestry.

Belgium. (a) Forestry work should be excluded; (e) it might be considered that these are enterprises subcontracting agricultural work.
CNT: Yes to (e), provided that this concerns services directly linked to the production of agricultural enterprises, but not activities of related sectors, such as the transport sector, food industry and similar activities. No to (a), (b) and (c).

Botswana. BFTU: Yes to (a); no to (b)-(e); it is important to link farm activities to milling, so workers may perceive how they are related to each other.

Brazil. Agricultural activities carried out by family members should also be included.
FS: No to (b)-(e).
FUNDACENTRO: The primary processing of agricultural products carried out in the agricultural undertaking should be covered.

Canada. Add in the opening sentence: "in accordance with national law and practice". This would make the definition flexible enough to apply to a wide range of legislative and policy approaches. For example, (d) would be the most appropriate definition for most Canadian jurisdictions since they do not have agriculture-specific regulations, and would find it easier to enforce standards relating to processes, operations, etc. contained in general safety regulations. A few jurisdictions would exclude (c) fish farming, on the basis that its hazards are different from those in land-based agriculture and are dealt with separately. There is also a need to clarify what is meant by "services" in (e).
CLC: yes for all; agriculture is a unique and challenging area which has to include the expertise of wildlife biologists, including those with expertise in fisheries.

China. An additional clause (f) should be added; (f) "seawater fishing" in China, the fishing and catching industry come under the category of agricultural activities.

Cuba. Fish farming should be included when it is done in the context of aquaculture.

Cyprus. The term "agriculture" also cover beekeeping, sericulture and other activities relevant to insect breeding, as well as forestry operations including soil preparation for forest growth and lumbering.

Ecuador. (d) The term workplace should be strictly understood as the production site; any activity outside the workplace should not be considered "agriculture" for the purposes of the scope of the Convention.

Egypt. FETU: Yes to (a)-(e).

Finland. Clauses (d) and (e) may be included, depending on what is meant by the definition. The Government wonders whether the clauses also cover agricultural accessory services, such as catering and accommodation services in (d) and direct selling in (e).

France. FGA and CFDT: No to (b), (c) and (e).
MEDEF: The instrument should define agricultural activities as follows: "are considered agriculture activities any activities dealing with the control and exploitation of a biological cycle of a vegetable nature (including forestry) or an animal nature (including fish farming) which constitute one or several necessary stages for the completion of the cycle, as well as activities of processing, packaging and marketing of agricultural goods, carried out as an extension of production itself".

Germany. DGB: (c) freshwater fish farming, not fishing in the high seas.

Ghana. Factory Inspectorate: No to (d); (d) and (e) may be covered by national legislation.
Labour Department: Yes to (d); there is a need to extend basic protective care and welfare with comprehensive coverage.
TUC. Allied activities such as milling should be covered.

Hungary. Yes to (d) and (e); they cover the full scope.
Workers' organizations: Yes to (c) and (d).

India. Fish farming does not belong in the broad framework of agricultural activities and should be excluded.

Ireland. Irish agriculture covers categories (a), (b), (d) and (e). Fish farming (c) comes under the fishing industry.

Japan. (a), (b), (d) and (e) may be included in the definition of agriculture; however, in applying the instruments, individual countries should be able, in exceptional cases, to respond to their individual circumstances. (c) No, fish farming takes place in an aquatic environment, which differs greatly from that of agriculture, so it should come under the category of "fishery, fishing".
JTUC-RENGO: the proposed instrument should be applied mainly to agriculture, fish farming and the forestry industry.

Lebanon. (a) "Indoor and outdoor" activities need to be classified. The extent to which the term "agriculture" or "agricultural" include such activities should be defined. (b) Livestock breeding is part of the definition but "production of husbandry products"should be clarified. If the use of machinery includes industrial work, then it is not agricultural work. (c) Possibly. (d) Yes, unless the processing and operations are carried out by industrial machinery. (e) Yes, if the services are related to purely agricultural production.
ACCIA: Yes to (b); (c) and (e) should be excluded, because they are ambiguous and unclear, to avoid different interpretations.

Malaysia. MAPA: No to (c) and (e); plant agriculture is different from fish farming and should be separated.

