Module 4: LIVELIHOODS AND HUMAN WELLBEING...module Module 4 –Page 3 Ensuring the wellbeing of...
Transcript of Module 4: LIVELIHOODS AND HUMAN WELLBEING...module Module 4 –Page 3 Ensuring the wellbeing of...
Technical Modules
Module 4: LIVELIHOODS AND HUMAN WELLBEING
Sustainable Agriculture Standard
July, 2017Version 1
D.R. © 2017 Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C.
This document is provided by Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C. (also known as Sustainable
Agriculture Network) to Rainforest Alliance, Inc. and/or to its successors, under the terms and
subject to the limitations set forth in the perpetual, exclusive, non-transferrable license granted
by Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C. in favor of Rainforest Alliance, Inc., or its successors under
the terms and conditions set forth in an agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”), in the
understanding that:
1. All content of this document, including, but not limited to text, logos, if any, graphics,
photographs, trade names, etc. of Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C, is subject to
copyright protection in favor of the Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C. and third party
owners who have duly authorized the inclusion of their work, under the provisions of the
Mexican Federal Law on Copyright (Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor) and other related
national and / or international laws. The Rainforest Alliance name and trademarks are the
sole property of Rainforest Alliance.
2. Rainforest Alliance, Inc., and / or its successors, shall only use the copyrighted material
under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
3. Under no circumstance shall it be understood that a license, of any kind, over this
document has been granted to any third party different from Rainforest Alliance, Inc., or its
successors.
4. Except for the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, under no circumstance
shall it be understood that Red de Agricultura Sostenible, A.C. has, partially or totally,
waived or assigned the copyrighted material.
More information?
For more information about the Rainforest Alliance, visit www.rainforest-alliance.org or contact
Translation Disclaimer
Translation accuracy of any Rainforest Alliance sustainable agriculture certification program
document into languages other than English is not guaranteed nor implied. For any questions
related to the accuracy of the information contained in the translation, refer to the English
official version. Any discrepancies or differences created in the translation are not binding and
have no effect for auditing or certification purposes.
Table of contents
Module 4 – Page 2
Contributions of this module ...…………………………………………………………….…… 3
Principle IV: What are its objectives? ….……………………………………………………… 4
General recommendations for auditing social topics ……..……………...……………… 6
Protection of the workers’ rights ..…………………………………………………………… 10
Forced labor ….…………………………….……………………………………………………………….………... 13
Workplace harassment ….…………….……………………………………………………………….………... 14
Discrimination .…………………………….……………………………………………………………….………... 15
Freedom of association and collective bargaining .…………………………………….…….…... 18
Child labor ………………………………….………………………………………………………………..………... 21
Compliance with labor legislation …….…….………………………………………………….……….... 23
Occupational health and safety ...……………………………………………………………….……….... 26
Wellbeing of the workers and their families ……………………………………….….…. 43
Access to drinking water ….………...………………………………………………………………..……..… 45
Decent housing ……..…………………...………………………………………………………………..….….… 52
Living wage …….……..…………………...………………………………………………………………..….….… 60
Access to health and basic education services …...………………………………………..….……. 63
Wellbeing of the community ……..……..……………………………………………….…… 65
Legitimate land use …….……………...………………………………………………………………..……..… 67
Mitigation of negative impacts on communities ……………….….……………………..….…… 70
Support to local communities..…...………………………………………………………………..….….… 76
Contributions of thismodule
Module 4 – Page 3
Ensuring the wellbeing of workers, their families and nearby communities is fundamental to
ensuring the sustainability of productive systems and their commitment to human development.
A farm that complies with the requirements of the 2017 Standard ensures:
that the labor rights of its workers are respected, including those related to work shifts,
wages, freedom of association, vacations and leave.
the wellbeing of the workers and their families, including factors such as access to potable
water, basic health and education services, and decent housing.
the wellbeing of communities near the farm and the legitimate use of the land.
This module contributes the following tools to optimize the work of the technical community:
• Graphics that explain the objectives and key topics of Principle 4;
• Information regarding the related Rainforest Alliance Terms and Definitions and their correct
interpretation;
• Tables and diagrams that show interrelationships between criteria (including other Principles of
the Standard), which allow for a joint understanding of all the requirements related to the
wellbeing of the workers, their families and the community;
• Recommendations for auditing complex topics;
• Information for the correct implementation and evaluation of the requirements of the 2017
Standard with respect to the workers, their families and the communities near the farm;
• Real and study cases in addition to illustrative examples for complex topics.
The Guide to the 2017 Standard is a key tool for the implementation and evaluation
of its requirements.
Principle IV What are its objectives?
Compliance with laws and
labor rights
Access to potable water
and decent housing
Decent wage
Livelihoodsand
Human wellbeing
Ensuring the wellbeing and
rights of communities
Ensuring the wellbeing of the
workers and their families
Protecting the rights of workersCompliance with
international ILO conventions
Respect for the rights of the
communities and FPIC
Reduction of negative
impacts on communities
Module 4 – Page 4
Access to Health and Education
Legitimate land use
PRINCIPLE IV Livelihoods and human wellbeing
Module 4 – Page 5
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
WORKERS
Respect for labor rights
• Compliance with international conventions:
no forced labor or human trafficking; no
mistreatment or harassment; no
discrimination; free association and
collective bargaining; no worst forms of child
labor and regulation of working youths.
• Information on rights and the complaint
system.
Compliance with labor laws
• Minimum wage and form of payment.
• Working hours and vacations.
• Maternity leave rights.
• No fraudulent outsourcing.
Occupational Health and Safety
• Occupational health and safety plan.
• Safety in infrastructure.
• Personal protection: personal protective
equipment, reentry times, first aid, medical
checkups.
• Emergency scenarios.
ENSURING THE WELLBEING OF
THE WORKER AND HIS/HER
FAMILY
• Access to potable water for workers,
producers, and their families.
• Access to decent housing.
• Decent wages.
• Access to health and education
services.
ENSURING THE WELLBEING
AND RIGHTS OF THE
COMMUNITY
• Legitimate land use.
• Reduction of negative effects on
communities.
• Support to communities.
• Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC).
General recommendationsfor auditing social matters
Module 4 – Page 6
Prior to the Audit:
• The auditing team has information on the potential social risks present in the region and what could
impact the farm or group of farms.
• Specific information for the farm or group regarding complaints or violations of rights, or social
conflicts that have already been submitted is gathered.
• During the audit planning, all the information above is included, and the audit tem assigns an
adequate amount of time to evaluate social topics, sufficient to conduct interviews (with workers
and communities) and complete document reviews. If there is a night shift, visits and interviews to
evaluate conditions during different work shifts are included.
• In those cases there is any union or workers’ organization, arrangements are made in order to agree
in advance on days for meetings during the audit.
The following practices optimize the auditing of social topics related to the 2017 Standard:
During the audit:
• The auditors can obtain additional information on
the social practices of the farms or groups through
interviews with representatives of off-farm
entities (ministry of labor, medical centers, police,
local governments, labor unions, community social
groups, etc.).
• At the opening meeting, it is important to remind
workers that the interviews are confidential. The
auditing team includes interviews with the
workers’ representatives after the opening
meeting and ask for them to be the ones who
accompany the auditor team during the interviews
with workers, and not the representatives of the
farm administration.
• Avoid having a retinue of administrative staff
accompany the auditor on the field or processing
plant inspection, since this could inhibit the
workers you want to interview.
• The interviews are not conducted during
rest periods, and if the workers being
interviewed are payed by piece, the
interview is short; out of courtesy and
respect for the workers.
• Taking notes during the interviews is
allowed, but it is important to
emphasize the confidentiality of the
information and that names will not be
revealed in the report nor at the closing
meeting.
• One of the best practices is for the
auditing team to carry a copy of the
country’s applicable labor legislation for
consultation.
Interviewswith the workers
Module 4 – Page 7
The workers can offer valuable information about working conditions and general compliance with
the requirements of the 2017 Standard. From a broader perspective, their information helps explain
the management of the farm and potential warning signs.
Certain practices during the audit help the auditor understand the work atmosphere on the farm or
group facility (processing plant, packing area, mill, etc.). These can warn about the existence of
irregularities or instances of non-compliance:
• Ask about staff turnover, frequency, and areas with the highest turnover. High staff turnover can
indicate unfavorable conditions for workers.
• Ask the workers how they would evaluate the farm or the work setting, assigning a value of 1 to 10
(1 means they do not like the setting, 10 means the setting is optimal). This question is asked at the
end of the interview, in order to synthesize what the worker mentioned and felt.
These two practices can help with the process of analysis and evaluation of the working conditions,
and contribute to identify warning signs of non-compliance.
The Rainforest Alliance Training Toolbox has detailed
information on good practices for interviewing workers, for
each one of the topics for Principle 4.
Social
Auditing Techniques
Interviewswith representatives of the workers
Knowing the
characteristics of the
workers’
organizations makes it
easier for you to ask
the correct questions
of the representatives
who can give you
better information.
Workers and employees communicate directly with their
representatives, to whom they submit their complaints and requests.
This representatives are the ones who negotiate staff requests with the
farm management, therefore they can well capture the sentiments of
the work force, and the attitude of the management in the
negotiations.
An interview with the representatives at the start of the audit can help
direct the interviews with the workers. If the representatives are
consulted about the workers’ main concerns and complaints, this can
help to better define the questions to ask during the interviews.
Interviews with representativesAlert situations and challenges
Module 4 – Page 8
If the workers’ representatives do not wish to
collaborate with the auditor team, this may be a
sign of protest due to conflicts with the
company; you must investigate this position
with the management and the workers during
the interviews. You can ask the company for the
minutes or records of meetings with the
representatives in order to evaluate any
requests, complaints or suggestions, and
whether these have been addressed.
It is important to clarify that the objective of the
audit is to evaluate compliance with the 2017
Standard and not to resolve the requests of the
representatives or to evaluate the company-
representative relationship. For example:
evaluate whether the company has a clear
policy regarding freedom of association; that it
has a policy in practice that grants the right to
workers to freely negotiate their working
conditions, and that there is no discrimination
against workers for their affiliations.
If it is evident that the representation is
conflictive or belligerent, you must assess the
objectivity of their requests and the farm’s
possibility of addressing them. This is a sensitive
issue that involves interviews with the company
and the representatives in order to reach
consensus regarding the outcome. Ideally, the
workers representatives and the workers
affiliated to a workers union are interviewed
outside the farm, on their communities.
There are cases in which the company allows
the right of affiliation for negotiating working
conditions, but does not do so in practice. This
becomes evident when the workers’ written
requests receive no response. The company’s
response time to workers’ requests may also be
related to a lack of resources.
The fact that the relationship between labor
representation and the company is not good
and has certain weaknesses is not in itself a
nonconformity with the 2017 Standard.
However, failure to respond to requests for
improvements in occupational health, wage
complaints, work schedules, access to training,
and workplace harassment among other
factors, are considered non-conformities with
the respective criteria.
External resourcesfor the audit
Module 4 – Page 9
The farms or groups present different risks of
noncompliance with the social requirements
geographic location, local conflicts, societal customs,
history of denunciations, suspicions of disrespect of
worker or community rights, etc.
