Pesticide use among emerging farmers in South Africa: contributing factors and stakeholder perspectives

Abstract

The commercial agricultural sector in South Africa has historically been dominated by large-scale operations run by white owners and managers. In redressing this imbalance, black farmers classified as ‘emerging’ are being encouraged to engage in high-input agricultural production in order to obtain ‘commercial’ status. Since existing practices in commercial agriculture rely heavily on pesticides, emerging farmers aspiring to become commercial are pressured to adopt and/or increase the use of pesticides. However, problems of access to land, finances, resources, skills and markets overshadow the health and safety of these farmers and their labour force that may be affected by exposure to pesticides. This paper presents the results of a policy study based on primary interview data with key stakeholders and secondary documentary review data, to illustrate how pesticides are used in an occupational health and safety vacuum because the focus of key institutions is rather on economic productivity.

1. INTRODUCTION

I personally think that we are sitting on an environmental and human health time bomb. It is only by God's grace that in general most rural farmers are not sufficiently wealthy yet to be able to afford to use large volumes of pesticides. But it is coming. The greatest moral responsibility we have is to train the rural communities as quickly as possible. This will of course take time, people, money … (Agricultural official, Gauteng)

Since 1994, South African agricultural policy has encouraged the expansion of black ownership in agricultural production to redress apartheid inequalities, and particularly promoted the progression of black farmers to commercial status. The previous Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, in launching a microfinance support initiative for ‘emerging farmers’, said the programme aimed to ‘enable them to develop into fully commercial operations’ (Taunyane, 2005). The National Department of Agriculture (DoA) 2007 strategic plan says the intention was ‘to ensure the commercial viability of emerging farmers from a household food security level to commercial level … [through] a farmer-to-farmer mentorship policy’. However, despite these policy initiatives, the historical legacy of a South African agricultural system divided between large-scale white commercial farmers and black smallholder (i.e. resource-poor) farmers does not provide a strong supporting infrastructure for present-day ‘emerging farmers’. Since agricultural production can be fickle, this infrastructure (government extension services, farmers' unions, marketing policies, financial support institutions, research services/institutions) is essential to make it viable. However, although financial and technical inputs may be provided – such as equipment (e.g. tractors and other mechanical implements), fertilisers, commercial seed and agrichemicals used for pest control (i.e. pesticides) – the support required to ensure that these technological inputs are used safely for human health and the environment is not evident. Of specific concern are the health and safety issues affecting emerging farmers as new pesticide users.

In this paper we argue that high-input agriculture with increased use of pesticides is being promoted in South Africa by economic, trade and agricultural polices at national and international levels without adequate support for emerging farmers to manage pesticides safely, thereby placing farmers, their families, their workers and their communities at increased risk of short-term and long-term health problems. ‘Support’ in this context refers to the ability of institutions (e.g. the DoA, the Department of Labour (DoL) and training institutions) to provide emerging farmers, through policy and services, with the needed finances, information, training, protective equipment and medical facilities. This is not to suggest that the use of pesticides by existing commercial farmers is necessarily free from health or environmental hazards – on the contrary, studies have shown that the established commercial sector makes widespread use of pesticides and that, in practice, regulation of their use is on the whole inadequate (Rother & London, 1998). Rather, our aim is to draw attention to evidence that suggests there is a substantial and unrecognised growth in new pesticide users who are not receiving adequate support. We also highlight the research gap and provide recommendations for assessing the relationship between emerging farmers' agricultural context and a constrained health and safety environment.

The specific objectives of this exploratory study were:

•	to examine the implications of policy trends for pesticide use among emerging farmers in South Africa;
•	to solicit and document role players' perspectives on (a) pesticide use by these farmers and (b) factors influencing these farmers' agricultural practices; and
•	to explore the regulatory mechanisms for pesticide use and the protection of the health of these farmers, as new pesticide users.

1.1 Pesticide use in South Africa

South Africa is the largest market for pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa (Rother & London, 1998) and, with pesticide use reportedly declining in Egypt (Mansour, 2004), is now likely to be the largest in Africa. Pesticide use in South African agriculture is high and continues to increase (Rother & London, 1998; Naidoo & Buckley, 2003). For example, insecticide use increased from 2 612 484 kg in 1997 to 4 363 371 kg in 2000, and fungicide use from 6 928 639 kg to 8 808 883 kg during the same period. Herbicide use increased slightly from 9 428 189 kg in 1997 to 9 466 144 kg in 2000 (Maharaj, 2005). Although pesticides are used predominantly for agriculture, they are also used residentially and in public places and public buildings to control weeds, vermin, pests and disease vectors (Rother & London, 1998; Rother, 2005).

The human health consequences of pesticide use are recognised as spanning the spectrum from acute toxicity to long-term chronic ill-health (Kishi, 2005). In the occupational health setting, these two ends of the spectrum are characterised as threats to health and safety. ‘Health’ refers to the absence of disease and ‘safety’ to the absence of injury. Both disease and injury can be caused by pesticide use, but the former is defined as primarily chronic and long term, and the latter as acute and short term. In 2002, 482 acute pesticide poisoning cases and 24 pesticide-related deaths were reported to the National Department of Health (DoH, 2003), but the true rates of poisoning are estimated to be up to 20 times higher, and poisonings among women and from occupational exposure appear to be particularly under-reported (London & Bailie, 2001). Long-term neurological and neuropsychological impairments are also well recognised as consequences of acute poisoning by organophosphate pesticides (Kamel & Hoppin, 2004) and evidence is increasing for the links between carcinogenic (Kishi, 2005), reproductive (Colborn et al., 1996) and immunological disorders (Galloway & Handy, 2003) caused by long-term low-level exposure to a range of pesticides. Studies in South Africa have identified the problems of neurotoxicity (London et al., 1997) and respiratory illness (Dalvie et al., 1999) associated with low-level pesticide exposure among farm workers, reproductive impacts of DDT exposure amongst malaria control operators (Dalvie et al., 2004), DDT and pyrethroid residues in breast milk (Bouwman et al., 2006), and birth defects associated with a history of pesticide exposure (Heeren et al., 2003). The potential for significant impacts on both human health and the environment from inappropriate use of pesticides is thus significant. Given the particular vulnerability of women (London et al., 2002) and children (Goldman, 2004) to the effects of pesticides, and the lack of published studies on the health impacts of pesticides specifically on small farmers in South Africa (London, 1998), the role of pesticide exposure among emerging farmers is therefore of particular concern.

