What is the prospect for the future of OHS in Norwegian agriculture?

Nordic Meeting on Agricultural Occupational Health and Safety (NMAOHS) Kongsberg, Norway – August 25, 2003

Alvhild Hedstein Political Adviser, the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure, to give an opening address at the Nordic Meeting on Agricultural Occupational Health and Safety.

As mentioned in the invitation, this Nordic meeting has been arranged several times, and Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have altered being hosts. It is a pleasure to see that so many delegates from our Nordic neighbours and other countries have had the opportunity to visit Norway and this meeting. On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I would like to welcome you all to Norway.

I have been asked to give a prospect of the future of Occupational health and safety (OHS) in Norwegian agriculture. This prospect is based on the Governments overall agricultural policy. Agricultural occupational health, environment and safety has been, and will be, important to safeguard living- and working conditions in agriculture. The importance of this work is underlined by a tragic accident here in Norway one month ago where three persons died because of toxic vapours. This is only one example out of many of the different risks farmers face in their daily work. Agriculture is the industry that faces the highest health risk in economic life in Norway. Our objective must be to reduce such risks to a minimum and stop the accidents.

Facts about Norwegian Agriculture

Norway is the northern-most country in Europe. Its mainland extends from 58 to 71 degrees North. This is a total distance of about 1 750 km, which is more than the distance between Oslo and Rome. The population density is only 13 inhabitants per square km, the second lowest in Europe.

Arable land represents only 3% of the total area of Norway, and only 1% is suitable for production of cereals. The average farm size is about 12 ha arable land. The average field size is only 1,5 ha, and nearly 20 per cent of the agricultural area has a gradient exceeding 1:5. Dairy farms have an average herd of 15,5 cows. The number of farms in Norway has decreased from 150 000 in 1969 to less than 60 000.

The Norwegian policy of promoting livestock production in less favoured areas has been an important instrument in food security policy and regional policy. This policy has resulted in a concentration of cereal production in the best agricultural areas, which also are the most populated areas. A relatively large extent of the agricultural output, mainly livestock production, is carried out in areas where there are few alternative means of livelihood.

The main productions are dairy and meat products, cereals and temperate fruits and vegetables. About three quarters of farm income is derived from livestock production and one quarter from crop production. The production is almost entirely destined for the national market and plays an important role in ensuring national food security, sustaining the viability of rural areas and safeguarding certain environmental qualities.

The arctic and sub arctic conditions in Norway are characterised by harsh climate and low temperatures. The growing season is short, and varies between 100 and 190 days, depending to a large extent on latitude. The indoor period for livestock varies from about 230 to 290 days a year.

In Norway, although agriculture only contributes to less than 4 % of the total employment at the national level, it is a main employer in many rural communities. As a result of upstream and downstream linkages, agriculture contributes to substantial employment in other sectors. Agricultural employment is gradually decreasing, and substantial efforts have been made to diversify the economy and generate alternative employment opportunities in the rural areas. This is of great relevance, as several rural communities have critical low population levels.

Most of these regions are not able to compete in worldwide markets. Production costs are high compared to most other countries. All the disadvantages stemming from a harsh climate, a short growing season, long distances, a difficult topography, a low population density and a small-scale structure, combined with a generally high cost level, result in a low degree of competitiveness at world market prices.

Agricultural policy - history and challenges in the future

The Ministry of Agriculture has been closely associated with the emergence of regional issues in the politics, as well as issues of environmental protection. Food quality, public health and research have now been just as important items as the development and the administration of our agriculture. There has also been an increased focus on working conditions in the agriculture in Norway. Occupational health and safety has been an important area of concentration for the Government as well as for the farmer unions.

Measures in the agricultural sector are not only based on income considerations. First and foremost, they aim at ensuring a sufficient level of public goods, such as food security, high standards of plant, animal and public health, viability of rural areas, sustainable growth, environmental protection, agro-biological diversity, cultural heritage and land conservation, demanded by the society. These additional functions cannot be disassociated from agricultural production activities themselves. We are talking about the multifunctional agriculture. The total effect of agriculture`s various functions represents its total contribution to society. The Government believes that an competetive agricultural industry and an active food production in all districts of the country constitute an important platform for the satisfactory achievement of major social goals.

International framework conditions are of major importance for agriculture in the future. In an international context, the Government will seek to ensure sufficient flexibility and room for manouvre to safeguard an active national agricultural policy, which provides a basis for farming in all districts of the country, for safe high-quality food, and for good plant and animal health.

Occupational Health, Environment and Safety in Norway

First I would like to point out that the Ministry of Labour and Government Administration is responsible for the general legislative measure concerning occupational health, environment and safety, called the Working Environment Act.

The Ministry of Labour and Government Administration has worked on issues concerning agriculture and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The Convention No. 184: Safety and Health in Agriculture adopted by the ILO in 2001 is under discussion, but the Government has not decided the time for ratification of the convention yet.

The Ministry of Agriculture first and foremost contributes to an increased awareness of occupational health and safety in Norwegian Agriculture.

In January 1994 the Norwegian Farmers Union and the Norwegian Farmer and Smallholders Union established the Norwegian Farmers Association for Occupational Health and Safety (NFAOHS), in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture.

This was a result of a process that had started in 1982, when a Programme for occupational environment was launched. Efforts were made to establish a specialised occupational health service for agriculture. In the Agricultural Agreement in 1987 the parties allocated necessary money for a project aiming to find possible organisational models. An evaluation of this project made the background for the establishment and development of the non-profit organisation we today know as the Norwegian Farmers Association for Occupational Health and Safety (NFAOHS), the organisers of this meeting.