Mali. In general, the term "agriculture" covers all activities carried out in the various rural sectors, i.e.: cultivating, stockbreeding, rivers and forests, the protection of the vegetation.

Mauritius. MEF: No to (e).

Mexico. Yes to (a), (b), (c) and (d). Wage employment in agricultural production, animal breeding and forestry are considered as rural workers' activities.

Mozambique. Yes to (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as agricultural activities not only concern planting seeds, but also complementary activities and relevant services.

New Zealand. The instrument should be drafted in such a manner that it will apply to all types of farming activity and production; (e) the instrument should not cover services related to farming, as this would be outside the scope of this project; refer to Question 20(b).

Norway. (a), (b) and (d) reflect Norwegian law and practice. In Norway, the term agriculture does not encompass the aquaculture and services related to agricultural
production.
LO: Yes to (c), it is important to take into account the working environment and conditions in the fish-farming industry and it could be an advantage for this trade to be encompassed by the new Convention.
NHO: No to (c), (d) and (e).

Pakistan. The term should cover all activities related to cultivating, growing and harvesting including livestock and fish farming.

Philippines. Bureau of Women and Young Workers: (d) is a catch-all provision with the use of the term "any process, operation". It might conflict with the international definition of manufacturing which is "the physical or chemical transformation of materials (including primary agricultural production) or components into new products". There is such an economic activity called agro-based manufacturing.
NTA: No to (d).
AMMMA-KATIPUNAN: No to (a), (b) and (c); the instruments must cover the agricultural production as a whole.

Portugal. Yes to (a)-(e). This definition is consistent with Convention No. 129 and Recommendation No. 133, as well as the definitions adopted by the Joint ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health. The services referred to in (b) should be considered only when carried out in agricultural undertakings, as services may be provided in other places with different hazards.
CAP: Only outdoor agricultural activities should be considered in (b).

Russian Federation. The following should be added to (d): "as well as delivery for storage or for sale, or to transport enterprises for the purpose of transportation for sale".

Slovakia. The term "agriculture" should not be defined only as cultivating activities. It should also incorporate other activities such as: livestock breeding, animal breeding, storing of agricultural products and forestry. Clause (b) should be amended as follows: "livestock breeding and care and processing of primary animal products". In (e), the term should specify: "the services related to plant and animal production". The Government recommends including the definition in the Convention.

South Africa. (c) A separate instrument for aquaculture (fresh- and seawater) must be developed.
BSA: Yes to (c), no to (e); (a) yes, but only if they are directly related to primary agricultural production; (d) provided that these are directly related to the production process and not, for instance, related to personal activities of the workers such as horseback riding or preparing a meal; (e) including services related to agricultural production is too wide because such services could, for instance, including extension services, financial services, or insurance, which relate more to the business of farming than to the production process per se.

Spain. The Government could agree with (c) if reference is made to the Framework Directive on Health and Safety at Work of the European Union.
ASAJA: No to (e); fish farming is traditionally linked to the fishing industry.

Switzerland. USS/SGB: Yes to (e); if possible, include the forestry sector.

Syrian Arab Republic. The term "agricultural work" must include all activities related to exploiting the soil, as well as sericulture, poultry raising, beekeeping, agricultural harvest processing, gardening, horticulture, animal husbandry and aquaculture.

Thailand. "Agriculture" should particularly cover the employment relationship. Additionally, the term "primary processing of agricultural products" should be defined precisely.

Turkey. Any one of these clauses might be too restrictive. A broader definition comprising all the elements may be more appropriate.
HAK-IS: Yes to (b)-(d).

Uganda. If fish farming is not addressed here, it may not be adequately addressed elsewhere in our country.
FUE: No to (d)-(e).
TMTC: No to (b)-(e); there should be separate instruments concerning safety and health in these activities.
UNFA: No to (d) and (e); if the definition goes beyond the areas defined, it might lose focus.
UTA: No to (c), all others are agricultural related.

United Arab Emirates. All these terms fall within the definition of the agricultural sector in the Emirates.