1.2 Pesticide policy in South Africa

South Africa's first and main law governing pesticides was enacted in 1947 (Table 1). Despite the need to update this legislation to incorporate contemporary findings from health and environmental research, to provide improved protection for emerging farmers and to promote better surveillance, control and enforcement measures, the 1947 Act is still in effect. Moreover, the regulatory management of pesticides is fragmented, as pesticide use is managed through 14 different pieces of legislation administered by seven different government departments (Table 1). This results in serious deficiencies in the scope and effectiveness of legislation in managing risk, particularly where responsibilities are spread over numerous government departments. Although there is currently a draft Pesticide Management Policy under discussion (Publication of Pesticide Management Policy for Public Comments, Government Gazette No. 28711, DoA, South Africa, 2006), the 1947 Act remains in effect, pending updating or replacement.

Table 1: Legislation affecting pesticides in South Africa

1.3. Conceptually framing the debate

To develop the conceptual framework for this study, the authors reviewed pesticide use and agricultural policies literature (Rother & London, 1998; Vink & Kirsten, 2003; Quandt et al., 2006; Figure 1). This model highlights the key contextual indicators for the emergence of new pesticide users (emerging farmers) and the fact that these users are at the intersection of two contexts – agriculture, and health and safety. In the current agricultural context, national agricultural polices encourage both new and existing black farmers to shift to commercial status. This policy environment is backed by institutional support services (extension, training, credit, market access), which result in a change in current agricultural practices (larger plots of land, reliance on pesticides, large-scale spraying operations) and demographics (both existing black, resource poor farmers and those entering agriculture through land reform) that in turn create an ‘emerging farmer’ who is encouraged to become a pesticide user. In the health and safety context, pesticides are used in an environment where national and international pesticide legislation and policies (the pesticide and occupational health and safety Acts), institutional support (pesticide training institutions for farmers, extension officers, labour inspectors) and the emerging farmers' pesticide practices (awareness of risks, storage and application practices, use of protective equipment) act either to decrease or increase the use of pesticides and the attendant risks.

Figure 1: Conceptual model: contextual indicators for new pesticide users

The agricultural context of pesticide users and their subsequent pesticide use patterns appears to be changing rapidly – as is, to some extent, the international policy context for pesticide-related health and safety. However, the national health and safety context to protect and support users (e.g. in using risk reduction procedures) and regulate use (i.e. health and environmental protection) has not adapted to the changed agricultural context. The result is a combination of flux and stasis. As these contexts are not functioning coterminously, this increases the risks for emerging farmers and their families. Where this paper refers to pest management support for farmers to help them reduce crop losses from weeds, diseases and pests, this means a set of activities and inputs including providing information, technical advice and guidance, and skills training; making available the needed technologies and protective materials; and ensuring surveillance for health and environmental impacts.

2. METHODS

This policy study was conducted in 2004 by surveying key stakeholders. The method was selected because there is much uncertainty about who these emerging farmers are and those who are working with this population group (or have this in their mandates) could provide clarification. The objective was to gain insights into the agricultural and health and safety contexts that emerging farmers operate in as new pesticide users – information that is missing from current literature and research – and to inform future research on how these farmers use pesticides.

2.1 Study population

Key informants dealing with issues of emerging farmers and pesticide use were grouped into the following categories: (1) the DoA, (2) other government departments, (3) extension officers, (4) academic and research institutions, (5) civil society, (6) organised agriculture (commercial and emerging), (7) pesticide retailers, (8) pesticide producers and formulators, (9) regional and international organisations, and (10) trade unions. Organisations representing each of these 10 categories were identified from websites, publications, contacts and colleagues. In all, 161 stakeholders were identified and sent a letter of invitation to participate and a project summary. Of these, 61 agreed to participate in the study and 30 questionnaires were completed. Tables 2 and 3 present the geographical and organisational distribution of the 30 respondents. Of these 30, there were 28 men and two women – and 18 of the respondents were working directly with emerging farmers. Despite numerous and repeated attempts to solicit input from trade unions, no questionnaires were returned.

Table 2: Geographical distribution of respondents

Province	Number of respondents
Gauteng	9
Western Cape (WC)	5
KwaZulu-Natal (KZN)	3
North West (NW)	3
Limpopo	2
Free State (FS)	2
Eastern Cape (EC)	2
Mpumalanga	2
Northern Cape (NC)	1
Botswana (Southern African Development Community representative)	1
Total	30

Table 3: Organisations represented by respondents

Organisation	Number of respondents
Provincial Departments of Agriculture	6
Academic and research institutions	5
Civil society	5
Extension officers	4
Industry	3
Organised agriculture	3
Avcasa^a	1
Retail	1
National Department of Agriculture	1
Regional and international institutions	1
Total	30
^aAvcasa is the Crop Protection and Animal Health Association of South Africa, more recently referred to as Crop Life South Africa.

2.2 Survey design

A standardised questionnaire, comprised mostly of open-ended questions, was developed to solicit general information from key informants (Table 4). The basic questionnaire was adapted to capture sector-specific information from each of the 10 categories. The questionnaires were intended to be administered telephonically or face to face, but most of the respondents chose to fill them out personally.

