Labour flexibility in African horticulture

The production of fresh fruit and vegetables for European markets has become big business in Africa. In Kenya and South Africa, horticultural exports comprise 20-30 per cent of the total agricultural export trade, creating substantial opportunities for earning wages and self-employment.

Over the past decade, the global horticultural sector has undergone significant restructuring. Today, horticultural products are increasingly integrated with the world market and are a part of global ‘value chains’ linking firms and farmers in Africa with powerful UK supermarkets, among others. The increasing dominance of supermarket buyers has imposed stringent requirements for quality standards (food safety, environmental and social), quantity and timely delivery of products. This has raised the barriers to participation in lucrative export markets. At the same time, global forces such as trade liberalisation and shifts in consumer demand have intensified the competition and opportunities faced by countries exporting horticulture. They also present new challenges in accessing overseas markets.

More flexibility

The competitive pressures of the value chain have a significant effect on African workers involved in horticultural exports. While South Africa and Kenya differ in terms of local context and regulatory environment, in both cases horticulture producers are responding to volatile global markets and the pressures of the value chain by increasing the proportion of irregular, flexible workers in labour forces. Flexible labour practices enable exporters to drive down wage and social benefit costs such as sick pay, while shifting the risks of production and the costs of maintaining the labour force onto workers and their families. In Kenya, this has entailed a reduction in sourcing goods from smallholders and the increased use of casual labour (mainly female) on large-scale farms and processing facilities. In South Africa, it has led to a reduction in the use of permanent on-farm labour and increased use of contract workers, with mixed gender consequences.

Increasing vulnerability

Flexible employment is not necessarily detrimental to workers, but evidence from African horticulture suggests that ‘informal’ work increases their vulnerability. Workers typically have no benefits or contracts and are more susceptible to being shed during periods of low labour demand. The disadvantages of flexibility are also disproportionately absorbed by women, who make up the majority of casual and seasonal labour forces. Flexible employment has enabled more women to enter the labour force, but they are often employed on less favourable terms. Horticulture companies capitalise on the willingness of women to rearrange their lives flexibly.

If flexibility remains important to the employment strategies of horticulture firms, flexible workers need to be provided with greater labour protection. This does not have to undermine the competitive position of horticulture producers in European Union markets. There is some evidence that companies that offer benefits to all workers are rewarded through worker loyalty, lower turnover and higher productivity, and they are better able to provide overseas buyers with quality products. However, this cannot be realised without a concerted effort on the part of the stakeholders, who must all play a role in raising labour conditions.

Employers should:

• extend benefits to all workers regardless of employment status
• provide a more ‘engendered’ working environment, such as childcare and transport
• invest in training so that flexible workers can upgrade their employment prospects
• ensure an equal opportunity and living wage policy.

Governments should:

• ensure that flexible and informal workers are included in national labour legislation
• ensure that International Labour Organization (ILO) core conventions are ratified and enforced
• provide state assistance for childcare.

Trade unions should:

• amend union constitutions to include informal/flexible workers
• extend collective agreements to cover informal/flexible workers
• promote gender equality through collective bargaining.

Buyers/supermarkets should:

• include coverage of informal workers in the codes of conduct applied to suppliers
• issue stable contracts with a fair and transparent pricing system, thus reducing the pressure on suppliers to offload risks onto flexible workers.

Catherine Dolan and Stephanie Barrientos

Catherine Dolan
School of Development Studies
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK

c.dolan@uea.ac.uk or dolancatherine@earthlink.net

Stephanie Barrientos
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

T +44 (0)1273 877032

s.barrientos@ids.ac.uk

See also

‘The Poverty of Work and Social Cohesion in Global Exports: the case of South African fruit’, in Beyond Solidarity? Globalisation and Social Cohesion in South Africa, D. Chidester (ed.), HSRC and NEDLAC, by S. Barrientos and A. Kritzinger, 2003 (forthcoming)

‘From Farm to Packhouse: Employment at the Bottom of a Global Value Chain’, in Rural Sociology, by C. Dolan, 2003 (forthcoming)

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.