Personal safety issues related to the use of pesticides in agricultural production in the Al-Batinah region of Northern Oman

Said Al Zadjalia,b, Stephen Morseb, Jonathan Chenowethb and Mike Deadmanc*

aMinistry of Environment and Climate Affairs, P O Box 321 Muscat 100, Sultanate of Oman.

bCentre for Environmental Strategy, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7JH, UK.

cDepartment of Crop Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, P O Box 34, Al Khod 123, Sultanate of Oman.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Pesticide-related safety standards are frequently poor on many farms in Northern Oman
  • Pesticides are frequently stored within the living accommodation of farm workers
  • Safety standards generally increase with the education status of farm workers
  • A local farmers’ association (FA) has the effect of raising safety standards on member’s farms
  • Farm workers appear more likely to conform to the behaviour shown by owners of FA farms, with increased safety awareness aligned to national standards

ABSTRACT

The level of uptake and use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by farm workers in Oman is low; the conditions under which pesticides are stored are frequently below acceptable international standards. Research was undertaken to explore the drivers working against safe storage of agrochemicals and effective personal protection usage by pesticide application personnel. Results from a survey of over 200 respondents, representing workers on, and owners of, farms either within or outside a local farmer’s association (FA), suggest that FA membership raises standards of behaviour both in terms of safe pesticide storage and use of PPE. Age of respondents had no apparent effect on the likelihood of PPE (gloves and masks) use. PPE use was, however, highest among respondents with more advanced educational backgrounds. Positive responses for glove and mask use, when applying pesticides, were higher for owners and workers on FA farms compared to non-FA farms. Lowest reported use of PPE was amongst workers on non-FA farms. Analysis of responses appears to indicate that behaviour patterns of workers on FA farms mirror that of the farm owners. This was not the case on non-FA farms. The results suggest that conformity to social norms, in this case acceptable work-environment behaviour, is a powerful driver behind raised usage levels of PPE on farms in Oman.

*Corresponding author:

Keywords: pesticides, pesticide storage, personal protective equipment, socio-economic aspects, safety, Oman

1. Introduction

Previous research in Oman has suggested that membership of a local farmers’ association can bring about an apparent increase in the level of adoption of safe-practice procedures related to pesticide use at the farm level(Al Zadjali et al., 2013; 2014). This appears to affect the choice of pesticide products with fewer prohibited pesticides encountered on farms that belong to a local association (Al Zadjali et al., 2014). For example, on farms within the local association 1.3% of products encountered were prohibited under local legislation compared to 4.9% on farms not in the local association (Al Zadjali et al., 2014). Similarly farms outside of the association were more likely to be using older pesticide types, especially organo-phosphates and pyrethroids, whilst farms within the association were more likely to be using neonicotinoid (not currently restricted in Oman) and strobin containing products (Al Zadjali et al., 2014). Membership of an association also appears to raise the level of awareness with regard to methods used for the safe disposal of pesticide waste (Al Zadjali et al., 2013). These papers by Al Zadjali et al (2013; 2014) appear to be the first, not just from Oman, but also elsewhere, to report an effect of farmers’ association membership on improved safe use of pesticides at the farm level. However, even if membership of a local association decreases the use of prohibited pesticides and improves the procedures adopted for the safe disposal of pesticide waste, changes in other aspects of pesticide use remain to be determined – in particular the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the safe storage of pesticide products before and after use. These are important issues given the increasing political emphasis being placed on encouraging the establishment of more local associations across the country and given that local legislation places the onus of PPE purchase on the farm owner. Previous work (Al Zadjali et al, 2013, 2014; Al Zadjali, 2014) has described in general the economic and social benefits that accrue to members of the local association.

In a multi-year survey covering more than 8500 smallholder farmers in 26 countries, Matthews (2008)found that the highest proportion of those applying pesticides but declining to use some elements of PPE was in Asian countries, with Bangladesh being the highest. The reasons for low uptake of PPE adoption in countries such as Bangladesh are unclear but could have important ramifications for Oman where nationals from this country make up the overwhelming majority of farm workers (Al Zadjali et al., 2013). The likely reasons for low use of PPE have been classified into four main strands by Feola and Binder (2010). First, socio-demographic factors such as age, education and gender and/or socio-economic factors such as income and education status (Salameh et al., 2004; Mekonnen and Agonafir, 2002) may be disincentives to PPE use. Second, the significant cost may limit farmers’ access to equipment, especially for smaller scale farmers (Yassin et al, 2002; Matthews, 2008). Feola & Binder’s (2010) third strand suggests the importance of contingent and/or external factors such as pesticide label information accessibility (Gomes et al., 1999; Waichmann et al., 2007) and discomfort felt by those working in the field (Cole, et al., 2002); this may be important in Oman where temperatures during the growing season can reach 40oC. The fourth strand identified by Feola and Binder (2010) include personal values and cultural orientation influencing risk perception (Palis et al., 2006). Feola and Binder (2010) raise a further category of factors influencing PPE use– social norms including peer pressure. Citing influences such as symbolic sanction (including mockery) it has been suggested that these factors might, through social conformity, work against the use of protective equipment (Feola and Binder, 2010).