Table 4: Categories of information solicited from all respondents

1. Defining subsistence, emerging, emerging commercial and commercial farmers

2. Identifying factors determining whether a farmer is emerging or not

3. Provincial location of emerging farmers

4. Stakeholder institutional work/support for emerging farmers

5. Government policy for emerging farmers

6. Pesticide use among emerging farmers

7. Credit and support for emerging farmers

8. Export market access by emerging farmers

9. Main problems faced by emerging farmers

3. AGRICULTURAL CONTEXT FOR NEW PESTICIDE USERS

3.1 Emerging farmers

3.1.1 Debating definitions: who or what is an ‘emerging farmer’?

By the late 1990s, with the emphasis of land reform shifting to commercial farming, the word ‘emerging’ was used to describe both existing and new black farmers. The term indicates the intentions of policy-makers – and no doubt of many of the farmers themselves – that they should over time adopt increasingly efficient production technologies, market an increasing proportion of their output and increase their profitability. In short, ‘emerging’ farmers are set to become commercial.

The term ‘emerging farmer’ conveys a vision of capital-strapped new farmers succeeding by coming to resemble the established white commercial farming sector. The term has a long history, traceable to the designs of apartheid-era agricultural officials who implemented commercialisation programmes, with little success, in the Bantustans and envisaged a small sector of successful farmers forming a new black middle class. By the late 1980s, the Development Bank of Southern Africa had turned its attention away from large-scale farming projects and instituted Farmer Support Programmes. Like the colonial officials, the Bank designated farmers as ‘subsistence’, ‘emerging’ and ‘commercial’, indicating a continuum of degrees of commercialisation and assuming that severely disadvantaged farmers could move from one stage to the next (Hall & Williams, 2003). The loose definition of ‘emerging farmers’ contributes to the difficulties in establishing their exact numbers. For that reason, clarifying who or what is an ‘emerging farmer’ is key to framing this discussion.

3.1.2 Respondents' interpretations of ‘emerging farmers’

Sixteen respondents largely concurred with this evolutionary view, defining ‘emerging farmers’ in terms of what they are becoming or aspiring to become – in other words, in terms of what they are not. ‘Emerging farmer’ is thus an aspirational category, denoting the ambitions of a farmer producing within the constraints of limited secured access to capital, production inputs, markets, land, labour and skills (Hall & Williams, 2003). For example, some respondents' definitions were:

An emerging farmer aims to become a commercial farmer, and is in the process of building up the necessary capacity. (Regional official, Southern African Development Community)

[Emerging farmers] … are individuals who want to grow bigger and really get into the mainstream of agriculture. (Official, DoA, Western Cape)

[An emerging farmer is] someone with basic experience and skills, but still aspire[s] to become a fully competent farmer. (Director, civil society, Western Cape)

[Emerging farmers are] previously disadvantaged farmers who are coming from subsistence farming, trying to practice commercial [farming]. (Agricultural extension officer, Eastern Cape)

Other definitions referred to emerging farmers as those who lack skills and resources, require state assistance, are new to farming, who commercially market only a portion of their produce, or who operate on a small scale but ‘beyond the subsistence level’. For example:

I think a better description would probably be to call them ‘resource poor farmers’. Many of them have been involved with farming for many years and are not new or emerging. They are just limited by a lack of resources, for example, money, land, skills, opportunities and markets. (Official, DoA, Western Cape)

One respondent, a pesticide industry representative in Gauteng, defined an ‘emerging farmer’ as ‘someone who produces a crop for sale, commercial gain, who has not been making a profit in the past five years’ – although, ironically, ‘not making a profit’ applies equally to a substantial portion of white commercial farmers.

Three respondents acknowledged that they had only begun using the term ‘emerging farmers’ in recent years – after 1990 and increasingly in the post-apartheid South Africa – to refer to those who might previously have been designated by the often interchangeable terms ‘black’, ‘subsistence’ or ‘small scale’. Twelve agreed that ‘emerging’ farmers are those with a low, but increasing, income from farming. Significantly, then, this category is itself in a state of change and in flux.

While the term ‘emerging farmer’ has many meanings – many of them ideologically driven – and may have little analytical merit, it continues to have currency in policy and has a real effect in galvanising and directing resources. Therefore, for the purpose of this paper it is used cautiously to describe black farmers who are operating in disadvantaged circumstances compared with their white counterparts, regardless of their intention of engaging in large-scale commercial production.

3.2 National land and agricultural policies affecting emerging farmers

South Africa's ‘dualistic’ agricultural sector is characterised by capital-intensive large-scale commercial farming in the white farming areas, on the one hand, and labour-intensive small-scale farming by an estimated 1.3 million small-scale farmers in the former Bantustans, on the other. These two sectors remain starkly differentiated in terms of access to land, credit, extension services, research and development, and market access (Vink & Kirsten, 2003). With South Africa's political transition, the 1990s saw the African National Congress-led government pursue the deregulation of agriculture, the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, and the introduction of a land reform programme (Vink & Kirsten, 2003).

State policy envisages beneficiaries of land redistribution ranging from smallholders producing primarily for their own consumption to large-scale black commercial farmers. In the period 1994–1999, policy emphasised establishing a large number of black smallholders. However, by 1999, less than 1 per cent of commercial farmland had been redistributed to smallholders (Hall, 2004). In contrast, the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) programme, introduced in 2001, promoted commercial farming as its intended outcome. The LRAD has been implemented by the Department of Land Affairs in partnership with the DoA and its provincial departments, with the aim of linking the acquisition of land, through land reform, to support for new ‘emerging’ farmers. To provide support to these new farmers, in the form of implements, training and infrastructure, among other things, a new Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme was introduced in 2004, with a budget of R750 million over 3 years. Despite its name, however, this programme is far from comprehensive; the limited budget can in any given year extend to only a small portion of new black farmers.

Alongside land reform, agricultural policy in the 1990s saw much of the extensive apparatus of support and subsidisation for white commercial farmers being dismantled (Table 5). This rapid restructuring in agriculture brought to an end extensive state subsidisation of white agriculture, state-run marketing boards, floor prices, cheap credit, subsidised inputs and tax breaks (Vink & Kirsten, 2003). Combined with the removal of export subsidies and the reduction of tariffs on imports, the result is an economic environment that is hostile both for new and existing farmers but is particularly onerous for those who do not have the benefit of decades of support – notably the ‘emerging’ farmers.