In risk situations, resorting to external entities in the
community can help with obtaining complete and
reliable information. Examples include: the Ministry
of Labor or other labor authorities, the local health
system, Red Cross and other humanitarian aid
agencies, sector trade unions (not only for the farm,
but ones that represent workers of several farms or
that encompass other labor categories), NGOs,
religious centers, the educational system, local
development entities, universities working in the
region, and others.
These visits to external institutions can be assessed
within the audit plan. If a site is difficult to visit, you
can contact its representatives using non-personal
means (telephone, email).
Visits to external entities can be used to
investigate many topics of the 2017
Standard, such as occupational health,
accidents or common disabilities of farm
workers, cases of workplace harassment,
child labor, discrimination, human
trafficking at the locality, hiring minors
and youth, among others.
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE WORKER
Protecting workers’ rightsRelated criteria
Module 4 – Page 11
The fundamental rights of workers are protected as defined in the main international convention of
the ILO
Critical Criterion4.1
All forms of forced labor are prohibited.
In accordance with the Convention on Forced Labor (No. 29) and the Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor (No. 105) of the ILO
Critical Criterion4.2
The workers do not suffer sexual harassment or abuse.
Critical Criterion4.3
All forms of discrimination in the workplace are prohibited.
According to ILO Conventions 100 and 111, and the ILO Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 no.100.
Critical Criterion4.4
Workers have freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
Freedom of Association in accordance with ILO Convention 87, Collective Bargaining in accordance with ILO Convention 98 on the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining.
Critical Criterion4.5
Workers receive at least the minimum wage.
Critical Criterion4.6
The worst forms of child labor are prohibited.
According to the ILO Convention on the Worst Form of Child Labor No. 182
Critical Criterion4.7
Certain conditions are guaranteed for the hiring of young workers.
According to ILO Convention on Minimum Age, No. 138
Critical Criterion4.8
Practices or arrangements that reduce or eliminates workers’ payment or benefits are not used.
Critical Criterion4.9
Grievance mechanisms are implemented to protect the workers rights.
Critical Criterion4.10
Regular working hours do not exceed 48 hours a week.
Critical Criterion4.11
All extra time is voluntary, do not result in more that 60 working hours a week and is payed at a higher rate than regular time.
Protecting the rights of workersEvaluation of compliance
Module 4 – Page 12
Social matters related to the protection of worker rights present common challenges in their on-farm
implementation, and therefore it is sometimes difficult to detect their compliance.
• Some regions have a social reality that facilitates the existence of certain problems in the
communities. For example: Areas with labor that belongs to different groups, with difficult
management-worker communication; societies that are highly discriminatory against certain
groups or members, facilitating situations of abuse; complex social situations with marginalization
and poverty that can lead to child labor or illegal migrants, human trafficking or forced labor;
among others. The Certification Bodies and auditors should be familiar with these situations and
the contexts in which they occur, to address them correctly.
• Sometimes it is difficult to obtain information from some of the workers interviewed, who by
nature can be very reserved or fearful of reprisals.
• The confidentiality of the information obtained is key to protecting the interviewees and although
it is guaranteed during the audit and in the report, certain data can easily be traced back to the
source. Although the organization does not know what was discussed with each worker, they can
certainly know who the interviewees were and take some kind of retaliation against them.
• Since the audit is a planned process, a company could very well conceal some practices that would
be considered non-compliance with the 2017 Standard, making their identification very difficult
during the audit.
The following sections present a series of real (audit) situations, which exemplify good practices for
correctly evaluating compliance with criteria related to the protection of workers’ rights.
Challenges in evaluating compliance:
In the tool series, Social Auditing Techniques
provides detailed information on addressing
these situations.
Consult the document
Forced labor,slavery and human trafficking
Module 4 – Page 13
According to the concepts of the International Labor Organization
(Combatting Forced Labor: A handbook for Employers), a person is
in a forced labor situation when he takes a job or service against
his free will and cannot leave without penalty or threat of
punishment.
This does not only refer to punishment or physical constraint, it
can also take other forms such as the loss of rights or privileges.
Determination of forced labor in practice
Lack of consent to work Threat of punishment
• Born into slavery or servitude or slave or servant ancestry.
• Physical abduction or kidnap.
• Sale of one person to another.
• Physical confinement at the workplace – in a prison cell or in private detention.
• Psychological coercion (an order to work accompanied by a credible threat of punishment in the event of non-compliance).
• Induced indebtedness (by falsifying accounts, exaggerated price increases, reducing the value of goods or services produced, or charging excessive interest).
• Deceptive or false promises regarding the type of work and conditions.
• Retention and non-payment of wages.
• Retention of identity documents or other personal effects of value.
• Physical violence against the worker, his/her family or persons close to the worker.
• Sexual violence.
• (The threat of) unnatural reprisals.
• Incarceration or other physical confinement.
• Financial penalties.
• Filing charges with the authorities (police, immigration authorities, etc.) and deportation.
• Exclusion from future employment.
• Exclusion from the community and social life.
• Suppression of rights or privileges.
• Deprivation of food, shelter or other necessities.
• Reassignment to even worse working conditions.
• Loss of social status.
The determination of forced labor is difficult, but certain parameters help to establish its existence. In
particular, evaluate:
• The lack of consent to work: consent is understood as the liberty to take upon the job or to leave it
at any time, giving a reasonable period of notice according to applicable law or the corresponding
collective agreement.
• The threat of punishment: This alludes to criminal sanctions and various forms of coercion such as
threats, violence, retention of identity documents, confinement or non-payment of wages. The
punishment may also consist of the loss of rights or privileges.
Constraint: Force,pressure or compulsionexerted on a person toforce them to dosomething against theirwill or to abstain fromdoing something hewants.
In cases of workplace harassment
Module 4 – Page 14
It is common for there to be difficult relationships among farm personnel. In some cases, it is not clear
whether it is the administrative staff, the workers, or both who are difficult.
When the auditor cannot determine what the nature of a conflict is, a nonconformity with this
criterion cannot be lifted without objective evidence. The evidence in these cases is complex and
often absent.
Some of the administration’s practices may provide guidelines on how these issues are handled
internally:
Bad signs
The occurrence of:
• High staff turnover;
• Interviewees who are clearlyuncomfortable or fearful.
Good signs
There are:
• Procedures implemented by thefarms to address cases;
• Resolutions by mediating or judicialentities;
• Training for personnel.
Good signs
The farms (companies):
• Conduct analyses of the workenvironment; and
• The management shows acommitment to monitoring andimproving the work environment.
Bad signs
During the interviews, administrativepersonnel keep a prudent distanceaway, but it is noticed that they arepaying attention and watching theinterviewee.
Practices
Non-discriminationGeneral considerations
Module 4 – Page 15
Some situations may bias the analysis of the requirements for non-discrimination and lead to
incorrect decisions. You need to know the context of the operation in order to analyze the situations
correctly. For example:
• Medical examinations are often considered
discriminatory measures against workers who could
have AIDS or pregnant women. However, some
companies ask for medical tests to ensure that the
workers do not have a condition that would put them at
risk. Medical examinations can be requested for very
specific positions, such as machinery operation and
agrochemical application, which have minimum health
requirements for their safe implementation.
• Workers who have had health problems, such as
occupational diseases or accidents, in addition to their
own disability, may require temporary or permanent
relocation. Information can be gathered on personnel
relocation procedures through interviews and document
review. If a worker is dismissed after a disability, this
could be considered a nonconformity with the criterion
for non-discrimination.
• Discriminatory acts may occur in a specific sector
without the administration’s knowledge; for example,
with a particular field or processing plant foreman. This
could indicate a deficiency in internal communication,
but it would not lead to assigning the farm a non-
conformity with the non-discrimination requirements. It
is important to review the actions the administration
takes to address cases such as these, the communication
channels, and the work of the labor representatives, to
verify how these particular acts are addressed.
Non-discriminationBest auditing practices
Module 4 – Page 16
Some best practices for evaluating non-discrimination compliance during the audit are:
• Interviewing workers’ representatives, plant and
field personnel, and external entities close to the
context of the farm, such as the Ministry of Labor or
the local Labor Office.
• It is important to conduct interviews outside the
farm and/or processing plant, as the mere presence
of other workers may inhibit a trusting environment.
• Interviewing human resources staff about hiring
methods: the documents requested from applicants
and the interviews/questions that are made.
• In the interviews with the workers, especially the
newest ones, inquire about the questions they were
asked during the job interviews and the documents
requested of them.
• Ask for the workers’ complaints/suggestions to
demonstrate the response and attention they were
given. If certain complaints/suggestions were
addressed and others not, you must analyze in detail
the causes of this different attention, since it could
be a case of discrimination.
• Request the minutes of the workers’ representatives
and evaluate whether concerns are addressed or if
some appear to be ignored.
• If the company has shifts, interviews are done during
both night and day shifts. It could be that night shift
staff do not have the same benefits as workers in the
day shifts, such as: access to sanitary services,
transport, dining halls, breaks, among others. The
problem may be aggravated if the company does not
rotate staff between the different shifts and
permanently keeps personnel in the night shift.
Some good signs that the farm makes
efforts to meet the requirements of
Critical Criterion 4.3:
• If the company has workers with
special needs, or a high
proportion of hired female
workers.
• If the company’s contracting
policy includes personnel who are
disabled, of ethnic or minority
groups, or sexually diverse
workers.
Non-discriminationReal cases
Module 4 – Page 17
In a group of tea producers, the non-contracting of women at the processing plant was
investigated. The management argued that the work was very hard for women and that they
preferred to work in the harvest on the farms.
• When interviewing the women of the community, they themselves indicated that they wanted to
work at the processing plant, noting that the field was also hard, but it was done by men and
women alike. The women’s response in the interviews was uniform, so the matter was mentioned
to the management again. The company pledged to place ads to hire women for work at the
processing plant.
• It is important to contextualize, since in the culture of the country’s tea industry, it is customary to
assign field tasks to women; this was corroborated in an interview with the union representative.
This was not considered a case of gender discrimination, but rather a process of breaking a cultural
paradigm, since the roles of men and women had been defined for a very long time. The good
attitude of the management and its prompt attention to the matter was taken into account. A
contracting procedure was developed in which it was clarified that contracting should be based on
the attributes necessary for the performance of the tasks and not on a specific gender.
In a banana packing plant it was detected that
the plant administrator was giving extra tasks
to a particular group, which provoked
complaints from the other employees.
• This type of favoritism to groups of
workers can be considered discrimination,
by eliminating equal opportunities for all
the workers.
• A case like this could be considered a
nonconformity with Critical Criterion 4.3.
Free association and collective bargainingGeneral considerations
Module 4 – Page 18
Some situations may bias the analysis of the non-discrimination requirements and lead to incorrect
decisions. You need to know the context of the operation in order to analyze the situations correctly, for
example:
• Freedom of association implies that the
company allows the workers to organize
themselves in any of the legally recognized
forms of association of their preference, for the
purpose of negotiating working conditions. The
key term in explaining freedom of association is
the negotiation of working conditions.
• There are different types of worker
representation organizations that the auditor
can interview. The most known is the union,
although there are also other types such as: the
Permanent Committee in Costa Rica and the
Collective Pact in Colombia. It is important to
determine that (whatever the type of
organization) it is constituted to negotiate
working conditions and protect workers’ rights,
and that it has no influence from the farm
administration.