United Kingdom. (a) This primary processing should be limited to activities carried out on agricultural premises such as topping, cleaning and bagging; (b) yes to livestock breeding and associated processes (e.g. milk production but not the production of animal husbandry products); (d) yes to any process operation or transportation occurring in an agricultural workplace, excluding separate industrial processes such as food processing, saw milling, agricultural machinery manufacture; (e) yes to those services provided by agricultural contractors, directly related to the processes listed in (a), (b) and (c) above. See Question 7(a) below.
TUC: Yes to (e); the definition should cover all elements of the agriculture or farming industry including the processing of the product before distribution for retail.

United States. USCIB: No to all; applicability of any standards should be keyed to business size, rather than by type of commodity produced.

Venezuela. Fish farming should be excluded as these workers belong to a different category according to the ILO.

The majority of the replies agreed with the definition of "agriculture" proposed by the Office. Following some recommendations from member States to confine the scope of the Proposed Conclusions to those activities directly relevant to agriculture, clauses (b) and (e) of Question 5 were deleted, on the assumption that certain services related to agricultural production and the production of animal husbandry products could be undertaken by separate productive enterprises not directly related to crop production, breeding of animals, or primary processing of animal husbandry products. For the purposes of these standards, fish farming is covered by aquaculture. Questions 5 and 6 have been grouped under Point 4 concerning scope and definitions. See also the comments to Question 7 (Point 4).
 

Qu. 6

Should the proposed instrument(s) cover: all agricultural undertakings, irrespective of size? collective economic enterprises, such as cooperatives and farmers' associations? machinery, equipment, appliances, tools, and installations used in conjunction with agricultural activities?

Total number of replies for clause (a): 83

Affirmative to clause (a): 75. Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (a): 5. Colombia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Romania.

Other replies for clause (a): 3. Austria, Canada, Japan.

Total number of replies for clause (b): 83

Affirmative to clause (b): 64. Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (b): 17. Azerbaijan, China, Colombia, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (b): 2. Austria, Japan.

Total number of replies for clause (c): 84

Affirmative to clause (c): 68. Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (c): 14. Azerbaijan, China, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (c): 2. Austria, Japan.

Algeria. Ministry of Agriculture: Yes to all.
Ministry of the Environment: Yes to (a) and (b).

Argentina. The instrument should make reference to the progressive substitution of obsolete agricultural machinery and equipment.

Australia. ACCI: Yes to (a), no to (b), (c).

Austria. See Question 5.
PKLK: No to (a); yes to (b) and (c).
LAKT: Yes to (a)-(c).
ÖGB: Yes to (a); no to (b), (c).

Barbados. BEC and BWU: Yes to all.

Belgium. Belgium would prefer to use the concept of "farmer", in other words the concept of a person who is legally responsible.

Botswana. BFTU: the items mentioned in (c) need to be covered, to ensure better design and safe use of machinery, equipment, etc.

Canada. (a) Add: "While taking into account that the characteristics, needs and problems of family farm operations and farms which have a small number of hired workers are different from those of corporate and commercial farming operations and should not necessarily be subject to the same safety and health requirements." This change would provide the necessary flexibility and would cover, for example, the situation in jurisdictions which exempt agricultural workplaces with fewer than a certain number of workers from certain safety and health legislation.
CLC: Yes to (a), no to (b) and (c).

China. ACFTU: No to (a); (b) might be appropriate. In China, agricultural undertakings are collective and state-owned.

Colombia. SAC: Yes to (a); no to (c).

Costa Rica. Include all types of agricultural production: agro-industry, medium and small commercial farming and subsistence farming.

Cyprus. All agricultural undertakings or activities related to scientific research should also be covered.

Czech Republic. Health hazards are linked to the nature of work, not to the size of the undertaking. Machinery and equipment used in agriculture can be a source of typical health hazards and, therefore, special attention should be paid to the machinery.
CACC: Yes to (a); no to (b) and (c).

Denmark. Yes to (a)-(c), given that working environment conditions are not determined by the size of the individual undertaking or the choice of corporate form (self-employed farmers, cooperative, etc.).

Ecuador. On account of diversity in climate, production and in ethnic, racial and geographical organizations, clause (b) should not be in the Convention but in the Recommendation.