Table 5: Summary of key policies affecting South African agriculture

Policy	Description
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) document, 1994	Aimed to transform rural areas through a land reform programme that would be the centrepiece of a wider process of rural development. It encouraged commitment by donor organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as the private sector, and aimed to redistribute 30 per cent of commercial farmland to emerging black farmers.
RDP White Paper, 1995	Sets out initial government plans to focus on poverty and inequality by encouraging sustainable economic growth. Indicates how business, unions, community groups and civic associations, NGOs, women's and youth organisations, and other civil society groups can help realise the objectives of the RDP.
Agricultural White Paper, 1995	Aimed at ensuring equitable access to agriculture and promotes the contribution of agriculture to the development of all communities, society at large and the national economy, in order to enhance income, food security, employment and quality of life in a sustainable manner. Makes provision for agricultural production and marketing, the sustainable use of natural resources, agricultural financing, institutional infrastructure, and access to information and agricultural technology, research and training.
Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 47 of 1996	Established the National Agricultural Marketing Council, deregulated control boards (completed by 1998), and set out a vision of trade liberalisation and improved domestic and international market access for all farmers.
White Paper on Land Policy, 1997	Sets out a three-pronged programme of land reform, including restitution of land rights to those dispossessed of land since 1913, redistribution of land to the landless and poor in order to achieve a more equitable distribution, and land tenure reform, to secure the rights of those living on land owned by others, notably farm workers on commercial farms and residents of communal areas in the former ‘homelands’. Provides for settlement/land acquisition grants of R16 000 to be made available to eligible households earning less than R1500 per month, in order to invest in the purchase of land for settlement (housing), agricultural or other purposes.
Discussion Document on Agricultural Policy, 1998	Aims to create an environment where higher incomes and employment are possible for resource-poor farmers alongside a thriving commercial farming sector. Supports the emergence of a more diverse structure of production with a large increase in the numbers of successful smallholder farming enterprises.
The Land and Agricultural Development Bank Act, 2000	Introduces a new ‘developmental’ mandate for the Land Bank, requires it to prioritise loan finance to disadvantaged clients and to operate on a self-sustaining basis, without recourse to annual budgetary support from government.
The Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture, 2001	A plan developed by the Presidential working group on agriculture, with representation from black and white commercial farmer organisations (AgriSA and NAFU). Sets out a policy and implementation framework within which the agricultural sector is to be shaped. It addresses investor apprehension and global competitiveness, encourages building partnerships between NGOs and the public, private and community sectors. Consists of three core strategies – equitable access and participation, global competitiveness and profitability, and sustainable resource management for agriculture.
Vision and Code of Conduct for Labour Relations in Agriculture, 2001	An agreement between organised agriculture (AgriSA and NAFU), labour unions and the Department of Labour, pledging adherence to labour laws, and agreeing to certain additional conditions.
The Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme, 2001	Sets out a vision of development through service provision and infrastructure development in the rural areas. Although the transformation of agriculture is not central to it, it envisages support for agricultural production and marketing, the sustainable use of natural resources, agricultural financing, institutional infrastructure, and access to information and agricultural technology, research and training.
The Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development programme (LRAD), 2001	Provides grants to previously disadvantaged South African citizens to access land specifically for farming purposes. As part of the land redistribution programme, it makes grants available to all black South Africans to assist with land purchase, ranging in size from R20 000 to R100 000 per individual applicant.
Sectoral Determination for Agriculture, 2002	Regulates minimum wages and conditions of employment for workers in agriculture, and came into effect in 2003 as a regulation in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997. In view of the challenges facing small and new enterprises, it grants exemption from the minimum wages to enterprises employing fewer than five full-time permanent employees. It further prohibits youth (below 18 years) from working with agro-chemicals, even if the prescribed protective clothing is available.
The Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme, 2004	Post-settlement support for beneficiaries of LRAD. Support with information, management, advisory and regulatory services, training and capacity building, finance and on-farm and off-farm infrastructure.
Agricultural Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment (AgriBee), 2005	A framework to address inequities and establish scorecards for transformation in ownership, management and procurement in the farming sector. A final scorecard against which the established agricultural industry will be rated for AgriBee compliance was still being developed as at the end of 2006.
Micro-Agricultural Finance Schemes of South Africa, 2005	Micro-credit lending scheme launched in 2005 to provide loan finance to emerging farmers for capital and non-capital costs, and administered by the Land Bank.
Strategic Plan for Department of Agriculture, 2007	Ensures participation of emerging farmers in biofuel programme. Promotes partnerships between agricultural enterprises, emerging farmers and entrepreneurs. Promotes commercial viability of emerging farmers through a farmer-to-farmer mentorship programme. Promotes skills development as part of the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa for emerging farmers through training and commodity-directed mentorship. Strengthens capacity of good agricultural practice for emerging farmers through the South African Pesticide Initiative Programme for export potential. Provides training in responsible pesticide use and integration of emerging farmers into existing grower associations.

3.3 Agricultural institutional support identified by stakeholders

The DoA is the lead agency tasked with supporting emerging farmers. The 2001 Strategic Plan for Agriculture, however, acknowledged that while primary responsibility rests with the DoA, the agricultural industry too must support these farmers.

In this study, 26 respondents (the large majority) agreed that emerging farmers can progress to being fully commercial producers, although far fewer (11 of them) agreed that there are initiatives specifically aimed at making this possible. The LRAD and Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme were the main initiatives identified, as well as commercial grower association initiatives, landcare (i.e. the DoA LandCare Programme and initiatives such as Rainman Landcare), agricultural credit programmes, and extension and marketing support services (Table 6).

