Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Standards of Employees Working for Water Programme in Tzaneen, Limpopo Province

1. INTRODUCTION

Occupational Health and Safety is a broad discipline concerned with desired health practices and working conditions in organisations, and it focuses on the social, mental, and psychological well-being of the workers. It is regarded as a dual concept that necessitates two actions, namely collaboration and participation on the part of both employers and employees [1].

The Working for Water programme in South Africa has been described by Rivas (2018) as a success; however, there are still challenges that must be addressed, particularly in connection with the health and safety of the employees. Rivas (2018), for instance, discovered that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) used by workers are not always appropriate, comfortable, or worn correctly [2].

Occupational safety and health have become a global concern, particularly for people working in outdoor environments [3], and despite international efforts to address these concerns, it is estimated that 2 million work-related fatalities occur each year. In addition, over 330 million accidents and 160 million work-related diseases occur yearly [4], resulting in more than $1.25 trillion, or 4% of the world’s Growth Development Product, being lost [3]. Statistics show that injuries at work account for a large proportion of all deaths and morbidities in African countries, such as Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe [5]. This picture, which demonstrates a violation of employees’ right to safe and healthy working conditions, has sparked widespread concern at the global, regional, and national levels [4].

According to the World Health Organization’s statistics (2016), the accident rates experienced by low to middle-income countries in African regions, across the industrial, agricultural, and service sectors were the highest globally [6], although Paul, Ghebreyesus, and Sharif (2019) assert that most fatalities occur in the agricultural sector, worldwide [7]. Milios, Beqiri, Whalen, and Jelonek (2019) attribute this state of affairs to low skill levels, the pressure to produce goods and supply a thriving economy, the use of antiquated machinery, and a lack of concern from management for employees’ health and safety [8].

The South African Department of Labour's 2016/2017 annual report notes that the Compensation Fund paid over R2.7 billion during the fiscal year due to workplace injuries and diseases, and most payments were made because of health and safety law violations [9]. Charfeddine, Alma, and Kori (2018) argue that an expenditure of such a huge amount on paying injured workers negatively impacts the economy of the country [10].

The Occupational Health and Safety Act of South Africa No. 85 of 1993, which went into effect in 1994, governs workplace health and safety. This Act provides for the health and safety of the South African workforce by setting boundaries for what constitutes acceptable working conditions [1]. Similarly, South Australia’s Department of Labour (2013), in the country’s Health and Safety Act, provides clear explanations of both health and safety concepts to enable employers and employees to understand their respective responsibilities [11]. The amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act of South Africa No. 85 of 1993 clarifies that the protection provided by the Act applies to all public and private employees in all sectors of the economy. The Act protects all individuals who encounter or are exposed to hazards, regardless of whether they are employed on the premises or not, at the time the incident occurred [12]. Accidents and injuries continue to occur, particularly in the agricultural sector, despite the Act's implementation [13].

The Working for Water programme was established in 1995 by the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to control alien vegetation and alleviate poverty by providing jobs and training to members of low-income communities [14]. This government-funded program's primary goal is to clear alien vegetation from water catchments and riparian areas to protect and restore biodiversity and hydrological functions. Hansen and Donohoe (2017) argue that the program, implemented in all nine South African provinces, is one of the world's very significant, and recognised environmental conservation initiatives on the continent for removing invasive alien vegetation [15]. The Working for Water (WfW) programme has been described as a success. However, Federico and Hanna (2015) maintain that persistent worker-safety challenges must be addressed, and many workers are regularly exposed to occupational hazards, such as harmful herbicides while mixing and spraying, and may suffer injuries and other occupational accidents [16].

The methods of WfW for removing alien vegetation expose workers and contractors to various health risks; for example, WfW employees in Tzaneen are exposed to harmful herbicides meant to kill invasive exotic plants. Rani, Thapa, Kanojia, Sharma, Grewal, and Kaushal (2021) point out that herbicides have acute adverse effects on humans, including respiratory, eye, and skin illnesses. Studies have also confirmed that long-term exposure to herbicides is linked to the development of chronic diseases [17]. Rani et al. (2021) add that the exposure of workers to herbicides increases the risk of soft-tissue sarcoma, non-lymphoma Hodgkin's disease, prostate cancer, neurological impairment, congenital disabilities, and endocrine disruption [17].

Rother, John, Wright, Irlam, Oosthuizen, and Garland, in their research of 2019, contend that the negative health effects of occupational injuries in the Working for Water (WfW) project in South Africa pose a significant public health problem as the impact is felt by both the workers and their families. Workers are also vulnerable to daily hazards, such as sunburn, cuts from the use of sharp objects, and exposure to snakes and poisonous insects [18]. Rani et al. (2024) recommend that these occupational health hazards can be reduced by implementing safety strategies, such as the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); however, there are concerns about the effectiveness of these tools in practice [17].

Other African countries with similar programmes in biodiversity conservation include Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Guinea, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Namibia. Although these countries have financial problems, they are still striving for successful biodiversity conservation. The Africa Wildlife Foundation (2017) states that occupational health and safety is still a concern in all African biodiversity programmes because most employees are uneducated, and there is corruption in allocating funds [19].

2. METHODS AND MATERIALS

3. RESULTS

Demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.

At 63.6% (n=28), most of the study respondents were males, and 36.4% (n=16) were female workers. The study was conducted in a rural area; hence, it can be assumed that communities still believe that men must provide for the family and women must stay at home taking care of the household chores. The age group with the highest rate of respondents was the 30-39 years age group with 59% (n=26). Most respondents, 56.8% (n=25), had secondary education, 29.5% (n=13) had primary education, and only a few 13.6% (n=6) participants had attained tertiary education. Similarly, Kristina J. Elias A, