Huelva

Latino farmworkers confront multiple educational, training, linguistic, and cultural barriers when they come to Canada or the USA to work. To ascertain the most urgent training needs related to agricultural OHS, and to explore how such training can best be adapted to particular cultural and agricultural contexts, some scholars suggest instituting a participatory needs assessment. A participatory approach can also be useful for evaluating training programs and educational materials (Isaacs & Bean, 1995; Velázquez, 1996; Arcury et al., 2010). In general, to improve agricultural OHS education and training for farmworkers, it may also be useful to conduct exploratory research that takes account worker ethnicity, literacy levels, and sociocultural backgrounds (Arcury & Quandt, 2003; McCauley, Shapiro, Scherer, & Lasarev, 2004). In conjunction with enhanced safety legislation and regulation, a deeper understanding of literacy issues and sociocultural particularities may help stakeholders to identify and develop suitable content and techniques for agricultural OHS training programs. Whatever the combination of information and pedagogical practices, it may be necessary to offer some training at agricultural worksites or in other locations that are readily accessible to workers (McCauley et al., 2004; Field & Tormoehlen, 2006; Snipes, Thompson, O’Connor, Shell-Duncan, King, & Herrera, 2009; Arcury et al., 2010; Barnetson, 2012).

38

Many Latino migrant farmworkers lack the communication and literacy skills (in any language) that are required to learn effectively from conventional agricultural OHS training programs (Arcury et al., 2010). To effectively transfer knowledge in a multicultural environment, communicators need to listen to workers, value the knowledge that workers possess, and build relationships of trust and mutual appreciation (Kayes & Yamazaki, 2005). They also need the ability to translate complex concepts into language that can be readily assimilated by people with quite different life experiences and worldviews (Kayes & Yamazaki, 2005). The effort involved should not be minimized but the potential payoffs for providing culturally adapted and effective OHS training include “reduced insurance costs for employers, improved incomes for workers, and lower health care costs for everyone” (Arcury et al., 2010, p. 10). To this must be added, better mental and physical health for workers, improved working relations, and agricultural workplaces and production systems that can better meet robust, multidimensional definitions of sustainable.

Such multidimensional definitions include, of course, the idea that stakeholder economic interests (migrant workers included) do not jeopardize the individual and collective social wellbeing of all those involved in agriculture (Foladori, 2006; Bitsch, 2010). Although the concepts of

sustainability and sustainable development are contested and no consensus exists on a singular definition, I considered it important to present a working definition of sustainability as a starting point for further discussion. The National Academy of Sciences (2010) states that “sustainability has been described as the ability to provide for core societal needs in a manner that can be readily continued into the indefinite future without unwanted negative effects” (p. 23). Sustainability in agriculture includes ensuring the wellbeing of farmers, farmworkers, local communities, food consumers, and society at large, and thus is not only about taking care of the environment and assuring the economic viability of the enterprises involved (NAS, 2010). While this “definition” has strengths, it may need some refinement to include other important factors and dimensions. It can be argued, for example, that “sustainability” should also include attention to honouring and advancing the sociocultural and political characteristics and interests of stakeholders such as their democratic and civil rights, inter-group and intragroup equity, and their cosmovision and

39

Vogel (2003) and Bitsch (2010) note that the lack of consensus as to what social sustainability in agriculture entails is a conceptual challenge among stakeholders and international agencies. Bitsch proposes that social sustainability in agriculture is a process of promoting social justice, labour rights, decent treatment of all farmworkers, and overall community development. The community level is key to conceptualizing and promoting sustainability. Provided that they do not impinge on the rights of others, each group of people and each community should have the freedom to define and refine sustainability goals according to their own realities and needs (Barkin, 2000).

Especially given the socioeconomic impacts of neoliberal globalization, labourers and labour issues should be integrated into agricultural sustainability indicators (Bitsch, 2010; Szell, 2014). Of course, the agricultural production systems must also aim to preserve natural resources and to minimize pollution caused by the indiscriminate use of synthetic and toxic agrochemicals (NAS, 2010). The health of workers is an important aspect of environmental health and the World Health Organization (1995) reports that investing in OHS also increases productivity, promotes social development, and generates economic growth. Robust OHS standards and practices are consistent with a vision of sustainability that involves simultaneously addressing economic prosperity, social wellbeing and equity, and environmental protection. It is central and essential to any conception of sustainable development that calls for addressing multidimensional

stakeholder interests in ways that concurrently promote synergies and (economic, social, and environmental) multipliers while avoiding untenable trade-offs and injustices (WCED, 1988; Gertler, 2006; IISD, 2010).

With respect to the future of worker training, some scholars and advanced practitioners would argue that it is necessary to reconceptualise the endeavour, to move beyond a focus on the provision of appropriately packaged information towards a more transformative educational process that helps learners to make meaningful changes in their personal and working lives (Freire, 2000; Jackson, 2007). The adult education approaches of Freire (and those inspired by his teachings) hold considerable promise in this regard. Freire developed and refined his educational philosophy and techniques in Latin America. His broadly focused approach to literacy and consciousness-raising is widely used to address the education needs of marginalized

40

people. According to Freire, educators should encourage learners to be critical thinkers and creative learners. He argues that, in order to design and deliver effective educational programs, workers’ worldviews and social realities have to be taken into account (Freire, 2000; Jackson, 2007). Other researchers and educators have suggested that one also needs to understand workplace power relations and the politics of OHS legislation in order to design and implement effective OHS education and training programs (Elkind, 2007; Flocks et al., 2013; Anderson & Lundqvist, 2014).

As argued by Preibisch and Otero (2014) above, Colligan and Cohen (2004) and Barnetson (2012) maintain that provision of OHS education and training alone is not likely to be sufficient to prevent workplace injuries. Barnetson suggests that OHS training must be accompanied by the enforcement of OHS legislation and by regular and systematic government oversight. According to Barnetson (2012) “there is no evidence that education is more effective than legislation at reducing injuries and weak support that educational programs reduce occupational injuries, with no evidence of this in agriculture” (Barnetson, 2012, p. 146). Moreover, although adequate OHS legislation is crucial, Barnetson argues that legislation alone is not sufficient because compliance is not assured. For Barnetson, a combination of effective education, robust OHS legislation, employer commitment, and vigilant enforcement will be necessary to ensure the wellbeing of farmworkers and their employers.