Table 6: Support and training for emerging farmers, as identified by respondents

Institution	Type of support and training provided
DoA LandCare programme	Community-based and government-supported approach for agricultural resource conservation and promotion of poverty alleviation through labour-intensive public works
FARM-Africa	Training in crop production and livestock management, focused in the Northern Cape
Land Bank Social Discount Product	White farmers with specialised skills receive low interest finance for mentoring black farmers
Agricultural Research Council	Training provided, particularly at key Agricultural Research Council colleges such as Cedara (KwaZulu-Natal) and Elsenberg (Western Cape). Focus on training in the major production sectors – horticulture, field crops and livestock husbandry – as well as on pest control and business management
South African Agricultural Academy	General capacity-building and training
Rainman Landcare Foundation	Soil fertility, pest control, livestock production, book-keeping and marketing
Buhle Farmers' Academy	Farm business management skills, communication, environmental awareness
Outeniqua Experimental Farm	Entrepreneurial skills, vegetable farming, irrigation, farm and financial management, marketing, poultry, life skills, welding, tractor maintenance, spraying
Avcasa	Train-the-trainer programme on pesticides for emerging farmers
South African Pesticide Initiative Programme	Industry based training on pesticides for emerging farmers to comply with local and European Union regulations for export

Almost all the respondents (26 of them) said the DoA is the primary institution responsible for the development of emerging farmers, but they said a number of other departments and spheres of government and parastatals also played a role, particularly the Departments of Land Affairs and Water Affairs and Forestry, local government, the Land Bank, and the Agricultural Research Council. In each province, commercial farmer associations affiliated to AgriSA play a role in mentoring emerging farmers, although this varies in scale. Commodity sector organisations such as Grain South Africa, the Red Meat Producers' Organisation and the South African Wine Industry Trust also provide a degree of assistance with training and market access for emerging farmers. Although the resources to support farmers are constrained, more than one-half of the respondents (17 of them) agreed that the emphasis of policy is on supporting emerging farmers more than established white farmers, with two goals: to redress past injustices, and to stimulate the economy. One agricultural official in the Western Cape noted: ‘Within our programme in the department we have a policy to spend 80 per cent of our time, money and effort on “emerging farmers”.’

3.3.1. Agricultural production support

State support for agricultural production, in the form of infrastructure development and extension advice services, has been declining for two decades. According to respondents, the most significant forms of state support for emerging farmers are cattle dipping, livestock exchange programmes, sheep scab control and the revitalisation of irrigation schemes. Direct production subsidies and price controls on agricultural inputs have been eliminated, while further support services continue to be provided by the private sector, on a cost recovery basis. Some respondents were highly critical of government extension services, noting that, although there are individual agricultural staff members in these departments doing good work, ‘the department as a whole is … invisible in the field’ (manager, civil society, KZN). A pesticide retailer in Gauteng said that ‘for emerging farmers to succeed we need a strong DoA extension services programme’.

Extension services are the key means by which farmers access research and technology to improve production (Kirsten et al., 1998). However, extension officers themselves have limited access to information on pesticide health and safety other than what they receive from Crop Life South Africa. The Agricultural Research Council has the potential to provide extensive guidance on new farming practices and technology but, according to respondents, it currently has very limited programmes for emerging farmers.

3.3.2 Credit

The Land Bank and commercial banks are the main financial providers for emerging farmers, according to stakeholders, although a minority of respondents (nine of them) argued that emerging farmers have very limited access to credit because they lack collateral. Stakeholders said credit finance used to purchase pesticides was a relatively small proportion of total debt. Of the 12 respondents who offered estimates, all said they thought expenditure by emerging farmers on pesticide inputs was less than 15 per cent of credit.

3.3.3 Market access

Another indicator of institutional support for emerging farmers is market access. The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act of 1996, which established the National Agricultural Marketing Council, deregulated the marketing of agricultural products through control boards and aimed to empower previously excluded farmers by opening access to all markets (Kirsten et al. 1998). Despite policy aimed at increasing agricultural production for domestic and export markets, 19 respondents said this is limited and nine respondents said that most emerging farmers, by definition, do not have access to export markets. Where emerging farmers do export, this is usually through fair trade and other labelling regimes in sectors such as rooibos tea, cut flowers and table grapes, so that goods certified as the produce of disadvantaged farmers get preferential access to export markets, often at guaranteed prices, and may be sold at a premium.

As emerging farmers commercialise and enter export markets, incorporation into global value chains exerts downward pressure to comply with international standards, such as the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group's Good Agricultural Practice and the International Standards Organization Quality Management System standards. Thus, increasingly, emerging farmers will be required to adhere to ethical standards such as good agricultural practices and social conditions. The Strategic Plan for Agriculture intends that emerging farmers will receive capacity building in good agricultural practice through the South African Pesticide Initiative Programme, but states that only five emerging farmers have taken part in 3 years of this programme (Table 5). Further, the DoA and the Perishable Products Export Control Board have initiated a sponsorship programme to address export requirements among emerging farmers and 25 students have been trained to mentor emerging farmers. However, certification with these international standards costs four times what European certification bodies charge and may represent a substantial non-market barrier to export markets. These initiatives raise questions about emerging farmers' access to markets, whether pesticide use will increase to obtain produce of export quality or decline to comply with standards, and whether these initiatives are sustainable. At this stage, there are many contradictory pressures that could either increase or decrease emerging farmers' use of pesticides.

3.4 Marketing of pesticides

The pesticide industry markets pesticides through several means. For example, pesticide sales representatives deliver pesticides personally or sell them in small outposts (Rother, 2000), rendering pesticides highly visible in the localities where emerging farmers' farm.

There is no evidence of any systematic effort on the part of government or fair trade initiatives to prioritise organic production by emerging farmers, despite reports that some of the niche markets identified for these farmers are for organic produce and market-oriented organic farming initiatives (Qeqe & Cartwright, 2005; e.g. between Limpopo DoA and the Network for Ecofarming in Africa – NECOFA). Indeed, the pesticide industry's marketing of chemical pest control products substantially targets these farmers, as evidenced by its promotional material on radio and television and the activities of its sales representatives, and borne out by what small farmers in Mpumalanga say about the primary source of their information on pesticides (see Box 1).

3.5 Emerging farmers as new pesticide users

Overwhelmingly, all respondents believed emerging farmers were using pesticides in agricultural production. A respondent from the DoA said this was because ‘up to now, they don't have an alternative means, as the introduced new way of bio-chemicals still needs to be introduced and let people learn about it. They still need to be trained’.