Ethiopia. Yes to all; however, in Ethiopia (a) may fail to be implemented as intended in the proposed instruments due to constraints of budget, facilities and manpower.

France. FGA-CFDT: no to (b) and (c); all branches should be concerned.
MEDEF: Yes, but the reply must be qualified according to the specific subject and areas covered in the instrument.

Germany. BDA: yes to all.
DGB: Farmers' associations as occupational organizations should be kept separate, given that such associations do not themselves actually engage in agricultural activity.

Ghana. Factory Inspectorate: Size is not relevant to the promotion of health and safety, especially in developing countries. Machinery and equipment are sources of hazards.
Labour Department: Coverage from highly mechanized agriculture in plantations to traditional small-scale subsistence agriculture.

Guatemala. It is important to include small-scale enterprises in which workers are less protected.

Hungary. National Health Office: No to (b).

India. The instruments should cover all associated activities feeding the rural economy — both in the organized and unorganized sectors.

Iraq. GFTU: yes to all; (a) provided that the instrument takes into consideration the specific capacities of small agricultural enterprises.

Ireland. All clauses will ensure an effective farm safety programme.

Jamaica. SPFJ: Small family undertakings should be excluded, but the proprietors need to be aware of the instrument.
JCTU: Yes to (b) and (c).

Japan. (a) and (b) can be included, but individual countries may provide for exceptions, in order to respond to their individual circumstances. Clause (c) should be excluded, as it differs from (a) and (b) in its nature. In this question, there is a different use of the words "undertaking" and "enterprise". What difference in scope is implied by such use?

Kenya. The competent authority may be allowed some flexibility with regard to the scope and coverage — within specific limits.
COTU: Yes to (b) and (c).

Lebanon. (a) As far as possible. It may be necessary to adapt safety and health procedures to the nature and size of such undertakings. Clauses (b) and (c): as far as possible.
ACCIA: Yes to all.

Malawi. MCTU: Yes to all, as they are relevant to the agricultural sector.

Malaysia. There should be some limits set on the coverage of agricultural undertakings (e.g., only those exceeding ten hectares).
MAPA and NUPW: Yes to (a).

Mali. Yes to (b) and (c), the application must primarily be concerned with these two priority levels. It might subsequently be extended to all agricultural undertakings.

Morocco. It must be stipulated that certain establishments with special problems may be excluded, after consultation with the most representative employers' and workers' organizations.

Mozambique. No to (b).
SINTAF: Yes.

New Zealand. See Question 5.

Norway. (b) should not be chosen, since it is not natural or appropriate for collective enterprises such as abattoirs, dairies and agricultural organizations, to be encompassed by an instrument for agriculture. The activities of such enterprises diverge too much from the activities of farms.
NHO: Yes to (b).

Pakistan. PNFTU: yes to all; see Question 5.

Philippines. Bureau of Working Conditions: It is better if the proposed instruments cover only the formal sector of the agricultural industry.
Bureau of Women and Young Workers: Employers and workers' organizations should be consulted to ensure compliance with the instruments.
ILS and NTA: No to (b) and (c).
AMMMA-KATIPUNAN: covering (a) will be better for the sector if (b) will be applied for their interest and progress.

Portugal. CCP: no to (c).
CAP: No to (b); clause (a) should apply to all undertakings, irrespective of size, if they have more than nine workers in wage employment and with a permanent contract.
CGTP-IN: the instrument should cover all undertakings, irrespective of their size or form of organization.

Singapore. (c) should also cover "chemicals".

Slovakia. The instrument should cover all enterprises employing workers and all working procedures, machines, devices and technologies applied in agriculture.

South Africa. BSA: yes to all; (b) but only if they are directly involved in agricultural production; (c) more clarity is needed on the meaning of "... in conjunction with agricultural activities". The employers' organization would prefer "... in the agricultural production process".

Spain. The Government could accept the clause (c), due to the distinctive characteristics of agricultural facilities.

Switzerland. USP/SBV: No. They should only apply to enterprises employing at least one worker on an annual basis and not include family members.

Syrian Arab Republic. The same protection is needed for those enterprises in which more than ten workers are employed.

Turkey. HAK-IS: Yes to (b) and (c).