• In the event there is no union, permanent
committee, or other type of labor organization,
ask whether there is any alternative form of
representation for negotiating working
conditions.
• The fact that there is no labor representation on
a farm to negotiate working conditions is not
necessarily nonconformity. Through interviews
you may find that the workers do not feel the
need to organize themselves because they are
satisfied with the working conditions. The
important thing is to evaluate whether the
company has a policy that respects the right of
the workers to organize themselves and
negotiate working conditions, and that the
workers have been informed of this, which is
verified through interviews and training
records.
• There may also be other organizations with
different purposes. These are not evidence of
freedom of association as their purpose is other
than the protection of workers’ rights and
working conditions. For example, in Costa Rica
there are solidarista or solidarity associations.
These entities do not negotiate working
conditions, rather they exist for other worker
activities, such as savings.
Free association and collective bargainingBest auditing practices
Module 4 – Page 19
• Due to fear of strikes and negative economic
effects, many farm administrations show some
resistance to workers joining unions. In some
audits, the personnel interviewed have
mentioned that workers who were members
of an external union were dismissed to keep
the percentage below the minimum required
by law for negotiating a collective agreement.
Obtaining objective evidence of this fact can
be complicated, as it implies demonstrating a
pattern of unionized personnel dismissals and
investigating the justification for those
dismissals.
• Each case is unique and should be analyzed
carefully. The relationship between the
administration and personnel may be difficult,
which is not a nonconformity. It may be that
there is no worker representation in audited
organization, which is not necessarily a
nonconformity. If no solid evidence is found
that the company opposes the right of the
workers to join a group for the purpose of
negotiating their working conditions, a
nonconformity with Critical Criterion 4.4
cannot be assigned.
It is important to evaluate whether the company
implements any of the following practices, which
are good indicators of how the topic is addressed:
• The company has a written position regarding
the right of the workers to organize to negotiate
working conditions (for example: a policy on
this).
• The company does not obstruct or interfere in
any way with how the workers’ representatives
operate.
• The audited organization promptly responds to
workers’ requests. There are cases where the
organization has labor representation but in
practice it does not address the concerns of the
workers, as evidenced in the interviews where
workers show dissatisfaction with their
representatives and the management’s
representatives.
• There are written responses to the workers’
requests, and the representatives as well as the
management keep logbooks (with the requests,
agreements, implementation dates and
signatures).
• The company provides what is necessary for the
representatives to carry out their work, such as:
– Giving paid time to talk with the workers;
– Allowing time for the representatives to
attend union meetings;
– Making on-farm facilities available;
– Providing transportation to move
representatives around the farm.
Free association and collective bargainingReal cases
Module 4 – Page 20
During an audit, the auditor team was confidentially informed that the administrative
personnel wanted to be interviewed because they had no labor representation of their own and
no means to negotiate working conditions.
• Interviews were conducted and a certain amount of discomfort was evident in these staff
members. The company already had four unions and a clear policy regarding freedom of
association, therefore no nonconformity could be assigned.
• With this information, the system manager was asked whether the administrative staff had any
kind of representation (protecting the confidentiality of the administrator’s concerns); the answer
was no, so the matter was addressed at the closing meeting. The management mentioned that they
had not considered it, but that they didn’t have any problem if the administrative staff wanted to
form or join a group to negotiate working conditions.
• Given that the company included freedom of association in its policy, and also that it was
negotiating with four unions, it was clear that the problem lay with the organization of the
administrative staff itself, so no nonconformity with Critical Criterion 4.4 was assigned.
Worst forms of child laborand regulation of child labor
Module 4 – Page 21
Challenges for the evaluation
• There are regions where factors such as
poverty or the absence or remoteness of
educational centers lead families to require
more income. This can encourage a symbiosis
between minors looking for work and
providers of labor with the ability to falsify
identity documents.
• Since the audit is an announced process, a
company that hires minors could try to hide
this noncompliance.
• In some cases, very young workers may be
found on the farms and it is very difficult to
determine their age. In these cases, the
audited organization must provide
documentary support of the age of the worker
in question.
• Many adults who have working minors claim
that they are family members or that they only
work on minor tasks, or the minors may be
assigned tasks in remote plots where it is not
easy to find them.
For more information on this topic, consult the ILO’s International Program for the Eradication
of Child Labor.
For detailed information on addressing this topic on plantations, refer to the example in cocoa
plantations: Rooting out child labour from cocoa farms (ILO, 2007).
Child labor remediation
Section 12.2 (2017 Certification Rules)
a. Farm management or a group administrator that has removed a child laborer from his or her job
after having received a non-conformity for critical criterion 4.6 of the 2017 Standard shall prove
to the CB that it conducted the following remedial actions for the child and his or her family:
i. Timely access to medical services;
ii. Timely access to psychological and rehabilitative services, as indicated by the child’s
condition;
iii. Facilitation of the child’s entrance and integration into local school until he/she reaches the
legally permitted age or leaving school; and
iv. Hiring of the child’s immediate or extended family member, if available. If no such family
member is available for hiring, the farm management or group administrator pays the child’s
family a wage support no less than the removed child’s wages until the child reaches the legal
age for leaving school or age 15, whichever is higher.
Compliance with labor legislationRelated criteria
Module 4 – Page 22
Labor laws that regulate wages,
working hours, working
conditions, breaks, vacations, and
maternity leave are obeyed
Payment and wage
regulations
CC 4.5 ; 4.21 C; 4.27 A; 4.29 C; 4.33 A
Prohibition of fraudulent
hiring practicesCC 4.8 ; C 4.22 ;
Procedures for worker
complaintsCC 4.9
Regulation of working
hoursCC 4.10; CC 4.11
Regulation of the work of
pregnant and lactating
women
CC 4.18 ; B 4.25; B 4.26
The Guide to the 2017 Standard is a key tool
for the implementation and evaluation of its
requirements. Consult it often.
Consult the document
The tool series Social Auditing Techniques
contains detailed information on good
practices for auditing social topics.
Consult the document
Compliance with labor legislationReal cases
Module 4 – Page 23
On a pineapple farm, it was identified that the packing plant workers did not understand the
payment system. After requesting the payroll forms, the auditor finds it difficult to
understand all the items shown. The person in charge of the packing plant explains that
various types of packing are done and each one has a its own pay rate. Different types of
qualities are packed each week, and each one is detailed in the rate. This complex system is
hard to understand. It is shown that the workers have received training on the payment
system on an annual basis, which, as evidenced in the interviews, is not adequate to
understand the payment system.
• In reviewing the payrolls, it is evident
that the workers receive payment
higher than the legal minimum, so no
nonconformity is considered. However,
by not understanding the payroll stub,
they cannot make claims in the event
of irregularities. This situation is
considered a potential nonconformity
with Critical Criterion 4.9.
In an audit it was found that overtime began to
accrue once the regular 48 hours per week
were accumulated, instead of recognizing
these hours on a per day basis as stipulated in
the country’s legislation. The evidence included
workers who worked 14 hours in a day, with all
hours paid as regular hours. Most of the
workers did not exceed 48 total hours per
week, so no overtime was paid.
• To the question of why the company is not
paying overtime, the administration
explained to the auditor that overtime is only
accrued after 48 hours have been worked in
a week, which is the total number of hours to
be worked in a standard (6-day) work week.
This is a potential nonconformity with
Critical Criterion 4.11. Always investigate
the legal requirements of the country
regarding the recognition of overtime pay.
Compliance with labor legislationPractices that affect workers
Module 4 – Page 24
• Use of labor suppliers: The use of intermediaries implies that the farm is disregarding its
obligations towards the and is limited to paying the provider of the service. It is possible that the
workers have wages lower than the legal minimum and their social security or occupational
hazard insurance benefits are not covered. This is a nonconformity with Critical Criterion 1.5.
‒ In requiring labor suppliers to comply with the requirements of the certification systems,
their costs usually increase considerably; therefore their use is no longer a more economical
option for the administration of the farm or groups. For this reason, direct contracting is
preferred in many regions, although the contracting of labor and specialized services
continues, such as the application of nematicides on banana farms.
‒ When a contractor does not comply with the legal payments, this corresponds to the
assignment of a nonconformity with Criterion 1.5, given that the nonconformity is that of the
supplying contractor. A nonconformity cannot be assigned for Critical Criterion 4.5, since it is
not the farm that pays the worker. The root cause analysis of these kinds of findings will
always be linked to the lack of controls by the audited organization with its suppliers of labor,
services or products.
• Frequent contract renewal: In some countries, the worker’s seniority is recognized, which implies
making annual salary increases based on the number of years the worker has been with the
company. These types of practices may affect the worker’s wages, their legal benefits, inclusion to
the social security schemes, and the amounts received for liquidation in the event of dismissal,
injuring his labor rights. This is considered a noncompliance with Critical Criterion 4.8.
‒ In certain regions, farms practice frequent worker contract renewal and the workers
themselves prefer this practice, since every three months they receive money from the
liquidation. The practice implies that the worker’s liquidation is paid every three months, and
he must not submit an application for work until 15 days have passed, time that is used by the
worker to do other tasks, take a vacation or travel to his place of origin.
‒ It is important to verify whether the practice, although preferred by the employees, is legal.
You may call the labor authority or ask the company to show the legal regulation that allow
this practice. One of these cases could be a potential noncompliance with Critical Criterion
4.8, even if it is the worker’s preference.
Compliance with labor legislationWarning signs
Module 4 – Page 25
Potential noncompliance with labor rights or laws (Criterion B-4.23, Vacations)
• Keep in mind that if the worker is dismissed,
he/she must be paid for the vacation time
corresponding to the length of time worked on
the farm or in group facilities. Each labor code
establishes specific measures in this instance. In
the case of Costa Rica, it is Article 153.
• Given that vacations are granted based on the
time worked, it is important to take into account
that some legislation indicates que this work
time should not be affected or reduced by cases
of leave without pay, breaks granted by law, or
justified illnesses, among others.
Occupational health and safetyRelated criteria
Module 4 – Page 26
Establish a risk-based
occupational health and
safety plan that protects
the integrity of the
workers.
1. Workplace Health and Safety Plan and Committee – OHS
CC-4.14 ; C-4.34
2. Training for personnel CC-4.16; CC-4.14; B-4.44
3. Safe infrastructure C-3.30; C-4.38; C-4.39
4. Worker protection
• Personal protection for workers PPE > CC-4.15
• Hygiene areas > CC-4.17; C-4.42; C-4.43
• Restricted entry intervals > CC-4.15; C-4.35
• Health, first aid and emergency controls CC-4.14; CC-4.16; C-4.40
OHS Plan and Committee
(CC-4.14 & C-4.34)
• The 2017 Standard requires that the
Occupational Health and Safety Plan be
developed based on the risk analysis
presented by farm management and the tasks
carried out on the farm.
• Only by determining each one of the potential
risks and the way to address them can the
negative impacts on workers be avoided.
• With the correct implementation of an
occupational health plan, and a committee
that monitors health conditions in different
tasks, the workers are safe and healthy. This
decreases absenteeism, accidents, disabilities,
overtime pay and other complications in the
management of contingencies with personnel.