When asked to quantify the intensity of ‘use’, 16 of the study informants (just over one-half) said they believed that emerging farmers were only using pesticides minimally (i.e. one or two times a year; Table 7). Ten of the respondents (one-third) said emerging farmers were using ‘illegal’ pesticides – that is, pesticides bought from ‘fly-by-night’ pesticide dealers and the black market. By implication, a farmer in the emerging category cannot be a heavy user of pesticides and must be using pesticides at a much lower intensity than what would be considered commercial usage. However, in contradiction to this belief, other research by the Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit of the University of Cape Town has identified intensive use of pesticides by emerging farmers (Rother, 2000). This perception of ‘minimal use’ supports stakeholders' belief that emerging farmers are not yet commercial. That is, the term ‘commercial farmer’ implies intensive and high use of purchased inputs such as pesticides, and thus emerging farmers should presumably be categorised as ‘commercial’ if their use is high in proportion to production quantity. One pesticide industry respondent said that ‘without modern technology, farmers will not become commercial [as they] must increase productivity and efficiencies’.

Table 7: Respondents' perceptions of pesticide use intensity among emerging farmers

Use pattern	Number of respondents
Minimal (i.e. 1–2 times per year)	15
Once a month	4
Weekly	1
Extensive (i.e. 1–5 times per week per crop)	3
Following an industry structured spraying programme	3
Don't know	3
Total	29

Respondents confirmed that the DoA aims to help new farmers move from low to high levels of input and capital intensity. When asked why, 22 respondents said pesticide use would enable emerging farmers to become commercial farmers. The responses highlighted higher yields, more profit and increased production levels; as one member of a civil society organisation in KwaZulu-Natal pointed out: ‘It will improve yields, and reduce the need to move/slash & burn to avoid pests. At least their production will increase.’ In contrast to these views, a minority of the respondents believed that pesticides would not enable emerging farmers to become commercial farmers because ‘this [pesticide use] relates to only one factor in the production cycle and as such will not solely determine success or not’ (programme manager, research institution, Western Cape).

Despite differences of opinion on pesticide use in ‘commercialising’ emerging farmers, these statements nonetheless indicate that a ‘pesticide culture’ exists in South Africa (Rother & London, 1998). That is, pesticides are predominately viewed positively as promoting economic gains and reducing pest problems. Respondents expressed the belief that pesticides are inherently safe and that problems only arise from the errant behaviour of individual farmers:

There is the unscientific notion out there that all use of pesticides is unsafe and their use is irresponsible. Pesticides are carefully designed to bring about the best crop yields if used judiciously and according to the registered label information. It is when farmers, and pesticide operators etc., take things into their own hands that problems occur. (Academic, Gauteng)

Coupled with the circular definition that associates emerging farmers with low or no pesticide usage, this view that pesticide exposure is inherently unproblematic may mean that hazardous exposures affecting not only farmers but also workers and family members go unnoticed and unmonitored. Such externalities may have serious consequences for human health (pesticide exposure can cause allergies, asthma, acute poisoning symptoms, endocrine disruption, lung damage, neurological damage and various cancers), and also serious environmental and economic consequences.

The findings from the Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit pilot study on emerging farmers (Box 1) revealed that emerging farmers not only use pesticides intensively but are exposed to a range of toxic pesticides (Table 8), including some that are highly hazardous. Furthermore, they are using them in an environment where pesticide regulation is outdated and not geared to these farmers' circumstances, and where farmers are encouraged to focus on short-term economic gains at the expense of health and safety. Given the pressure on emerging farmers to become commercial, high levels of pesticide exposure may be inevitable. This highlights the importance of technical support to limit risks to human health and the environment.

Table 8: World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity classification of pesticides used by study farmers (see Box 1)

Trade name	Active ingredient	Pesticide class	WHO classification^a
Bullock	Beta-cyfluthion	Pyrethrum	II
Decis	Deltamethrin	Pyrethrum	II
Ripcord	Cypermethrin	Pyrethrum	II
Dursban	Chlorpyrifos	Organophosphate	II
Mercaptothian	Mercaptothian	Organophosphate	II
Nemacur	Fenamiphos	Organophosphate	Ib
Tamaron	Methamidophos	Organophosphate	Ib
Tokuthion	Prothiofos	Organophosphate	II
Lebaycid	Fenthion	Organophosphate	II
Dithane	Mancozeb	Dithiocarbamate	U
Milraz Propines	Cymoxanil	Dithiocarbamate, acetamide derivative	U, III
Folicur	Tebuconazole	Organonitrogen	III
Koper-chlor	Copper oxychloride	Inorganic copper salt	III
Koppersprey	Copper oxychloride	Inorganic copper salt	III
Nimrod	Bupirimate	Pyrimidane	U
Rosecare	Triforine, pirimicarb and bupirimate	Formamide derivative, carbamate and pyrimidine	U, II &U
Round Up	Glyphosate	Glycine derivative	U
Temik	Aldicarb	Carbamate	Ia
Kumulus DF	Sulphur	Sulphide	U
^aIa = extremely hazardous; Ib = highly hazardous; II = moderately hazardous; III = slightly hazardous; U =  unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use.

4. HEALTH AND SAFETY CONTEXT FOR NEW PESTICIDE USERS

4.1 Health and safety policies

A range of international treaties and codes have established a framework at the global level to protect farmers from pesticide hazards (Rother & London, 1998; Rother, 2005). For example, the Rotterdam Convention – implemented jointly by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and the UN Environment Programme – provides for the control of the export of pesticides that have been banned or severely restricted for health and environmental reasons. Similarly, the Food and Agricultural Organisation developed a voluntary International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and in 2002 the UN adopted a new Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that emphasises hazard communication, including for developing countries' small farmers. Despite these developments at the global level, analogous steps at the national level lag far behind. For example, despite developing a National Chemicals Profile, South Africa has still not revised its main pesticide legislation, now entering its seventh decade and, as mentioned earlier, the legislative framework remains highly fragmented and inefficient (Rother & London, 1998).