Uganda. FUE: small landowners practising subsistence farming will be difficult to monitor.
KSW: all personnel involved in these activities need protection from accidents and ill health.
TMTC: small — as well as large — undertakings require safety and health instruments for their workers.
UNFA: (b) should not be covered as not all economic enterprises such as cooperatives and farmers' associations are agricultural.

United Kingdom. Yes to all; (a) fatal and serious accidents and ill health occur on any size of farm; (b) cooperative enterprises are not different in terms of hazards and risks to other farms; (c) these present significant hazards and risks.

United States. USCIB: see the answer to Question 5.

A majority of the replies proposed that all agricultural undertakings be covered without exception, including farmers' cooperatives. A number of Members expressed the opinion that the provisions of the proposed Convention should be flexible and initially allow for a different treatment of agricultural undertakings according to the size of the enterprise and the number of workers, on the understanding that such exclusions should not compromise the health and safety of agricultural workers. The reference to machinery in Question 6(c), was incorporated in the definition of agriculture for consistency between processes, operations, machinery and equipment. The Proposed Conclusions were drafted to provide for flexibility as wished by the majority of member States (Points 4 and 6).
 

Qu. 7

Should the definition of "agriculture" exclude: industrial processes that use agricultural products as raw material? the forestry industry or any work performed in a forest related to cultivating, conserving or exploiting forests? transportation of agricultural products outside the workplace?

Total number of replies for clause (a): 83

Affirmative to clause (a): 65. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (a): 15. Bahrain, Cape Verde, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ireland, Malta, Romania, Nigeria, Panama, Slovakia, Slovenia, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (a): 3. Denmark, Georgia, Turkey.

Total number of replies for clause (b): 82

Affirmative to clause (b): 37. Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Negative to clause (b): 43. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Israel, Jamaica, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom.

Other replies to clause (b): 2. Georgia, Turkey.

Total number of replies for clause (c): 82

Affirmative to clause (c): 48. Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Negative to clause (c): 33. Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Slovenia, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, Ukraine, Viet Nam.

Other replies to clause (c): 1. Turkey.

Algeria. Ministry of Agriculture: No, if the transport of agricultural products is carried out by the farmers themselves; (c) is included in the definition of "agriculture".
Ministry of the Environment: Yes to (a); any activities which are not related to cultivating, harvesting and livestock breeding should be excluded from the definition of the term "agriculture".
CAP: exclude what is not strictly agricultural and which has been taken up elsewhere.

Argentina. UATRE: (a) and (c) should be excluded when transportation outside the workplace is not carried out by the direct producer.

Australia. ACCI: Yes to (a); no to (b) and (c).

Austria. Yes to (c) as long as it is not a question of transport by an agricultural or forestry enterprise.
PKLK: Yes to (b); the activities mentioned are not part of agricultural activities in the strict sense of the term or are not exclusively agricultural in nature.
LAKT: Yes to (b).

Azerbaijan. (a) and (b) should be excluded as the term "agriculture" implies only work carried out within the confines of agricultural enterprises.
ATUC: Yes to (a), since agricultural products have to be used as raw materials in small-scale production as well.

Bahrain. There is no need for all these exclusions as risks encountered by agricultural workers are interdependent and similar.

Barbados. BEC: No to all.
BWU: Yes to all.

Belgium. There should be a more specific approach to the forestry industry.
CNT: No to all.

Botswana. BFTU: Yes to (b); no to (a) and (c).

Brazil. All productive processes which transform the physical and chemical characteristics of agricultural products are not considered as agricultural activities.
FS: No to (a).

Bulgaria. It should be specified that the transport on agricultural machinery, which is the property of the producers, is not excluded.

Canada. (a), (b) and (c) would not normally be considered to be part of agriculture. The addition of "in accordance with law and practice" after "exclude" would ensure that jurisdictions which do include these items, would be covered.
CLC: No to (b).

China. At present, China excludes the processing of agricultural products from agriculture.

Colombia. SAC: Yes to all; these definitions, although related, do not concern agriculture.

Cyprus. PEO: No to (a) and (c); the activities in these clauses should not be excluded.

