The National clap for South Africa

5.8Commercial agriculture

Commercial agriculture ranks third highest, after subsistence agriculture and retail, as an industry employing children. Around 117 000 of all working children work in commercial agriculture, comprising 8% of all working children. Half of these children work as unpaid labour on a family farm, the other half are employed by someone else. Boys were slightly more likely than girls to be working in commercial agriculture: 81% of children working with animals were boys, while 61% of children working with crops were girls.

Legal provisions on child work have covered commercial agriculture only since the early 1990s. However, most farm workers live isolated from inspectors and police, making it difficult to discover or enforce child work provisions. Unions complain about lack of enforcement due to lack of human and other resources.

It was hoped that labour inspection on farms would be facilitated through a protocol agreed upon between AgriSA and the Department of Labour. To some extent, it has done so. However, it also raises its own difficulties. In terms of the protocol inspectors must give notice to the farmer before an inspection is carried out. The result is that a farmer can hide signs of child labour before inspectors arrive. Inspectors indicated that they are also often fearful to enter farms to do an inspection without following such protocol, despite their legal right to do so, because a farmer may deal with them as they would with any intruder. Where inspectors believe their safety is at risk during an inspection they can ask for SAPS protection. However, while this is a function that SAPS should provide, inspectors report that SAPS officers sometimes refuse to do this.

In some cases children are directly employed by farmers (regularly or seasonally) and in others they work for the farmer as a part of family teams doing piecework. The situation is aggravated by the fact that farm workers’ children still do not have easy access to education, especially at the secondary level.

One of the worst forms of child labour is where children are forced to work as a condition of their family having access to housing on the farm. There are no reliable figures on how often this practice still occurs at present. While the incidence of farm workers living on farms is decreasing, a significant number of families still depend on farmers for their homes, so it is possible that it happens.

Related to this is the practice whereby an agreement is reached between a land owner and a tenant in terms of which the tenant will supply labour to the landlord by supplying workers for the landlord. The practice may encourage the supply of children and workers to a landlord, and the withdrawal of such children as workers could lead to the eviction of the tenant. This potential form of bonded labour is discussed under par 5.1, and action step (36) is recommended in that regard.

International studies on occupational health and safety consistently find that agriculture is one of the most hazardous industrial sectors. The sector is also associated with long and atypical hours of work, and seasonal demand for intensive labour. Particular hazards found in agriculture include farm machinery; ergonomic stress; dangerous chemicals; climatic hazards such as cold, rain and heat; long hours; work before sunrise and after sunset; electrical hazards, and biological hazards arising from farm animals.

Many of these factors may interact with each other, increasing vulnerability. Other socio-economic factors aggravate the hazards of these exposures. Poor nutritional status among children may reduce their resistance to infection or their ability to cope with heavy loads. Poor sanitation and water facilities reduce their ability to wash and prevent pesticide exposure. In addition, in rural farming areas facilities such as health care are usually thinly distributed.

People participating in the consultative process on children’s work in agriculture considered work in commercial agriculture more detrimental than work activities in subsistence agriculture for the following reasons:

• 
  Children are often employees in commercial agriculture, while this is uncommon in subsistence agriculture.
  
• 
  Dangerous tools and powered machinery are used to a much greater extent.
  
• 
  More processing and preservation of agricultural produce occurs, involving higher degree of hazardous work.
  
• 
  Dangerous chemicals are used to a much greater extent.
  
• 
  In some cases, bonded labour is found.
  

The following is proposed to address work in commercial agriculture:

The DL should vigorously prohibit the employment of children under 15 years old, because of the many dangers facing working children in this sector. Lead institution: DL. New policy? No, implementation of existing policy. Once off cost: nil. Recurrent cost: moderate, although already budgeted for. Time line: within one year of adoption of policy. Encouraging the provision of subsidised boarding houses or subsidised boarding with households in town for children from far-flung areas, especially those in high-school. DrE is presently considering this option. If it agrees, a feasibility study should be done. Institution: DrE. New policy? Yes. Once off cost: moderate. Recurrent cost: minimal, if all the state does is to encourage the provision of such boarding by churches and others; substantial is the state pays. Time line: within four years of adoption of policy. This will facilitate access to education and reduce the likelihood of children being withdrawn during the school term to work in commercial agriculture. It will also have these additional benefits: It should reduce potentially exploitative practices (in some cases similar to bonded labour) times where a child from a poor family has to work as domestic worker to pay for his or her boarding. Boarding facilities would release the child from the choice of working in such circumstances or forgoing education – see (38)(b) and (67)(c). It should be very beneficial for children working many hours in subsistence agriculture, where schools (especially those offering higher grades) are too distance. However, the potential effect of such a policy on the ability of families to run subsistence farming operations should be assessed. Schools should be more flexible about school hours, (eg by starting and finishing later or earlier, or taking holidays during peak harvest time) without compromising on the number of school hours required, to allow children aged 15-17 to work in high season when there are opportunities to earn income. This could contribute to funding their education and other needs. This action step will also have the benefit children who have to work during the busy season in subsistence agriculture (see 5.9(a)). Without such measures schooling may be affected detrimentally or children will be unable to assist their families with necessary tasks, especially during busy seasons – this means the families will be poorer, and the children further deprived. Lead institution: DrE. New policy? Yes. Once off cost: minimal to conduct a pilot programme. Recurrent cost: minimal. Time line: within four years of adoption of policy. ILO funding: to cover the costs related to a pilot programme in areas mostly affected and to provide technical assistance. The DL should vigorously enforce minimum wages for adults in commercial agriculture to ensure that farm worker families’ income is sufficient to reduce the poverty imperative for their children to work. Specific care should be taken to enforce the minimum wage in favour of children aged 15-17 to reduce the possibility of unfair exploitation. Lead institution: DL. New policy? No, more extensive implementation of existing policy. Once off cost: nil. Recurrent cost: moderate, already budgeted for. Time line: within one year of adoption of policy. SAPS should provide more effective protection for labour inspectors and social service workers where their safety is threatened. Full and regular access for inspectors and social service workers should also be facilitated through buy-in by organisations of farmers and other employers. Agreements with the farmers’ organisations may be one way to facilitate this monitoring. Lead institution: DL*. Secondary institutions: SAPS*, AgriSA*. New policy? More effective implementation of existing policy. Once off cost: minimal. Recurrent cost: minimal. Time line: within one year of adoption of policy. For related proposals on trafficking, which could have a bearing on commercial agriculture, see section 5.2 above.