Occupational health and safetyin certified operations
Module 4 – Page 27
Occupational health is a responsibility shared by a certified operation and its
employees.
The evaluation of the OHS plan and how it is implemented in the different areas requires cross-
checking of documentary information with the observation of safety practices and verifying that the
workers have the competencies needed to implement the procedures. When a finding is made, it is
always necessary to identify whether the cause is the worker or the company. It is possible that the
company has defined guidelines but that the worker does not follow them, or vice versa.
Risk-based occupational health and safety plan that
protects worker integrity
Functional personal protective equipment
PPE
Training for workers on safe handling
Facilities for hygiene
Restricted entry intervals REI
Health, first aid and emergency attention
controls
Safe infrastructure
OHS Committee and evaluations of the plan
Occupational health and safetyEvaluation of compliance
Module 4 – Page 28
Some basic aspects are:
• Reviewing the occupational health plan to check
that it covers the risks of all the activities and their
corresponding preventive measures.
• Reviewing the training plan and records: What
topics are covered? Are they related to the tasks
performed and the risks involved? How often are
staff trained? How do you evaluate whether the
labor practices implemented comply with what was
trained? What corrective actions are taken to
improve outcomes?
• Reviewing accident, disability and absenteeism
statistics and analyzing whether there is any
upward or downward trend over time. Is there a
relationship between training topics covered and
the accident rate? Are improvements seen in
accident indicators over time?
• Interviewing workers in various activities,
assessing the risks and preventive measures
applied (i.e. PPE). Is the worker aware o the risks of
his/her tasks? Does he/she know the preventive
measures? Can he/she explain and demonstrate
them? Do you see him/her implementing safe
practices?
• Interviewing workers in different work shifts (day,
night, or mixed), since safety training or measures
might not be implemented equally.
• Making cross-checks between documents,
interviews and the practices observed in the
different areas and tasks.
• Interviewing the various brigades (emergency, first
aid, occupational health, fire). Do they know the
functions they must perform? Can they
demonstrate them? How often are practice
sessions done with the staff?
Evaluating cases of worker negligence
Worker negligence is a lack of care or
neglect exhibited by a worker that poses a
risk to himself or third parties; this is
produced by not calculating the foreseeable
and possible consequences of an action.
This action is a deficiency of the farm’s
management system, due to insufficient
training, or complex safety procedures, or
other. It may be due to inadequate control
by the administrator or the worker’s
immediate boss, whose responsibility it is to
ensure that workers comply with the safety
measures..
Examples of worker negligence:
• A worker who handles agrochemicals,
receives training on the safe use of these
inputs, and is given PPE for those tasks,
but decides not to use the PPE.
• Workers moving through prohibited
entry areas.
• Irresponsible handling of heavy
machinery.
• In cases of repeated worker negligence, it
is appropriate to investigate the possible
causes, as these may represent non-
compliance with critical criteria such as
CC-4.14; CC-4.16; B-4.44; or A-2.13.
Occupational health and safetyBest practices for the auditor
Module 4 – Page 29
Some best practices that make it easier to audit the requirements related to occupational health and
safety are:
Interviews:
• Interview the workers’ representatives to inquire about their perceptions of safety at the
workplace.
• Visit nearby clinics to learn about the main ailments, diseases and accidents suffered by workers of
the farm or the region.
Documentation:
• Check whether the occupation health plan has
an analysis of the risks associated with the
different tasks, and the mitigation/prevention
measures for them, such as: safety equipment
and training, among others.
• Ask the company for a document or certification
stating that the person or company in charge of
the development of the OHS Plan has
competence in this field.
• Verify that the workers’ medical exams are
available and correspond to the type of risks
detected.
• Consult the records for training, including first
aid.
• Request information on the main causes of
disability and accident statistics. It is likely that
this information is not analyzed for the purposes
of creating action plans and reducing common
causes.
• Review the OHS committee’s logbook. Look at
the points presented to the management and
ask for evidence that the points have been
addressed.
Occupational health and safety planCommon nonconformities
Module 4 – Page 30
It is common for the OHS plan to not include all
the risks of farm work, for example:
Any of the topics mentioned on this page can be considered a nonconformity with the related occupational health criteria.
• Electrical storms in the field: many farms do
not consider it necessary to train personnel on
safety measures for electrical storms,
indications regarding safe and unsafe shelters,
conditions under which tasks should be
stopped, and when it is safe to return to work.
• Use of respiratory protection in places with
particulate material in the air, such as mills or
welding workshops.
• Ergonomics and load management: globally,
the WHO has indicated that 70% of disabilities
are due to musculoskeletal problems. for
example: In a group of banana producers with
5400 workers, the main cause of disability was
requested for the previous year and there were
nearly 4200 cases of disabilities due to
musculoskeletal problems; many workers had
recurrent cases. The OHS plan did not take the
issue of ergonomics into account.
• On some farms, workers had received only one
training session on first aid a few years back,
without any subsequent review of the topic
that is essential for being able to address
emergencies. The frequency of the training
should ensure that the workers are always
aware of the correct way to act in an
emergency.
• An occupational health plan can be incomplete
and not address all the work areas within the
farm or group audit scope. For example, there
are plans for the farm, but not for the
processing plants, or vice versa; or among
groups of smallholders, the topic of ventilation
for firewood stoves is not appreciated (even
though it is the cause of Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease (COPD), pulmonary cancer
and cataracts).
• Failure to attend to improvements: the
committee’s logbooks may list pending
matters, such as improvements to pedestrian
bridges, showers and plant infrastructure; if
older logbooks are checked and the same
indications are discovered, thoroughly analyze
the effective implementation of the entire OHS
plan.
Occupational health and safety planGood practices on the farm
Module 4 – Page 31
In an audit of a group of banana producers, the OHS manager mentioned that the group’s
management was resistant to the implementation of safety measures.
In collaboration with the insurance agency and the human resources department, he determined
the number of days lost due to absenteeism, accident medical care costs and the amount the
company was paying for disabilities.
In a meeting with the management, the manager detailed the causes of disabilities and the
economic cost to the company. The management was unaware that such a large amount of money
was being lost due to disabilities. A plan was proposed to reduce disabilities by training field and
plant personnel and their respective administrators.
To date, the organization is constantly monitoring absenteeism due to disability each year,
establishing action plans and goals for their improvement. The results are compared between years
in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the actions taken.
Occupational health and safetyTraining requirements
Module 4 – Page 32
Tips for auditing compliance with the requirements
• Check the frequency of the training: first aid and job
safety should be done often to keep the knowledge
active (at least once per year). Procedures can be
forgotten in the event of an accident or an emergency.
When the training records show that the last training
was given two or more years ago, the staff cannot be
considered as trained, and this could represent a
nonconformity.
• Interview the staff in charge of attending to
emergencies (normally a brigade) and ask questions
about how they would deal with accidents such as
cuts, burns, falls, fractures, and others.
• Check whether there are personnel trained in first aid
for the different work areas in the field and in the
facilities; ensure that they know the location of the
emergency kit.
• Check the kits to see if they have the correct content
and do not contain elements that are dirty,
contaminated or damaged. The content of the kits
should be based on an analysis of the risks of the
activity.
• Request evidence from the farm showing that the kit
is checked, that there is a designated person for that
task, and that there is a set schedule for the checks.
• Request evidence of emergency care drills or
simulations (photos, records, etc.).
Triangulation of information is
always a good practice, since it
allows verifying that the information
provided by farms, workers,
administrators and communities is
true.
Occupational health and safetyPersonal protective equipment
Module 4 – Page 33
Some aspects to have in mind in the evaluation of PPE use:
• Ask for the list of workers exposed to agrochemicals (warehousemen, appliers, mixers, laundry
personnel, mechanics in charge of application equipment maintenance, personnel in charge of
washing spraybooms); inquire about their training, use of PPE, use of application and mixing
equipment, and handling practices.
• Request evidence of PPE purchase. You can make a cross-check between the frequency of
equipment purchase, the number and frequency of applications and the useful life of the
equipment according to the manufacturer. This way you can check whether the PPE equipment is
changed according to the recommendations of the safety sheet or the user manual. If the farm
buys in volume, cross-check the PPE exit inventory with records of PPE delivery to the workers.
• Ask personnel about the frequency of PPE changes: Do they know how often they should request
this? Is the equipment changed often?
• Check the PPE in use, to determine whether it is being used in good condition.
• Check the site where the workers store PPE, to ensure it is not exposed to light or water, and it is
not stored together with agrochemicals.
• For farms that make sprayboom applications: verify that the tractors have cabins with filters and
that these are changed according to manufacturer recommendations. Ask whether the changes of
these filters are made against the records of hours in use and if the operators keep records of this
information and the hours of operation. Check these records and compare them with the tractor
maintenance records.
• Check that the workers know how to use, put on and remove PPE safely, are familiar with
application protocols, and know what to do in the event of an emergency.
• Check that there are procedures for the use of PPE according to the specifications of the active
component that is applied.
Tips for auditing compliance with the requirements
Occupational health and safetyPersonal protection equipment – real cases
Module 4 – Page 34
• Personnel using safety masks that are not functional due
to excess use. In this case, we see that the nose of the
worker is partially exposed. If this finding is widespread, it
could constitute a nonconformity with Critical Criterion
4.15.
• On farms where a sprayboom is used to apply pest control
products, the tractors in use have closed cabins with
activated carbon filters. These filters have a useful life of
1000 to 2000 hours. Sometimes these filters are not
changed at all. If this finding is widespread, it could
constitute a nonconformity with Critical Criterion 4.15.
• On an audit, one of the workers applying an insecticide
had torn gloves. The field administrator indicated that the
gloves were new and had been given to personnel in the
morning. The worker said that he had torn the glove while
working. Indeed, the gloves appeared new. We spoke with
the field administrator about the importance of carrying
spare PPE for eventual similar cases. The case was not
considered a nonconformity upon verifying that it was an
isolated case.
• It is advisable that the personnel who handle pesticides
are permanent workers, due to the skills and knowledge
that this type of work requires. If personnel are
contracted sporadically to do applications, they might not
develop the necessary skills for the safely handling of
pesticides.
• One exception is the cadres of workers that go from farm
to farm providing pesticides application services. These
workers are employees of an independent contractor,
who provides them with training, PPE, and medical
exams.
Good practices on the farm
Module 4 – Page 35
• On an audit, a worker was filling a tractor with
fungicide-treated seed without using protective
equipment; which is considered a nonconformity with
Critical Criterion 4.15.
• It is normal to see workers in charge of applying
pesticides with their pants tucked into their boots, and
their gloves over their shirt sleeves, when cuffs and
sleeves should always be outside the boots and gloves.
This prevents a spill from coming into contact with the
skin of the hands and feet. This is not considered a
nonconformity with Critical Criterion 4.15, but it is a
misuse of PPE.
• On banana farms, certain packings require a knot in the
bag that covers the fruit. This knot should be made
wearing gloves, since the following sequence occurs:
1) post-harvest fungicide is applied to the banana
(with substances categorized as repro-tox, for
example);
2) packing personnel place bagged fruit in boxes
using gloves to prevent contact with the post-
harvest fungicide;
3) when the lid is placed on the box, the bag inside
must be arranged so that the top of the bag
protrudes through the hole in the box. When
accommodating the bag, it is touched by gloves
that have post-harvest product on them, and
therefore the bag remains slightly impregnated
with fungicide;
4) the last step is to make the knot in the bag, which
should be done using gloves.
