Module 4: LIVELIHOODS AND HUMAN WELLBEING

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

[email protected]

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.

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/

mailto:[email protected]

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

http://www.ricbret.com/

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.

http://www.san.ag/learningandsupport/resources/biblioteca.php?cat=101



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


The workers do not suffer sexual harassment or abuse.


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.


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.


Workers receive at least the minimum wage.


The worst forms of child labor are prohibited.

According to the ILO Convention on the Worst Form of Child Labor No. 182


Certain conditions are guaranteed for the hiring of young workers.

According to ILO Convention on Minimum Age, No. 138


Practices or arrangements that reduce or eliminates workers’ payment or benefits are not used.


Grievance mechanisms are implemented to protect the workers rights.


Regular working hours do not exceed 48 hours a week.


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


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


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.

http://www.san.ag/learningandsupport/resources/documento.php?id=168

In cases of workplace harassment


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


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


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.

http://www.ilo.org/ipec/programme/lang--en/index.htm




Compliance with labor legislationRelated criteria


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.


The tool series Social Auditing Techniques

contains detailed information on good

practices for auditing social topics.








Compliance with labor legislationReal cases


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


• 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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.


• 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.


• 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


• 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


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


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.


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.


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.


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?

http://www.assal.gov.ar/

http://www.labioguia.com/notas/filtro-de-arena

http://educein11a.blogspot.com/2014/07/uso-y-preparacion-del-vida-suero-oral.html


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


http://www.globallivingwage.org/



http://www.san.ag/learningandsupport/resources/documento.php?id=174

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).


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?


http://www.isealalliance.org/our-work/improving-effectiveness/global-living-wage-coalition

Access to education and health servicesunder the 2017 Standard


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


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


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


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?


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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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


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?

Module 4: LIVELIHOODS AND HUMAN WELLBEING

Documents