Moreover, occupational health regulations, while modernising the control of chemical hazards in South African workplaces (Ehrlich, 1995), have been developed with a model in mind of a well-organised industrial workforce able to negotiate and interact with management as an equal partner in health and safety matters. These measures are therefore poorly suited to small employers, the informal sector and the agricultural setting (London & Kisting, 2002) and remain inappropriate for the needs of emerging farmers because they offer them little help with their problems.

4.2 Health and safety institutional support

4.2.1 Training

Training programmes specifically geared for emerging farmers have been developed and implemented by the DoA, non-governmental organisations, parastatals and agribusinesses. Many of these are provincially specific rather than national in their application, which points to a lack of standardisation. A summary of the key programmes respondents identified is provided in Table 6.

Most information about pesticide use, application, and health and safety for emerging farmers is provided through ‘train-the-trainer’ programmes conducted by Avcasa, advice from Avcasa-trained pesticide distributors and agricultural extension officers, and Avcasa informal courses. Avcasa trains ‘master trainers’, who are often chemical company managers or commercial farmers, and they in turn train others on the safe use of pesticides. This is potentially problematic as the pesticide industry has by definition an interest in promoting pesticide use (and thereby sales). The ‘safe-use’ paradigm used in the training assumes that pesticides are necessary, underplays problems (both environmental and health) associated with pesticide use and understates viable alternatives (Rother, 2005). ‘Safe use’ is therefore a contradiction in terms: by promoting the use of pesticides, this strategy potentially increases exposures to pesticides and undermines ways of preventing adverse effects (Rother, 2005). Indeed, there is no concrete evidence internationally of the effectiveness of safe-use measures. In contrast, a comprehensive approach to pest management would include upstream strategies such as pesticide reduction or integrated pest management policies.

4.2.2 Health and safety regulatory framework

The authority responsible for the health and safety of farmers and their workers is the DoL, which functions invisibly for a number of reasons: (1) it operates nationally with provincial offices, so is divorced from smaller administrative units such as local authorities; (2) it has traditionally neglected agriculture and struggles for logistic reasons to access farms for inspections; and (3) its model of inspections is geared towards industry or agri-industry and struggles to cope with small business and the informal sector, which is what emerging farmers most closely resemble.

Employers have obligations under both the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Hazardous Chemical Substances (HCS) regulations to ensure worker health and safety, as well as fulfilling the workers' right-to-know about the hazards of the chemicals to which they are exposed. The HCS regulations mandate employers to ensure that workers who are exposed to hazardous chemical substances are trained about the scope of the regulations, the source and potential risks of exposure, the potential effects on health, and about protection mechanisms, safe working procedures, emergency procedures and medical surveillance. However, there is very weak intersectoral collaboration between key government departments, such as the DoL, DoA and the DoH, who are the critical contributors to the regulatory framework for health and safety in agriculture.

The DoH is involved primarily in environmental health issues. Although the DoH will launch their National Chemical Safety Programme initiative in October 2007, intersectoral collaboration with either the DoA or the DoL is not evident in current documents, nor is there attention to occupational health in general or specifically in reference to pesticide risks for emergent farmers. The DoH National Chemical Safety Programme is more an institutional initiative to coordinate efforts of provincial and local departments of health.

4.2.3 The invisibility of health and safety problems facing emerging farmers

Stakeholders identified the factors impeding emerging farmers from obtaining commercial farmer status as inadequate agricultural institutional support rather than inadequate health and safety institutional support (Figure 1). Table 9 lists the problems they identified, all focusing primarily on economic outcomes and the ability to compete as commercial farmers. Representative comments were:

… there is too much emphasis on land ownership … not enough on land utilisation. (Member, organised agriculture, KZN)

Lack of technology adoption keeps production [by emerging farmers] at very low levels. (Agricultural consultant, Gauteng)

It is clear from the study that most stakeholders saw pesticides as essential and did not see the health and safety hazards as a priority.

Pesticide use per se is not [a] magic wand but at least puts them in a position to start planning holistically for potential bigger farming operations in future. (Agricultural official, NW)

Hand weeding is the most time consuming farming activity in Africa (about 70 to 75 per cent of all farm labour) – herbicide use reduces this to 10 to 20 per cent. Timing and effective control of pests and diseases can only be achieved by using these products . … To make money in farming, farmers must produce a surplus to sell. Low input farming equals low output and poor quality. Efficient weed and pest management are essential to produce a quality product and a substantial income. (Agricultural consultant, Gauteng)

Stakeholder comments illustrated the invisibility of health and safety problems facing emerging farmers and the lack of health and safety support. However, it is evident from Table 9 that emerging farmers lack exposure to and awareness of pesticide management strategies for protecting their health. Furthermore, if support for general farming practices is limited, then support for pesticide use is even more inadequate.

Table 9: Respondents' views on key problems facing emerging farmers

Problem area	Details and examples	Number of responses
Finance	Lack of access to credit, high cost of farming inputs, and onerous taxation	15
Skills	Lack of knowledge, organisational management and farm business management skills	14
Markets	Lack of information on markets, volatile markets, and downward pressure on prices from imports and dumping	10
Farming practices	Lack of use of technology, pest and disease problems, scarcity of water, producing the ‘right’ crop for the right market, producing good quality crops	9
Inputs	Lack of, or high cost of, implements, seed, fertilizer and pesticides	8
Support	Lack of extension services, or inappropriate services not geared to emerging farmer needs	7
Land	Insufficient land, insecure tenure to land, or access only to degraded land	5
Expectations	Misperception of the realities of farming, or lack of responsibility, ambition and commitment to farming	5
Risk management	Lacking in assessing and managing farming risks, thefts, lack of insurance	5

4.3 Pesticide health and safety practices

In analysing pesticide health and safety practices, this paper has shown from the stakeholder responses and pilot data in Box 1 that there is a lack of awareness about pesticide risks amongst emerging farmers; that exposure prevention measures such as Personal Protective Equipment are limited; and that these farmers engage in high-risk practices (e.g. improper disposal of pesticides). However, what warrants further discussion is the health and safety concern highlighted in this study that emerging farmers are becoming employers of pesticide users.