Real cases
Module 4 – Page 36
• Tractors without protection against tipping
Examples of nonconformities
• A tractor power take-off without cardan
shaft protection. The risk consists of
entrapment, since the cardan shaft rotates
at high speed. Accidents with cardan axles
without safety features usually result in
death or loss of limbs.
• Lack of respiratory protection for
personnel in charge of welding
Any of the examples mentioned on this page could be considered a nonconformity with occupational health-related criteria.
Protection of the workerHygiene areas
Module 4 – Page 37
• Interviews with personnel in charge of handling
agrochemicals, the observation of tasks, and
inspection of the hygiene facilities are the
information sources for this topic.
• If there are applications in the field, you must
visit the mixing sites and check whether these
sites have emergency equipment such as eye
washes. This is especially important if the
mixing is done in the field and not in the
warehouse.
• Walk through the workers’ shower and hygiene
areas; check that they have water, function
properly and note whether they are used.
• Visit the laundry area and interview the person
in charge there. Check that protective
equipment is provided for laundering in order
to avoid direct contact with the products.
• Check the storage site for clothing and personal
protective equipment; this site should not be in
the storage area with agrochemicals.
• At the document level, the occupational health
plan should have clear indications of the risks
associated with handling agrochemicals and the
preventive measures.
Bathing facilities for use after agrochemical application CC-4.17
Emergency showers and wash basins C-4.42
Sanitary services C-4.43
Good practices for auditing compliance
• In the training records, check whether training
frequency is commensurate with the frequency
of agrochemical applications. For example, the
use of agrochemicals on pineapple is much
higher than for African oil palm or coffee, so
there should be more training for pineapple.
• Ask the field personnel about access to
sanitary services; in the field these facilities
should have water and soap for handwashing.
• Some farms keep a record of workers who
shower in order to have evidence. Although
keeping these records is not a requirement, it is
a good practice on the part of the farms.
• The challenge lies in groups of small producers,
where in general there is no shower other than
the one that is used in the housing unit, which
is where the producer would change his
clothes. The group administrator is responsible
for training the producers so that the work
clothing used is washed and dried separately
from other clothing.
Protection of the workerRestricted entry intervals
Module 4 – Page 38
• Request the list of products applied on the
farm and check that the re-entry times for
each one are available and implemented in the
field.
• Check the application logs and the re-entry
time: In the field, how are people informed
about prohibited access to fumigated plots?
• Cases where the re-entry time is shorter than
the one recommended by the manufacturer
would be a noncompliance with the criterion.
• During the interviews, do a cross-check with
the field workers and administrative
personnel to corroborate that they know and
apply the correct re-entry periods.
Implementation of restricted entry intervals C-4.35
Good practices for auditing compliance
Protection of the workerHealth, first aid and emergencies
Module 4 – Page 39
• Check whether the OHS plan mentions the use of
pesticides that require medical exams of workers
(because of their possible negative effects on
health).
• Verify that there is a procedure or orderly way to
monitor personnel in charge of pesticide
applications and the analyses carried out.
• Request application records from the application
personnel and their medical histories.
• Ask about the way in which the results of the
analyses are shared with the worker.
• Request information on procedures for the
relocation of personnel with health conditions, a
temporary disability, or unacceptable
cholinesterase levels. Medical exam results may
determine the need to relocate a worker. The
information from the medical evaluations should
clearly indicate whether a particular worker is
physically fit to perform certain tasks.
Cholinesterase analyses in workers who handle agrochemicals C-4.36
Reassignment of tasks for health protection C-4.37
Availability of first aid equipment C-4.40
Provision of medical exams and their results to workers C-4.41
Procedures for emergency scenarios B-4.44
Safety zones A.-4.45
Best practices for auditing compliance with health controls
• Ask the farm or group administrator for
evidence to show that the physician in
charge of examining the workers is aware
of the work that they perform. In some
cases, the medical exams are general and
do not reveal whether the doctor verified
risks associated with the task performed
by the worker.
Module 4 – Page 40
• Checking the staff’s response to an emergency is the best way of determining whether they
are prepared to address one. You can request simulations, or an explanation of the
procedures, indications regarding safe sites, escape routes or meeting places, among others.
• If the audited organization has night shifts at its processing plant, verify that evacuation
drills are also done during the night shift, for the purpose of evaluating whether personnel
can leave the workplace with the same ease as during daytime simulations. The time
differences between day and night evacuations could be due to deficient lighting, poor
demarcation, lack of emergency lighting, exits blocked for security, etc.
Best practices for auditing
compliance with emergency procedures.
One emergency that is not given much attention are
electrical storms. Workers on pineapple, melon and
watermelon farms are more exposed to lightning strikes.
Statistically, more people die each year from lightning
strikes than from earthquakes; however, more
earthquake drills are carried out than for any other kind
of emergency.
Good practices on the farm
One good practice carried out by some pineapple farms is to leave an old, used bus near where the
work is being done, for the workers to use as a shelter during electrical storms.
Module 4 – Page 41
• Absence of evacuation drill records
• Simulation records more than a year old, showing that staff are not well trained in evacuations.
• Emergency exits obstructed or closed for security
• Clogged extinguishers
• Absence of simulations on the night shift
• Absence of emergency lighting for the night shift
• Personnel not trained in handling extinguishers
• Not all the possible emergencies that could occur on the farm or facility have been
contemplated.
Common nonconformities with Criterion B-4.44
On a pineapple farm, part of the audit was done
during the night shift. A request was made to
conduct an evacuation simulation with emergency
lighting only, in order to assess the quality of the
lighting and the response of the workers.
It was arranged that the alarm would sound at the
same time that power to the packing plant would be
cut, in order to activate the emergency lighting.
When the exercise began, it was evident that
several sectors were very dark because the
emergency lighting was not adequate. The
simulation had to be stopped and power was
restored, because some workers could not find their
way and were frightened. The result of the
simulation pointed to the need to install more
emergency lighting and to continue conducting
drills during the night shift.
In this case a nonconformity could be
assigned for Criterion B-4.44
A real case
Protection of the workerSafe infrastructure
Module 4 – Page 42
• Check that facility corridors are marked and clear of
obstructions to ensure safe evacuation in the case of an
emergency.
• Check that the electrical installations are in good condition and
encased in conduit, in order to prevent fires.
• The facilities should have fire extinguishing equipment that:
‒ Is not clogged
‒ Has been recharged
‒ Is not placed directly on the ground
‒ Has the A,B,C rating table
‒ Is within the valid recharge period
Safe storage of inputs, materials and equipment C-4.38
Personnel authorized for specific facilities C-4.39
General considerations for the evaluation of compliance
Best auditing practices
It is very useful for the auditor to carry a checklist to verify all aspects regarding safety measures
in the facilities, such as:
• Marked corridors
• Obstruction-free passageways
• Safe stowage height for materials
• Electrical installations in good condition
• Fire extinguishers not clogged
• PPE for personnel (if applicable, as in an agrochemical storage area and workshops)
• Emergency exits identified
• Unobstructed emergency exits
• Ceilings/roofs and floors in good condition
• Order and cleanliness.
WELLBEING OF THE WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
Ensuring the wellbeingof the worker and his/her family
Module 4 – Page 44
Principle 4 of the 2017 Standard deals with the management of key aspects for the wellbeing of the
workers and their families, such as:
Access to potable water
Decent housing
Decent wages
Access to health and education services
The requirements of the 2017 Standard are intended to guarantee agricultural workers and their
families the means to meet their basic needs, access to decent working and living conditions, and
protection of their health and their wellbeing.
Potable water, sanitation, hygiene and decent housing conditions are fundamental to the health and
development of people. Investments in these items contribute to achieving better working
conditions and productivity, and to creating favorable working relationships.
Access to potable waterunder the 2017 Standard
Module 4 – Page 45
The producers, workers, and their families have access to potable water CC-4.12
The farms that implement the 2017 Standard guarantee access to drinking water for their
workers and their families, in work areas and farm-provided housing units.
The following situations may occur:
• Water service provided by aqueducts not belonging to the farm; these could be public or
private, rural, municipal, from cooperatives, etc.
• The farm or group administrator captures surface or ground water to supply water to the
workers and their families.
• The farm or group administrator buys the drinking water that is supplied.
In the latter two cases, the farms or group administrators must show that the water being
supplied complies with the Rainforest Alliance Parameters for Potable Water, by means of exams
carried out by accredited laboratories.
This is not the case for smallholders members, as each of the smallholders is responsible for the
water treatment, individually.
Module 4 – Page 46
Catchment Treatment Distribution Consumer
Access to potable waterImportant considerations
Aspects to consider
To ensure the integrity of the potable water, you
must evaluate the source (catchment), the
treatment system (if applicable), and the storage
and distribution system.
Risks:
Water contamination can occur due to biological,
physical or chemical elements in any stage of the
supply system. Lack of protection in the catchment
or supply area and broken pipes are common
causes of water contamination.
IMPROVED WATER SOURCES
Public service
Cased hole
Protected excavated well
Protected spring
UNIMPROVED WATER SOURCES
Unprotected excavated well
Unprotected spring
Surface waters (river, dam, lake, pond,
stream, canal, drain)
PARAMETER VALUE
E. coli or thermo-tolerant coliform bacteria
Not detectable in any 100 ml sample
Residues of chlorine or otherresidue from disinfecting treatments
Maximum 0.5 mg/L
pH 6.5 to 8.5
Sodium Maximum 20 mg/L
Nitrates Maximum 10 mg/L as nitrates
Sulfates Maximum 250 mg/L
TurbidityLess than or equal to 5 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units)
Rainforest Alliance Parameters for Potable Water:
Binding definition.
The values are set by the
World Health Organization.
The farm must demonstrate
that the water it provides
complies with these
parameters, through
chemical analyses prior to the
certification audit for any
significant change on the
risks of contamination.
Module 4 – Page 47
Access to potable waterHow is compliance evaluated?
If the farm supplies water from its own sources or it is responsible for the catchment and/or
distribution to workers and their families, it is important to evaluate:
• Whether the water quality tests submitted are in accordance with the requirements of the
Rainforest Alliance Parameters for Potable Water. Are the risks associated with water
contamination prevented?
• In interviews with workers and residents: Is the supply of water sufficient for the families? Are
problems with water quality detected, such as turbidity, salinity, odors, taste? Is there any
incidence of diseases attributable to poor quality water?
During the tour of the housing area, facilities, and the farm in general, evaluate:
TREATMENT
• Are the results of the water analyseswithin the values accepted by theRainforest Alliance?
• Are there records of treatment? Ifapplicable.
SOURCE
• Is the catchment area underground orsuperficial?
• Is the source protected to avoidcontamination?
• Is the supply continuous and insufficient quantity?
DISTRIBUTION
• Are the pipes in good condition or arethey broken?
• Are facilities for storing, distributingand using water on the farm adequatelymaintained to prevent contamination?
STORAGE
• Where is the water stored?
