By Emma Blackmore (IIED research associate) and Giulia Nicolini (IIED Shaping Sustainable Markets group researcher).
Originally published at www.iied.org
Shifting to more sustainable models of food production is urgently needed, but what might a ‘green transition’ mean for workers who are central to producing the world’s food?
The global food system is driving climate change and biodiversity loss, and it is also deeply vulnerable to their effects. In light of growing scientific evidence and both policy and public pressure, many companies have made commitments to sustainable sourcing at scale.
While there is debate about how this should be done from an environmental standpoint, the human dimension – specifically, the farmers and agricultural workers in supply chains – remains a blind spot in research and practice.
This omission risks undermining commitments to ensure that global sustainability ambitions ‘leave no one behind’, in the language of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But it also risks undermining the success of any ‘green transition’ altogether.
If the very people putting this transition into practice don’t have a stake in the process – or end up worse off as a result – then these transitions will not be inclusive or sustainable.
Evidence gaps: agricultural labour and rights-based approaches
To understand the impacts that such transitions could have on farmers and farm workers, IIED, the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) and BananaLink reviewed published evidence on how shifting to sustainable agricultural practices is already affecting farmers and farm workers. We also interviewed experts from government and UN agencies, NGOs and academia.
We focused on evidence from low- and middle-income countries, where agricultural employment tends to be highest. We found that most research in these countries looks at the impacts of adopting sustainable practices on small-scale farms. We found less research on how these shifts impact workers on medium- and large-scale farms, which are more likely to be oriented towards exports and global value chains.
We also found that few articles and reports directly address issues such as labour rights or decent work. A lack of knowledge about how shifting to sustainable agricultural practices will impact rights and working conditions may pose a risk for companies making commitments to sustainable sourcing, many of whom must comply with human rights due diligence regulations, such as the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive.
Avoiding trade-offs between green transitions and decent work: learning from small-scale farms
Evidence from small farms tends to focus on the impact of adopting sustainable agricultural practices on yields, production costs and income. While impacts on yields and incomes are often mixed and highly context-specific, several studies do show positive socio-economic outcomes, especially over longer periods.
In Kenya, for example, small-scale farmers growing a mixture of crops such as maize, beans, vegetables and potatoes reported yield improvements linked to the application of compost manure, farmyard manure and mulching. The impacts of adopting sustainable practices such as intercropping, growing cover crops and agroforestry can also contribute to income diversification and, in some cases, improved food and nutrition security.
Much of the evidence points to changes in labour intensity and increased labour requirements as a result of agricultural green transitions. This has raised concerns about potentially hazardous working conditions (PDF) due to increased working hours and fewer mechanised and industrialised farming processes
However, changes in labour requirements vary across different seasons, stages of the growing cycle and the phase of implementing the sustainable practice. For example, some regenerative agriculture practices – such as producing farmyard manure, building terraces and using water harvesting systems – are most labour-intensive in their establishment phase.
Labour costs are often hidden on small farms because family members may provide unpaid labour, which makes it difficult to draw comparisons between different agricultural approaches. The gendered impacts also require more detailed interrogation, given evidence that shifting towards sustainable agricultural practices can increase women’s workloads.
On larger farms, mechanisation can help avoid some increased labour involved in sustainable agriculture, but also brings health and safety challenges and can limit the types of sustainability practices (PDF) that are possible (for example, intercropping).
There are indications that the organisation of labour and issues such as pay structure need consideration in transitions on larger farms. For example, a study of strawberry harvesters in California found that farmworkers earned less money working on organic farms because they are paid by the punnet, and organic strawberries tend to be smaller, on average.
Reducing pesticide use: a potential win-win for farmers and the environment
There is limited consensus about the meaning of terms like ‘sustainable agriculture’ and ‘regenerative agriculture’, which can cover numerous and sometimes highly variable practices. This makes it challenging to assess the implications for workers of shifting to such production models.
One area where there is a clearer win for both workers and the environment is reducing pesticide use, a common feature of sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
Pesticide poisoning can cause serious illness and financial distress due to associated medical costs. A study by the Pesticide Action Network of cotton farmers in Benin found that workers experienced ill health after applying pesticides and had spent approximately 10% of their income on related medical costs.
Reduced agrochemical use has been found to reduce adverse health impacts on farmers and farm workers, while the adoption of strategies such as integrated pest management can also reduce farmers’ costs.
But here, too, there can be trade-offs. Engaging in no-till, for example, can reduce the labour needed to prepare fields on small farms but increase the need for hand weeding, where the use of agrochemicals or herbicides is avoided. This can lead to occupational health and safety risks (PDF) linked to stooping, use of hazardous equipment and exposure to the elements.
All this points to a need for more detailed understandings of the possible labour impacts of green transitions on both small and large farms to ensure that any trade-offs can be managed and risks of negative impacts on workers avoided.
Centring workers in research on just transitions
Increases in labour intensity don’t necessarily mean negative impacts for workers. Instead, we need to ask whether sustainable agricultural work is also fair, decent and meaningful. Overall, few of the studies we reviewed adopted a human rights or labour rights approach, suggesting a gap in research that brings these ideas into conversation with those working on green agricultural transitions.
There is an urgent need for action-oriented research that centres on farmers and workers – the real experts – so that sustainability transitions are not only green, but inclusive and fair, too.
If you would like to work with IIED, ETI and BananaLink on the next phase of this research or discuss how you might be able to support us, please get in touch.
Photo: Farmer showing boosted forage production after using a climate-smart soil method in Western Kenya (Photo: Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