In the current study the presence of a recently constituted local farmers’ association in the northern part of Oman (Al Zadjali et al., 2013) provides the opportunity to examine a further factor related to social norms, namely employer pressure or expected behaviour norms applied to workers. The extent to which workers on farms conform to behaviour patterns prescribed by farm owners could provide insights into further mechanisms by which PPE use could be increased. In effect, is there evidence to suggest that membership of a farmers association, and the various factors that may be associated with that such as exposure to information, training and 'peer' pressure, results in enhanced use of PPE amongst farm workers employed by farm owners? While at first glance this covers similar drivers to those noted by Feola and Binder (2010) it raises the important issue of targeting. If farm owners become convinced over the need for PPE then can they not override the constraints to PPE adoption that one may see amongst farm workers?To date this potentially important contribution has not been explored in the literature.

2. Materials and methods

A detailed description of the study area has been given by Al Zadjali et al. (2013; 2014). The study was based within the Al-Batinah region since it represents the most important agricultural region of Oman and has similarities in terms of crop production methods to much of the region (Al Zadjali, 2014). From 171 farms randomly selected from those listed in the agricultural census database in Al-Batinah North and Southgovernorates, face to face interviews were carried out between January and November 2012 (but excluding the May – September summer months when agricultural activities are minimal). A structured questionnaire was implemented with 213 farm worker and farm owner respondents. Respondents were divided into those from farms belonging to the recently constituted FA and those from non-FA farms. Within each group the respondents were divided into workers and owners in roughly equal proportion. 'Owners' here are defined as those who actually own the farm and derive the benefits from selling produce. They may not necessarily be resident on the farm, but they are the ones who may become members of a farmers association. 'Workers' are in essence the labourers who work and, in most cases, live on the farm. The worker respondents were represented by the ‘foreman’ or senior-most labourer present (Al Zadjali et al., 2013; 2014). The workers cannot become members of a farmers association, only the owners. Thus there were four categories of respondent in total:

(a) FA - farm owner

(b) FA - farm worker

(c) Non-FA - farm owner

(d) Non-FA - farm worker

The emphasis of the survey was to determine the level of adherence to safety procedures related to pesticide storage, pesticide application and the use of personal protective equipment. Exploring differences in attitude between the owners of the farm– those with the responsibility it might be thought to supply guidelines for safe pesticide use and provision of personal protective equipment, and those employed as essentially migrant workers – those with the responsibility for pesticide application procedures and ultimately for deciding whether or not to implement safety procedures including the use of protective equipment, was a key objective of the survey. General questions about farm size and labourer’s nationality were included. Farms were grouped into sizes classes as very small (<2.5 ha), small (2.6 - 5.0 ha), small – medium (5.1 –10.0 ha), medium (10.1 – 15.0 ha), medium - large (15.1 – 30.0 ha) and large (> 30.0 ha). Information on respondents’age and education status were also included so as to explore differences between the FA and non-FA categories and how this might explain any differences in knowledge and practice. The questionnaire was semi-structured in nature.

For question on pesticide storage, responsibility for pesticide application and types of clothing worn during application respondents were given prepared lists of key words (see Table 1) and asked to indicate their response. Two additional Likert scale questions were also included to determine the supply/use of specific pieces of personal protective equipment, namely facemasks and gloves. No attempt was made to distinguish types of gloves or masks at this stage. Data were analysed for significant differences in response to Likert scale questions using the Kruskal-Wallis test for mean rank separation with P<0.05 taken to indicate a significant difference between mean ranks. Where significant differences in respondent group mean rank were indicated (P<0.05), individual mean rank values were separated by calculating the z-value for the threshold of significance using the method of Gwet (2011) implemented for Microsft Excel 2010.

3. Results

3.1 Sample description

The profile of the sample, average farm size and average respondent age has been described elsewhere (Al Zadjali et al., 2013; 2014). Briefly, the 213 respondents were distributed between FA farm workers (52), FA Farm owners (54), non-FA farm workers (51) and non-FA farm owners (56). All respondents were male. Among the farm workers, Bangladeshi nationals represented the largest group in both FA and non-FA farms (87 in total, 87% of workers and 40.8% of all respondents). All owners of FA and non-FA farms were Omani nationals. Farm size varied from less than 1 ha to over 500 ha, with an average of 16.8 ha. There were generally more very small and small farms within the non-FA group, whilst the FA group had more farms within the medium – large and large size classes (Supplementary Table 1).