• Is the storage site protected?
Related Rainforest Alliance definition
Risk of water contamination: alteration of the water treatment system and
associated pipelines by natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, tremors or
landslides.
Module 4 – Page 48
Access to potable waterGroups of smallholders
Worldwide, the greatest risks of waterborne diseases come from pathogenic microorganisms,
although chemical contaminants can pose significant risks to public health at local or regional levels.
The 2017 Standard requires that the group administrator train the member producers in how to apply
domestic water treatment techniques to eliminate pathogenic microorganisms. The group
administrator do not have to present individual water analysis for each smallholder.
The techniques include chlorination, filtration, boiling, coagulation–flocculation, UV irradiation and
others with proven effectiveness.
TRAINING
Filter
Chlorinate
Training Plan?
Training records?
Interviews of producers
Observation of practices implemented by producers
Boil
Domestic treatment techniques
Sources: www.assal.gov.ar
http://www.labioguia.com/notas/filtro-de-arenahttp://educein11a.blogspot.com/2014/07/uso-y-preparacion-del-vida-suero-oral.html
How to audit?
Module 4 – Page 49
Access to potable waterat the workplace
The farm must provide access to water that complies with the Rainforest Alliance Parameters for
Potable Water at the workplace, in sufficient quantity.
Many agricultural tasks are carried out in tropical areas where the worker is exposed to long
workdays under high temperature conditions. In these conditions the workers are at risk of
dehydration if they do not ingest sufficient liquids, which could lead to successive subclinical
episodes of acute kidney damage and finally, chronic damage.
Water should be easily accessible and offered under clean and hygienic conditions.
Audit questions:
• How is access to potable water guaranteed
during work in remote plots?
• Are there any records or documents regarding
this?
Interviewing workers:
• Do you have water near your workplace? If
there enough for the whole day? How is it
provided? How many times do you drink water
during the day?
Examples of best practices observed on
farms:
• Farms distribute water with
electrolytes at work sites on days when
temperatures are very high.
• Farms place fresh water stations in the
plots where the work is done.
• Farms sensitize staff about the
importance of consuming water and
the harmful effects of dehydration.
• Fresh water stations and disposable
cups are placed in packing plants.
At a banana packing plant in Panama, the auditor was shown a plastic gallon jug with water hanging from a building beam as the only source of water available for 30
workers. There were no disposable cups and it was indicated that the workers drank directly from the jug. The water was warm, and this measure is not hygienic. This is
not considered access to potable water.
Module 4 – Page 50
Water qualityIndications of problems
The highest risk occurs on farms that are responsible for the catchment, treatment (if applicable)
and distribution of their own water.
Risks or warning signs:
• Water sources not protected from
contamination (unprotected surface waters or
wells), where animals or people have free
access.
• Broken pipes or broken hoses.
• Information on children or adults with diarrhea,
vomiting, or other digestive ailments.
• There are no potable water records, even when
acceptable water quality tests are submitted.
• In the case of groups: the group administrator is
trained in the technique of boiling; however,
firewood is scarce in the area and the producers
do not want to pay for gas to boil the water. The
training should encompass realistic techniques
that can be implemented in the context.
• Small producers do not have facilities where
they can buy chlorine or filtering instruments.
Note: If the risk of contamination is aconstant, with broken distribution pipes,catchment in surface water areas, orunprotected wells, there will be evidencefor assigning a nonconformity with CriticalCriterion 4.12.
AUDITING TIPS
Visit the medical center. Are there
recurrent cases of diarrhea or parasites?
Visit the catchment area if possible.
Check the potabilization techniques used
by the small producers and the viability of
access to the materials necessary for
potabilization.
Domestic water treatment interventions
(DWT) can greatly contribute to the
protection of public health in situations
where drinking water from various sources is
not treated, is not treated adequately ,or is
contaminated during its distribution or
storage.
Module 4 – Page 51
Potable waterReal cases
During an audit of an oil palm farm, the auditor
observed that on the outskirts of a house
inhabited by one of the workers and his family,
several plastic containers were found with what
appeared to be water inside. The containers
looked dirty. The worker indicated that he stores
water there for the family’s consumption because
he has to bring it from a creek that is 150 meters
away from the house.
The family indicated that they were living in a very
difficult situation because the housing conditions
were not good, and the children were constantly
sick, with frequent diarrhea, stomach aches and
headaches, so the children often did not attend
school. They believed this was due to the water
and humidity conditions in the house.
The family father and farm worker showed the
auditor a two-meter-deep hole partially filled with
rainwater, which he had dug on his days off in
order to obtain better quality water closer to
home. He indicated that he had asked the farm
owner to please provide him with culverts to cover
what would be the well, but this was denied, so the
worker discontinued his excavation of the well.
The farm does not provide potable water tothe resident worker and his family. Surfacewater is collected at the from anunprotected source, which is sufficientevidence for establishing a nonconformitywith Critical Criterion 4.12.
The farm administrator confirmed to the
auditor the water access conditions described
by the interviewed family.
Other aggravating facts: the family stated that
diarrheas and stomach aches are frequent,
which could be related to water quality; the
water has to be carried more than 150 meters;
and the farm owner is aware of the situation
and the worker’s concern but has not
provided a solution.
Decent housing forthe worker and his family
Module 4 – Page 52
The 2017 Standard requires that farm-provided housing for workers has conditions that contribute
to the decent living, health and safety of the worker and his family. All the 2017 Standard criteria
regarding to housing conditions only apply to the housing that is provided by the group and farm
administration to its workers and member farms – including the members farms that provide housing
to their workers.
Critical Criterion 4.13 ensures that the certified farms meet the basic requirements of decent
housing, whose conditions favor the health and safety of its occupants. From the first certification
audit the farms must comply with these requirements. Actions for improving the housing conditions
are also required, to be gradually implemented throughout the certification cycle.
Under optimal conditions (once the requirements for continuing improvement have been met),
decent housing must have:
potable water (to be evaluated under a separate criterion)
adequate and sufficient sanitary facilities, showers and laundry areas
protection against cold, wind and rain
conditions to maintain the physical safety and health of the inhabitants
hygienic conditions that prevent the propagation of vectors and diseases
sufficient space for all activities
areas for recreation and drying clothes.
The Rainforest Alliance addresses the fulfillment of the housing requirements in four criteria under
Principle 4, one each in the C, B and A levels, and one critical criterion.
Decent housingunder the 2017 Standard
Module 4 – Page 53
The text of the criteria clearly establishes many of the conditions and parameters that housing
must meet. This section only addresses aspects that require more information to be interpreted
correctly:
Inhabitants authorized to use the housing and overcrowded conditions;
Absence of harmful animals or conditions that favor their populations;
Protection against rain, wind and cold weather conditions;
Conditions that pose a risk to the safety and health of the inhabitants.
The housing supplied by the farm or group administration meets the basic conditions for decent housing.
CC-4.13
The housing supplied by the farm or group administration meets the recommendations of the ILO on housing for workers (N°115).
C-4.28
The housing supplied by the farm or group administration complies with additional conditions for space, distribution and safety; according to the recommendations of the ILO on housing for workers (N°115).
C-4.30
The housing supplied by the farm or group administration complies with additional conditions for recreation and personal hygiene spaces.
C-4.32
Inhabitants authorized to use the housing
and overcrowded conditions
The criteria related to housing only apply to inhabitants
authorized by the farm to occupy the housing. The farm
must have a list of the workers and their families
residing in farm housing.
The workers’ own housing or overcrowded conditions
caused by persons not authorized by farm management
to live in the housing are not considered the farm’s
responsibility.
Decent housingVectors of diseases
Module 4 – Page 54
Absence of animal disease vectors and conditions that favor their propagation
According to the objective of the criterion, a
nonconformity may be assigned when
populations of these animals have grown
disproportionately and no measures have been
taken to prevent this.
Signs of this problem can be permanent
“clouds” of mosquitoes or flies, the presence of
worms, cockroaches, and other insects in large
quantities, or rat excrement dispersed
throughout the housing area. Finding some
flies, mosquitoes or insects is to some extent
unavoidable in any home, and should not be
sanctioned as a non-conformity during the
audit.
If the auditor considers that there are risk
factors, it is important that he/she dedicate
sufficient time to conducting interviews with
resident workers and their families to obtain
decisive information regarding:
• incidence of diseases among the residents;
• management of risk factors in farm housing
and surrounding areas;
• presence of these animals during different
seasons of the year or times of day, or
triggers of their appearance;
• means that the farm provides to control
these animals.
Decent housingVectors of diseases
Module 4 – Page 55
Good practices for evaluating compliance with the requirements of the 2017
Standard
The information is obtained through interviews
with housing residents in order to determine if
there are risks or problems related to the health
and safety of the inhabitants. We recommend
inspecting the toilets, kitchens, dining areas,
bedrooms/dormitories, food storage and waste
management areas, and other areas of the
surroundings. Walking around the facilities and
surroundings will let you become acquainted
with any risk situations.
Some aspects to check:
• Are there trash containers without covers?
• How are housing wastes disposed of?
• Does stagnant water accumulate?
• Are there cracks in the walls or floors? Any
holes or cavities?
• How are foods stored?
• Do recurring diseases occur in the resident
population?
• Are vector-borne diseases and unsanitary
conditions present?
• Do the toilets work well and are they well
maintained?
• Is there a complaint system that is accessible
to the housing residents?
• Have complaints been received regarding
housing conditions? How have these been
handled by the administration?
• Have administrative personnel identified
problems with pests? Have measures been
put in place to prevent these pests?
• Is there a policy that regulates housing
conditions?
• Have the workers received any kind of
training on preventing or controlling the
proliferation of pests?
Decent housingProtection against weather conditions
Module 4 – Page 56
Protection against rain, wind, cold and extreme weather events
To audit this criterion, you must enter the housing
and interview the residents. If problems are present,
you should also interview the farm administration.
How is this evaluated?
• Does the housing have a roof and walls?
• Do you see the roof leaking? In the interviews: Do
the residents indicate the existence of leaks?
• Are there any broken windows or doors? Did they
break recently or have they been this way for
some time? Had they informed the farm
administration of this?
• Does the farm have a mechanism, known to the
residents, for communicating/complaining about
the housing conditions?
• Are there missing boards or holes in the walls that
could leave the residents unprotected, allowing
animals or wind or rain to enter?
• Does the farm have reports that indicate the state
of the housing units? Are there maintenance
activities?
• Has the farm administration taken care of broken
windows and/or leak situations when they exist?
• Is there a plan for repairs or construction of new
housing to replace units that are in bad condition?
IMPORTANT
The farm must have a list of the workers
and their family members who reside in
farm housing.
The criteria related to housing apply only
to inhabitants authorized by the farm to
occupy the housing units.
Conditions that represent risksSmoke from the kitchen
Module 4 – Page 57
Smoke contains carcinogenic compounds and other
components that affect the lungs, airways and vision.
How is this evaluated?
• Where woodstoves are used, check that there are
functional systems to evacuate smoke to the
outside.
• It is the responsibility of the farm or group
administrator to provide these mechanisms in the
housing units provided to the workers, because
smoke is a threat to the health of the occupants.
It is important to pay attention to:
• Whether the administration has installed chimneys
or other mechanisms to evacuate smoke. Are they
operational?