4.3.1 Employer responsibility for health and safety

Most stakeholders agreed that, unlike subsistence producers, emerging farmers, through the process of seeking ‘commercial farmer’ status, are becoming ‘new employers’ – 40 per cent suggested that emerging farmers employ less than 10 employees. This is supported by findings from the pilot study in Mpumalanga (see Box 1), which suggested that emerging farmers typically rely on small numbers of hired workers (six or fewer) for particular crops (e.g. tomatoes). Given that employment relationships may be common within this sector, emerging farmers not only require agricultural skills, but also require skills, knowledge and insight to meet legal responsibilities for health and safety. However, if employers are unaware of their obligations under the HCS regulations, the hazardous nature of pesticides and the resulting health effects, how can their workers be informed and employers comply? How realistically could an emerging farmer comply with the HCS regulations?

Since ‘emerging farmers’ now occupy a space between commercial farmers, who usually rely on a labour force of permanent and/or seasonal workers, and subsistence farmers, who usually rely on family labour, this suggests that their status as employers may be a blind spot in policy, and in practice overlooked by officials. The extent to which emerging farmers are aware of health and safety standards and regulations, especially when it comes to pesticide use, remains to be identified in future research. Further concerns for future research are: the lack of risk awareness, limited availability and use of protective clothing, and high-risk pesticide use practices (see Box 1).

5. CONCLUSION

Despite policy commitments and programmes to support ‘emerging’ farmers, there is little clarity on who constitutes such a farmer, what he or she is emerging from and to, and the feasibility of such farmers becoming successful commercial farmers in the current economic and policy environment. The views of stakeholders in this study suggest that emerging farmers face substantial obstacles to increasing their scales of operation and capital intensity. The concept of ‘emerging farmers’ has tiers – ranging from those who produce largely for their own consumption but aspire to greater income from production, to those marketing most or all of their output. Data in this study suggest that agricultural officials and other practitioners who support these farmers tend to privilege commercial production, and presume the need to increase production inputs to raise incomes. By contrast, alternative forms of production, such as smallholder, semi-subsistence, part-time, low input and organic, are not much in evidence. This suggests that the sector is being pushed towards high-input forms of production and monocropping. The net effect of these policies is an over-riding imperative towards commercialisation of production involving the use of pesticides.

Redressing inequalities in South African agriculture, critical for South Africa's social fabric and development, requires solutions beyond just encouraging emerging farmers to adopt the technologies and practices of the established commercial farming. If the health and safety of the farmer and the farmer's support network (family and paid labour force) is undermined by the perception that pesticide use leads to economic gains, then in the long run the hidden externalised costs of pesticides (the health cost to the farmer) may negate short-term economic gains from agricultural production with pesticides. Further, these health effects and costs also undermine poverty reduction and food security efforts.

Thus, adequate occupational health and safety systems must accompany pesticide use. However, the DoL, as the authority responsible for controlling health and safety risks at all workplaces, does not have the ability, infrastructure or finances to service the agricultural sector adequately. Emerging farmers, faced with the arduous task of trying to achieve ‘commercial’ status, are particularly vulnerable because they depend on biased sources of information about health and safety in relation to pesticides.

Advocating for improved capacity-building and support for health and safety in agriculture does not mean perpetuating assumptions about the status quo of pesticide use. Thus, skills, technical advice and health and safety support should be offered not just on the assumption that pesticide use is necessary, but also that viable alternatives and low-cost forms of pest control for agricultural production must be provided for emerging farmers. In particular, integrated pest management and organic farming need to be made accessible to this farming sector. The present system of existing commercial farmers mentoring emerging farmers should include mentors who are using integrated pest management and organic methods.

5.1 Policy implications

Some key policy implications emanating from this research are:

•	Emerging farmers constitute a relatively unregulated sector in terms of: • Pesticide use. • Occupational health and safety. • Labour relations.
•	There is a need for support and development in terms of occupational health and safety for emerging farmers. Some means for achieving this would be as follows: • Increase the number of DoL inspectors dedicated to emerging farmers. • Improve the mechanisms for the monitoring and surveillance of emerging farmers' use of pesticides.
•	The sources of pesticide information and training provided to emerging farmers should be free of vested interest, and standardised and evaluated by an independent body.
•	There is a need to improve health and safety conditions for emerging farmers' employees.
•	There is a need to build up strong extension services for emerging farmers that provide unbiased information, resources, training and other support.
•	Government guidelines are needed to regulate the role of industry and other interested parties to ensure specified standards are met without promoting sectoral interests that may be to the disadvantage of emerging farmers.

5.2 Future research

Future research on emerging farmers' use of pesticides should take place at several levels:

•	At the economic and risk-benefit level, research is needed to assess how much credit finance is being used by emerging farmers to purchase pesticides and what proportion of their total debt can be attributed to pesticides.
•	Research is needed on the viability and accessibility of various agricultural production methods for pest management (e.g. integrated pest management organic farming), taking into account health and safety costs.
•	There is an urgent need for accurate (unbiased) data on the quantities of pesticides used by emerging farmers, taking into consideration levels of product toxicity.

Policy-makers and researchers need to make explicit what is currently invisible – that emerging farmers are using pesticides in the absence of adequate support and regulation. Pesticide use by emerging farmers must be comprehensively addressed, especially through intersectoral collaboration, so that these farmers can truly benefit from, and contribute to, economic development in South Africa.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the key informant stakeholders who took time to participate in this study and impart their valuable knowledge, and the project research assistants Joanne Stevens, Sandy Tolosana, Tembi Qondela and Shehaam Brinkhuis for their hard work and perseverance in following up stakeholders. This project was supported by a National Institute for Health Research Grant #R21TWO6515 funded by the Fogarty International Center and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the USA.