The age profile of the respondents is shown in Supplementary Table 1. Respondent were aged between 23 and 72 years with an average of 44.1. Workers (mean 39.7) and owners (45.5) on FA farms were generally younger than those on non-FA farms (40.1 and 50.1 respectively for workers and owners) and workers (39.9) were generally younger than owners (47.9). The educational background of the respondents is shown in Supplementary Table 1. A considerable proportion of the respondents had no formal education (44, 20.7%) or had just elementary education (70, 32.9%). Thirty one respondents (14.6%) were educated to a tertiary level. Workers from FA farms generally had higher levels of education than those from non-FA farms, and owners of farms belonging to the FA generally had a higher level of education than owners of non-FA farms.

3.2 Safety issues related to pesticide use

When respondents were asked about the place of storage of pesticides prior to use all workers and owners from FA farms who responded reported that agrochemicals were stored in a dedicated area on the farm (Table 1). In contrast, on non-FA farms 60.8% of workers and 23.2% of owners reported that pesticides were stored within the building used for accommodation by the workers themselves. The discrepancy between the information provided by workers and owners might suggest either that owners are unaware of the location of pesticide storage, or that they are reporting that pesticides are stored in a separate place whilst the reality might be different. For non-FA farms as farm size increased the proportion of farms using dedicated pesticide storage facilities increased from 40.0% (very small size class) to 58.0% (medium size class) and 100% (large size class).

< TABLE 1 NEAR HERE >

When asked who applies pesticides on the farm, 63.5% of workers on FA farms reported that identifiable key workers were assigned this duty. This is lower than the result obtained from FA farm owners where 81.5% of owner respondents indicated that only key workers apply pesticides. This time it is possible that owner respondents were inflating the apparent likelihood of pesticide application responsibilities being assigned to specific individuals (Table 1). On non-FA farms, the reported level of pesticide application duties being assigned to specific individuals was broadly similar for workers (31.4% of respondents) and owners (33.9%).

Workers on FA farms were more likely to wear specified items of protective clothing (Table 1). In each case, workers on FA farms reported a greater use of overalls, hats and boots; goggles or glasses appeared to be more widely used by workers on non-FA farms than by those on FA farms. Amongst the farm owner respondents, the reported use of personal protective clothing was, in all cases, higher for FA farm owners than for non-FA farm owners (Table 1). Again there was a discrepancy between the reported use of protective clothing by FA farm workers and the supply of such equipment by FA farm owners. For overalls, hats and goggles/glasses the reported supply by owners was higher than the actual reported use by workers. Either equipment is supplied and not used or owners of FA farms are exaggerating the level of supply to their workers. Interestingly, the discrepancy between supply and use of protective clothing was lower for non-FA farms (Table 1).

The results of the first of two specific Likert-scale questions concerning personal protective equipment are shown in Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean rank showed significant differences between the four groups (H = 70.81, P < 0.0001). Asked about the use of facemasks by those applying pesticides, similar responses were obtained from workers and owners on FA farms, with a large majority of respondents indicating that facemasks are always (13/47 for workers and 24/53 for owners) or usually (32/47 for workers, 25/53 for owners) worn. In contrast there was a discrepancy in the responses obtained on non-FA farms (Table 2). The majority of non-FA farm owners reported that facemasks are usually (22/56) or sometimes (20/56) worn. Workers on non-FA farms however mostly reported that facemasks are sometimes (10/51) or never (26/51) worn. Here it appears that owners of non-FA farms may be inflating the reported supply or usage of personal protective equipment. It is also possible that facemasks are supplied but workers decline to use them.

< TABLE 2 NEAR HERE >

In order to determine whether response to the question about facemask supply/use was affected by age, each group of respondents was sub-divided into age class cohorts (Supplementary Table 2). No significant differences in mean rank were observed in either the farm worker or farm owner groups of FA and non-FA farms even though in all groups except the FA farm owners, mean rank was higher amongst the older cohorts suggesting a increasing commitment to protective equipment with increasing age.

In a similar way respondents from each of the four groups were separated according to the highest level of education reported (Supplementary Table 3). Except in the case of the FA farm owners, mean rank was highest with increasing levels of education, suggesting a greater commitment to personal protective equipment. The differences in mean rank within the non-FA farm workers and owners were significant (P < 0.05, Supplementary Table 3) and in both cases those with no education showed the lowest mean rank (lowest commitment to protective equipment).

The second Likert-scale question concerned the use/supply of gloves by those applying pesticides (Table 3). There were significant differences in mean rank of the Likert-scale responses between the four groups. The lowest mean rank, and thus lowest level of commitment to the use of gloves was shown by non-FA farm workers; the highest mean rank was shown by FA farm owners, significantly different from the other groups (H = 66.00, P < 0.0001); FA farm workers and non-FA owners showed intermediate responses.