• Whether the residents have been trained or
sensitized to the harmful effects of smoke on
people.
• Complaints made by the residents that have not
been addressed.
• Whether the residents can demonstrate that they
know woodstove smoke is harmful to health.
Some daily activities can put the health of
residents at risk if they are not well
managed; one example of this is the
evacuation of smoke from woodstoves.
Conditions that represent risksHousing structure
Module 4 – Page 58
Housing should not pose a risk to the physical integrity of
the people. Structures that appear to be falling, cracks,
faults in the bases of walls, especially in places where there
is frequent seismic activity, should be assigned a
nonconformity.
Electrical installations and combustible substances
• There should be no exposed cables.
• If gas is used for cooking, the gas cylinders must be
located outside the house.
How is this evaluated?:
• Inspect the housing units and interview the residents.
• Are the beams, columns, walls and roof stable and solid?
• Are there cables and electrical installations in poor
condition? Are there exposed cables hanging on walls or
from roofs or uncovered outlets?
• If they cook with gas, are the gas cylinders located
outside the house?
• In the interviews, do the workers confirm the occurrence
of fires, short circuits, structural collapses? If these have
occurred, did they inform the administration? What was
the follow-up given?
• If necessary: does the administration have an
improvement plant for the housing provided to workers?
Is the plan in line with the timeframes set by Rainforest
Alliance?
IMPORTANT
In situations that pose a risk to the
physical integrity of the residents,
you must evaluate the assignment of
a nonconformity with criterion 4.13.
Conditions that represent risksSanitary services
Module 4 – Page 59
The 2017 Standard indicates the number of
sanitary services and hygiene facilities such as
showers and washbasins, which the
accommodation for workers must have.
In addition to evaluating the availability and
number of the facilities, you must check that they
are hygienic and safe.
The 2017 Standard also sets levels of compliance
with the criteria for continuous improvement.
Each level establishes different conditions for the
housing units, from a basic state to an optimal
state to be reached with a maximum of term of 6
years.
How is compliance evaluated?
• Are the facilities found in sufficient
number for the workers and residents?
• Are they in modules separated by gender?
• Are there enough facilities actually in use?
• Are they installed in a safe, easily
accessible suitable place, far from bodies
of water, with good hygiene conditions?
• Are the access roads maintained in good
condition?
• Do they offer privacy and security?
• Do the doors lock and light fixtures
function?
At the workplace:
• Are handwashing facilities available
nearby?
• Are water and soap available?
• Is there a cleaning and maintenance
program?
• Are they clean and not too smelly?
• Are cleaning materials available at all
times?
Living wagein the 2017 Standard
Living wage is a new concept within the 2017
Standard, and it is considered a fundamental human
right under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights adopted by the United Nations
(1948).
If a living wage benchmark is provided, a living wage plan is documented and implemented.In the absence of a living wage benchmark, current access of workers and their families to health care and basic education is assessed and plan for providing access to these services is developed and implemented
C-4.29
If a living wage benchmark is provided, all workers receive a living wage. A-4.33
Where public health or education services are not available, the group administrator develops and implements a plan to provide access to health care and basic education to its members.
C-1.19
Related terms & definitions
• Basic education: Basic education for workers’ children includes reading, writing and basicmathematics (primary education).
• Health care: Access to medical attention for basic and severe conditions, transport to state orother specialized facilities
• Living wage: remuneration received for a standard 48 hours workweek by a worker in aparticular place sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for the worker and her or hisfamily. Elements of a decent standard of living include food, housing, education, health care,water, transport, clothing, other essential needs including provision for emergencies andunexpected events (Global Living Wage Coalition, www.globallivingwage.org).
• Living wage benchmark: The living wage level defined for a specific country or region based onwork of the Global Living Wage Coalition (www.globallivingwage.org).
• Remuneration: cash wage plus in-kind benefits..
• Worker: Any person who works on a farm or for a group administrator and is paid for his orher work. Encompasses all types of workers, including permanent, temporary, documented,undocumented, migrant, and transitory, and also persons temporarily absent from a job orenterprise at which they recently worked for illness, parental leave, holiday, training, orindustrial dispute.
Related criteria
For detailed information on the concept of
Living Wage, consult:
Key concepts of the 2017 Standard:
Living Wage.
Module 4 – Page 60
Living wagebenchmark
Scenario 1: There is not a living wage
benchmark
In this scenario, the 2017 Standard requires that
the group administrator and farm
administration:
• Assess the workers and their families current
access to health care and basic education.
• Develop and implement a plan to provide
better access to such services (consult the
“Access to education and health services”
section of this module, and the Guide for the
2017 Standard recommendations).
The Global Coalition of Living Wage (GCLW) is in charge of the definition of living wage
benchmarks. Living wage benchmarks for different countries and productive sectors will be
available as the research process advances. Considering this, there are two possible scenarios:
1. There is not a GCLW-living wage benchmark for the country and productive sector.
2. The GCLW has provided a living wage benchmark for the country and productive sector.
The requisites of the 2017 Standard are different for each one of those scenarios.
Scenario 2: There is a living wage
benchmark
In those cases where GCLW has provided a
living wage benchmark for the
region/country and productive system, the
2017 Standard requires that the group
administrator and farm administration:
• Document and implement a living wage
plan, to progress towards payment of a
living wage (Criterion C-4.29).
• Consider that the plan is for gradual
implementation, and it is based on the
workers needs and the administration
possibilities to progress towards the
living wage.
• Pay a living wage to all their workers. The
payment can include in-kind benefits,
according to the plan (Criterion A-4.33).
Module 4 – Page 61
Evaluaciónlos requisitos sobre salario decentePrior to conducting a certification audit, it is essential that the Certification Body and the auditing team
carry on an investigation to determine the existence of a living wage benchmark for the country/region
and productive sector of the farms to be included within the certification scope.
To get more details on the value of an specific living wage, it is necessary to consult the reports of the
Global Coalition of Living Wage, available at: http://www.isealalliance.org/our-work/improving-
effectiveness/global-living-wage-coalition.
Within the 2017 Standard, the development of a plan to progress towards the payment of a living wage
is the first continuous improvement criteria for those scenarios where there is a living wage benchmark
defined (Criterion C-4.29). Evaluation of compliance of all related requisites is based on the information
provided in this plan and its quality.
The following are some helpful notes to evaluate the plan’s information and quality:
• The plan must define objectives, actions,
quantitative goals, timelines, resources
and personal in charge of the
implementation of the plan.
• The plan is implemented from the moment
that the living wage benchmark is
established for the country/region and
sector, never before.
• The plan includes all workers, but prioritize
those with the higher vulnerability: those
with lower wages and more needs.
• According to structure of the labor force,
the plan can determine different actions
for each segment.
• The final goal of the plan is to achieve the
living wage value established by the GCLW
for the country/region and sector.
• Each farm establishes time-bound goals
according to its financial possibilities.
• The plan covers the real essential needs of
the workers.
• Salary increases are gradual to progress towards
the living wage and are never below the sectorial
agreements of country inflation.
• The plan development takes into account the
participation of different sector and stakeholders
to achieve agreements.
Plan progress
Once the administration has developed the
plan, the following auditing process evaluate
its implementation. The final objective is to
make progress towards the improvement of
the workers wages and living conditions, in a
consensual and realistic way.
Important aspects to be evaluated:
• Are the time-bound goals the shortest possible
according to the farm financial possibilities?
• Is the administration committed to achieving the
goals, as requested in CC-1.6?
• Was there any participation of the workers
representatives during the plan development?
Module 4 – Page 62
Access to education and health servicesunder the 2017 Standard
Module 4 – Page 63
Decent wages and access to basic education and health services C-4.29
All workers have access to basic education and health services B-4.31
Provision of access to health and education for group members C-1.19
Agricultural workers generally depend on public
education and public health services in rural
regions, where medical care, a water supply and
wastewater drainage systems are often
inadequate.
Rural communities often lack education and
information about the health risks to which they
are exposed.
The 2017 Standard require workers and their
families to have access to basic education and
health services; the topic is addressed in three
criteria for continuous improvement, as shown in
the table below:
In some countries, free public primary education reaches even the smallest villages in rural areas,
but in other countries this situation does not occur and the conditions for access to education are
more difficult. The same happens with public health services, which are accessed through
affiliation.
It is necessary to evaluate whether the children residing on the farm have real possibilities of going
to the school in the villages closest to the farm, or if this possibility is non-existent.
If it is not possible for the children to go to the school, the farm or group administrator must have a
plan to provide access to basic education (reading, writing and basic arithmetic) to resident
children. Education for children should be free (as long as there is no decent wage benchmark set
for the country by the Global Coalition for Decent Wages).
Access to education and health servicesAspects to consider
Module 4 – Page 64
Rainforest Alliance-related
definitions:
• Basic education: basic education for the
minor children of workers, which includes
reading, writing and basic mathematics
(primary education).
• Health services: basic medical care and, for
severe conditions, transport to state
specialized centers or others.
With respect to health, the farm or group
administrator must provide access to free health
services (as long as there is no decent wage
benchmark set for the country by the Global
Coalition for Decent Wages); and if they are
public, affiliation and transportation should be
possible.
In general, one of the main warning signs of
challenges in compliance is the remoteness of the
farms from population centers and educational
and health facilities.
Examples of good practices
Basic education:
The farm is responsible for literacy (in
cases where there is no access to public
schools nearby).
The farm pays for daily transport to the
school.
The farm facilitates distance education,
tele-teaching.
Health:
Facilitates visits by nurses/doctors to the
farm (company medicine).
Enables participation in private health
schemes.
When do you assign a nonconformity?
When attendance at a public school or publichealth center is not possible and the farm orgroup administrator has not implemented aplan to provide access to basic education andhealth services.
WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITIES
Ensuring the wellbeingof the community
Module 4 – Page 66
Principle 4 of the 2017 Standard s addresses the management of key aspects in four areas to ensure
the wellbeing of communities in the vicinity of certified operations:
Legitimate land use,
Reduction of the negative effects of the activities on communities
Support and involvement with the communities
Processes for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
Legitimate land useunder the 2017 Standard
Module 4 – Page 67
The purpose of the criterion is to protect legitimate land use rights on the lands of individuals or
companies, producers’ lands under group administration, rented lands or lands in community or
indigenous territories. It is important to have information in advance about conflicts over land
tenure in the area.
The farms show legitimate land use CC-4.19
• Lands owned by companies or individuals: The
legitimate land use is verified in recently
validated registry reports, which indicate the
owner, the area and the location; these
reports usually indicate the way the property
was obtained; property titles or other
document in accordance with the law.
• Lands of producers under group
administration: The associations or
cooperatives or other group administrator
request the certification for small producers.
The internal control system has records for
each producer which must include a sketch or
plan of the property and evidence of legal
property ownership; or the absence of conflict
for the portion of land being used.
• Indigenous territories or communal lands:
These have integral development associations
for the territory that can provide notice as to
whether a producer is legitimately settled on
the land it occupies within the indigenous
territory/reserve. Another way to carry out
the verification is by visiting the office of the
territory’s administrative entity.