NFAOHS was evaluated in 2000, and the analysis recommended continued activity and further emphasis to its work. The objectives and activities of the NFAOHS are important for an occupational group exposed to relatively high health risks. It also affects the whole agricultural industry and society through the importance and value of preventive occupational health-, environment and safety work (HES).

The evaluation concluded that the association for occupational health and safety is well organised and, to a great extent, has succeeded in organising an effective occupational health and environment work in agriculture. The members are satisfied by the services the organisation can offer. The efforts made have lead to implementation of preventive measures and increased awareness of occupational health and safety issues among member farmers. The socio-economic value of such effects is assumed to be considerable. In general, death and injuries causes great costs to society. All kinds of preventive occupational health and safety work, leading to a reduction of such injuries, represent a socio-economic benefit.

Other positive characteristics in the evaluation were:

• Education of the agricultural HES-advisors (Health, environment and safety)
• Cooperation with local occupational health services
• The organisations objectives and the ownership
• Engaged colleagues

The main negative characteristics were an insufficient growth in the number of members according to the objectives, and to some extent a lack of engagement from representatives for the farmers unions in some regions. Main challenges for the future is to establish the service in all regions of the country, to increase the number of members, and to engage the farmers unions in recruiting new members.

The future of OHS work in Norway

Insufficient growth in the number of members is the organisations main challenge. In 2002 NFAOHS had about 7 500 members in 41 regions. The long term objective is 22 000 members. The organisation is also working to enlarge the number of service regions.

In my opinion the general agricultural policy in Norway may positively affect the further development of the NFAOHS. There are mainly two reasons for this assumption.

First, we want to make agriculture more competitive, and socially relevant in a way that can be a response to the onward march of globalisation and increased international trade. All thou we do not know the results of the ongoing WTO negotiations; we have to face structural changes in the production of the common agricultural goods. Future measures in the agricultural policy should be based on the following principles:

• Farmers should resume their role as businessmen.
• Farmers should be suitably rewarded for the services they perform for society.
• Farmers should spend the bulk of their working day in the field, and not filling in forms.

We should make farmers more competitive and promote a more market-oriented production. Farmers should utilize the market - more than getting money from the Ministry of Agriculture. This also means that developing new products and markets based on the total resources in the agriculture will be increasingly important in the future.

Future agricultural policy in Norway will emphasise the farmer as a self-employed businessman and give priority to the full-time farmer. Today a relatively large number of farmers are part-time farmers. The evaluation carried out in 2000, found that a relatively larger share of the members of NFAOHS were full-time farmers than part-time farmers. Different analysis shows that there is a correlation between the efforts related to occupational health and safety, and the profitability in agriculture. The profitability in agriculture is limited, which affects OHS conditions negatively. The future priority of the full-time farmer is meant to increase the profitability to professional farmers, and this may contribute to an increase in the number of members.

Second, in Norway the agricultural organisations in cooperation with the authorities, have initiated an extensive quality assurance program. Previously, only the end products were controlled, but now the whole production process from the field to the consumer is controlled. The farmer has to document the procedures for all stages of production. As mentioned earlier, Norwegian agriculture faces many disadvantages in production. Norwegian agriculture can however compete on quality, as the climatic conditions do not encourage plant diseases and pests to the same extent as in other regions.

The agricultural organisations have decided that health, safety and the environment are to be included in the quality control systems of the farm. This was a historic decision, and as far as we know, Norway is the only country where the agricultural sector itself put such demands on its own activity. Every farmer in Norway has to work systematically with this topic on the farm. To get maximum prices for their products, they have to develop an internal control system on occupational health, environment and safety like all other enterprises in the country.

In the Governments opinion, it is very important that this demand is set by the agricultural organisations themselves. NFAOHS may play a vital role in this context, and can offer the necessary expertise and help to implement the quality assurance programme and demands on occupational health, environment and safety at the single farm. It is likely to assume that more farmers will find this service useful.

The importance of funding

The Agricultural Agreement is the formal result of negotiations between the Government and the two farmer unions in Norway. The Agricultural Agreement covers land administration, agriculture, animal husbandry, and the development of new agriculture-based ventures. The Agricultural Agreement aims to safeguard agricultural resources, develop the knowledge base and make a national contribution to creating value and employment in the areas of agriculture and agricultural products. The main economic measures related to agriculture are parts of this agreement.

In the period from 1994 until today, NFAOHS has got a large share of the funding required for developing the organisation and to carry out business from the agreement. The amount of economic resources society are able to put into agriculture is limited, and during the negotiations the farmer unions and the government have given preference to economic measures that directly or indirectly affect the income level of farmers. This has resulted in reduced budget allocations to other agricultural organisation, which may be compared with the NFAOHS. The maintained allocation to NFAOHS is an example of the priority the farmer unions and the government put into this work.

The funding has been necessary to develop the organisation. It has been on the understanding that a larger share of the budget will be funded through membership fees when the number of members increases. As mentioned earlier, the growth in the number of members has not been as high as assumed. In 2003 15,5 million Nkr were allocated from the agricultural agreement. The total budget of the organisation was approximately 17 million Nkr.

It is necessary that NFAOHS in the future increase other sources of funding, such as membership fees. The shift from developing services to an operational phase, should reduce the need of governmental budget allocations. This may require increased prices of the services offered to the farmers. I think it is important and necessary to state that the professional farmer has to be willing to pay for this service.

I cannot guarantee any future budget allocations here today, but I can assure you that the Government intend to continue to give this work priority. I think the farmer unions share this opinion. The main reason is the considerable socio-economic benefit creating a safe and pleasant working place, minimising the risk from health hazard and ensuring a safe environment for children at Norwegian farms.

I wish you all the best - and good luck with the further work and discussions at this meeting. Thank you for your attention.