Czech Republic. Forestry involves special risks; if a new instrument on forestry work is not intended, it could be possible to include forestry in the instruments on safety and health in agriculture.
CACC: No to (a); yes to (b) even if forestry shares some common characteristics with agriculture, it is not possible to include it.

Denmark. Exclusion of these activities may create delimitation problems, as there is a development of the sector towards increasingly integrated production. However, (a) can be excluded, if it is an industrial process outside the undertaking. Agricultural undertakings where industrial processing of agricultural products takes place should be covered. Many agricultural undertakings have forestry as a significant activity and transport agricultural products to the buyers themselves; on that basis (b) and (c) should be covered.

Ecuador. Yes to (c); the transportation of agricultural products has different characteristics not relevant to agriculture.

Egypt. FETU: Yes to (a) and (c), no to (b); industrial processes and the transport of agricultural products may be excluded because there are other standards concerning safety and health in these areas; however, the forestry industry should not be excluded.

El Salvador. (b) should be included because of its relevance to the subject; (a) and (c) should be excluded for the same reasons.

Ethiopia. No to (c) since this is covered in the transport and communications regulations; it should not be included in this definition.

Finland. FAE: Health and safety of forestry work are dealt with separately in the ILO.
SAK: Forestry needs its own regulations.

France. (a) Yes, unless the agricultural products are transformed in the course of production itself; (c) yes, unless the transport is carried out by the wage-earners of the farm or agricultural undertaking.
CFTC: No to (b) and (c).
FGA, CFDT and MEDEF: No to (c).

Georgia. Exclude from items (a) and (b) the processes or forms of work which are not relevant to agriculture.

Germany. BDA: Yes to (a); no to (b) and (c).
DGB: Yes to (b) and (c); too specific and comprehensive. Their own definitions are required.

Ghana. Factory Inspectorate and Labour Department: These agro-based industrial processes are covered by other regulations.

Greece. PASEGES: No to (a) and (c), the definition of "agriculture" should not exclude agricultural activity.

Guatemala. Yes to (c); transportation is carried out by workers in other enterprises.

Hungary. National Health Office: No to (b).

India. No to (b) and (c); activities mentioned in these clauses are very much related to agricultural activities.

Iraq. GFTU: (a) and (c) must be included in the context of other non-agricultural activities such as transport or industry.

Ireland. (a) These are factories and, as such, come under factories' legislation; (b) forestry is included in our agricultural safety programme; exclude (c), this is, in Ireland, a matter for the Department of Justice and the Police.

Jamaica. JCTU: While (a)-(c) may not be strictly defined as "agricultural", there are some aspects of the forestry industry that can be deemed as agriculture. Thus, there is a need to include cultivation and conservation of forests.

Japan. JTUC-RENGO: No to (b); forestry-related industries should not be excluded.

Kenya. Yes, these three definitions are not "agricultural" per se.
COTU: These matters are covered in other Conventions such as Convention No. 155.

Lebanon. (c) It is necessary to define the nature of the transportation (agricultural worker in charge of the transportation or an occasional transporter).
ACCIA: No to all.

Lithuania. Yes to (a); agriculture is an economic activity which covers production from land, forests and internal waters and primary processing of raw materials on the farm.

Malawi. MCTU: the first two clauses should be included in the definition to cover the entire agricultural sector.

Malaysia. There should be a separate instrument or Convention for the forestry sector. The risk and hazards in the forestry sector are somewhat different.
MAPA: (a) and (c) would be related to other industries.
NUPW: No to (b) and (c).

Mali. Industrial processes and the transportation of products outside the workplace do not give rise to the same concerns as those faced by the worker directly involved in agricultural work.

Malta. The definitions in clauses (a)-(c) are related to agriculture and should not be excluded.

Mauritius. MEF: Yes to (b); no to (c).

Mexico. The definition should only cover those activities carried out before the secondary processing of agricultural products for industrial purposes.

Mozambique. Ministry of the Environment: No to all; agriculture covers all those areas and other more important ones.
SINTAF: No to (b) as forestry is an integral part of agriculture.

New Zealand. Yes to (a); the options would be far-reaching and beyond the needs of this instrument. No to (b); the Government proposes that the Recommendation allow for smallholdings doing forestry work where it is part of the total income from agriculture, but t