• Leased lands: Verify the existence of a valid
rental contract signed by both parties. In
order to verify whether the person leasing
the land is the legitimate owner of the
property, check that the property owner
indicated on the deed or registry report for
the property is the same person who signed
the rental contract. These should also
demonstrate legitimate ownership and the
absence of unresolved land conflicts.
Legitimate land useHow to evaluate compliance?
Module 4 – Page 68
Some good practices for evaluating compliance with the requirements related to legitimate land
use.
Land owners:
• The following is requested:
‒ a recent registry report; or
‒ a copy of the title; or
‒ a registered survey.
* A copy of the purchase and sale deeds is
accepted as valid in remote areas where it
may be difficult for the auditee to obtain a
recent registry report.
• Areas and location on the title and the
audited farm location coincidence is verified.
• Immediate neighbors and members of the
community are visited and interviewed, to
learn about the land’s tenure history and
confirm the absence of land conflicts.
• During interviews with local workers, the
auditing team can take advantage and ask
about farm tenure history, prior use, and
other matters.
Leasers of lands:
• It is important to request the valid rental
contract signed by both parties.
• Evidence of property ownership from the
person who is leasing is requested.
• Absence of land conflicts is verified through
interviews with members of the community,
neighbors and local workers.
Indigenous territories and communal lands:
• Evidence of legitimate land use by the
producers of the group is requested to the
internal control system. This can be
demonstrated by a letter from the integral
development association of the indigenous
territory or other type of organization in
charge of the administration of the territory.
• The existence of ketches or plans and
evidence of legal use of the land (letters from
the organizations in charge)and its
availability through the producers’ files is
verified.
• On the visit to the farms in the sample, the
auditing team takes the opportunity to
converse with the auditee’s neighbors. Are
there land conflicts? Are the boundaries
clearly marked?
Legitimate land useBest auditing practices
Module 4 – Page 69
It is important to talk to immediate neighbors and
other members of the community to obtain
information about the land tenure history:
• How long has family “XX” lived there?
• How long has the company been operating on
that property?
• Who were the previous owners?
• What did they do?
• Why did they leave?
• Do you have any knowledge about how the
current company/family acquired the lands?
• Have there been conflicts over land use?
The answers to the questions above can give you a
better idea about any past or present problems
related to legitimate land use.
In the case of conflict, it is likely that the
scheduled audit time will not allow the auditor
team to explore the facts sufficiently, in which
case the following is recommended:
• communicate with the certification body;
• note the findings in the closing meeting report;
• include a note indicating that the issue will
require further investigation.
The best sources of information are the
local residents, who have generally lived in
the area for years and know the history of
the properties. Some of the local residents
are working on the farm we are auditing
and can provide valuable information.
Reduction of negative effectson the communities
Module 4 – Page 70
Note: All the criteria that prevent environmental contamination due to effluents, products or
farm management, also have a potential risk of affecting the communities:
Criteria: 2.3; 2.13; 3.1; 3.2; 3.5; 3.7; 3.9; 3.15; 3.20; 3.21; 3.22; 3.32; 3.37; 5.21; 5.22; and 5.26.
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) CC-1.4
Non-destruction of areas with High Value for Conservation (HVC) CC-2.1
Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) C-4.20
Establishment of communication and support mechanisms with the communities
B-4.46
The impacts that agriculture and livestock
operations can have on communities are diverse
and their magnitude may increase as the size and
number of the operation’s activities increase.
The impacts can be environmental as well as
social, for example:
• generation of plant wastes that could
proliferate pests,
• contamination of water, soil and air,
• competition for resources with members
of the community.
Reduction of negative effectsSome considerations
Module 4 – Page 71
Good signs on the farm:
• They comply with the country’s
environmental and labor laws
• They respect the ownership of the lands,
access and sites of importance to the
neighboring communities
• They show positive interactions with the
communities in the area of influence
• They receive the concerns of the
community members about farm activities
and adequately address the concerns
and/or complaints.
• They adopt a collaborative, proactive
attitude and implement preventive and
corrective measures if necessary.
How is compliance evaluated?
• Does the farm have a list of stakeholders and
their contacts?
• Has the farm consulted the community
about the perception of the impacts the
operation could generate through surveys,
meetings or another mechanism?
• Has there been an analysis of the response
given community members?
• If the community has been concerned or
perceived negative impacts, what has been
the farm’s response?
• Is there a system for receiving and
responding to complaints that has been
communicated to the stakeholders?
• Is the system for receiving complaints
functional?
• Is there a procedure that specifies staff
responsibilities for complaint resolution?
Has a timeframe been set for responding to
complaints?
• Have complaints been received? Has
adequate follow-up and response to the
complaints been given? Is there evidence of
unattended impacts?
• Has the farm’s response been constructive,
adequate and collaborative, and have the
necessary corrective and preventive actions
been taken?
Reduction of negative effectsA real case
Module 4 – Page 72
Harvest stubble and stable flies
FARM 1. In an annual audit of a pineapple farm,
the personnel indicated that in June and July 2016,
when heavy rains occurred, an outbreak of stable
flies affected the area’s cattle farmers.
The rains had destroyed the roads and the
machinery could not get in to shred the stubble and
reincorporate it into the plots where the plants had
been cut down.
The auditor considered it important to analyze the
farm’s response to this affliction in the neighboring
cattle-raising community. He visited three cattle
farms nearby and the ranching families
interviewed confirmed that the stable fly outbreak
was linked to pineapple activity, and that it had
severely affected the cattle’s health and
productivity and altered the tranquility of daily life.
They indicated that it was an isolated and specific
event that had never occurred before in the 5 years
of coexistence with pineapple farming. They also
stated that the farm had placed traps for the flies,
provided medicines and restoratives for the cattle,
and the personnel were monitoring and responding
to the ranchers’ calls to change the bags and pay
particular attention to certain cases.
They indicated that the outbreak was controlled
and that the farm’s attitude at all times was for
collaboration and the adoption of preventive
measures.
Analysis and outcome
The evidence indicates that the event was
a specific, isolated case aggravated by the
weather conditions prevailing at the time
and something that has not reoccurred
since. The affected interviewees perceived
the farm’s stance as helpful and willing to
take preventive measures.
The farm’s transparency, its collaborative
response and the immediate adoption of
corrective and preventive actions were in
accordance with the criteria of the 2017
Standard.
Module 4 – Page 73
Harvest stubble and stable flies
FARM 2. During the initial meeting on a
pineapple farm and the auditor’s specific
question regarding whether fly outbreaks had
been generated by the stubble management, the
manager indicated that the farm had not had
these kinds of problems and that no complaints
had been received in the mailbox at the office
entrance. The manager indicated that the fly
problem was caused by other pineapple farms in
the area.
Knowing that stable fly outbreaks are a
recurring problem in the area, the auditor visited
one of the nearby communities. Less than one
kilometer from the farm, he saw a large number
of fly traps in the pastures of the small ranchers.
The auditor interviewed the people who
indicated that for two years they had been
suffering the stable flies generated by the
audited farm. They said they had filed three
complaints with the animal health governing
body but the situation remained the same. They
indicated that the audited farm placed traps but
the outbreak was so strong, they had no effect.
They indicated that several neighbors had
already sold their farms to the same pineapple
producer that caused the outbreak and that
others were considering doing the same, due to
the impossibility of continuing their activity.
Consulted again, the manager accepted that the
fly traps were placed by the farm that he was
managing but he indicated that they did this to
help the people because they had not created
the problem.
Once in the office, the auditor reviewed the
one interview done in the community in which
the interviewee cited drug addiction and
robberies as problems present in the
community.
The auditor called the interviewee on the
phone and asked why he had not mentioned
the fly problem so evident in the ranchers’
community. The answer was that he had been
told to refer to social cases such as robbery,
delinquency and drug addiction.
The administration showed the records for the
fly traps placed over 24 months, with receipts
signed by the cattle ranchers.
The auditor visited a 3-hectare plot with
decomposing pineapple stubble on open soil.
The manager indicated that this was an isolated
case because the machinery was currently
working in another plot.
Analysis and outcome
In the case of Farm 2, there was a lack of
transparency, negligence in the management
of pineapple stubble, an inefficient
community consultation process, lack of
resolution of complaints, a sustained
negative impact on the community for two
years, and an absence of preventive and
corrective measures once the impact
generated was known. The evidence is
sufficient to determine that the management
of the farm is not in accordance with the
Rainforest Alliance requirements and a
nonconformity must be assigned for several
criteria, including criteria B-4.46
(communication and resolution of
complaints with the community) and C-3.37
(wastes).
Module 4 – Page 74
Harvest stubble and stables flies
BEST AUDITING PRACTICES
In both cases (Farm 1 and Farm 2), the auditor team
reached correct conclusions by using Best auditing
practices:
Knowing the possible impacts this particular
activity could generate and the problems in the
area
Asking pertinent questions
Cross-checking the information. The auditor did
not close the case with the information provided
only by the farm manager. He didn’t listen to just
one of the parties.
Visiting neighboring communities.
Observing and detecting possible impacts (the
case of flies indicated by the placement of fly
traps).
Showing firmness in questioning the manager’s
word and interviewing the ranchers.
• In the case of Farm 2, the evidence
could be sufficient to assign a
nonconformity with criterion B-4.46
due to the lack of resolution
appropriate to the complaints. The
farm did not implement corrective
actions sufficient to minimize or
eliminate the fly problem.
• On Farm 1, in contrast, the immediate
taking of corrective and preventive
actions demonstrates the adequate
resolution of the complaints.
Other examples ofnegative impacts on the community
Module 4 – Page 75
It is important for the auditor to be aware of the potential impacts that the particular activity or crop
being audited can generate, so that he or she can focus the audit questions appropriately.
Diversion of irrigation waters
The diversion of waters can generate impacts
on communities downstream, diminishing the
resource for their activities. The impact can
be difficult to detect.
Untreated wastes
Untreated plant wastes from numerous crops
can generate pests that severely affect other
farming/ranching activities.
Gas emissions
Emissions from on-farm processing plants must
meet the legal parameters for emissions.
Sometimes, neighbors perceive the emissions as
highly polluting when this might not be the case.
It is the company’s responsibility to inform the
public about the results of the analyses.
Effluents outside accepted parameters
Scheduled or accidental discharge
generates environmental damages and
consequently could generate strong
social impacts, i.e. the elimination of
livelihoods.
Support to the communitiesunder the 2017 Standard
Module 4 – Page 76
The farms and groups implement and document activities to support the communities
A-4-47
Farms usually have trained staff who could participate in community outreach projects. The
support to provide to the communities in the area of influence does not necessarily require large
cash investments by the farm, so there are no valid excuses for not contributing to the community
in some way.
The 2017 Standard address the topic of support to communities in only one criterion, at level A:
The support provided by the farm to the
communities should generate benefits for the
community instead of responding to particular
interests. The projects carried out should
respond to the results of consultations held with
the community and address identified priorities.
How is this audited?
• Is there a list of the communities in the
area of influence?
• Is there a list of the stakeholders?
• Is there evidence of consultations done in
the communities for the identification of
needs? Has the help to be provided been
prioritized jointly with the communities?
• Has the consultation included members of
community organizations such as
development associations, water
management boards and other community
leaders?
• Is there evidence of the assistance
provided?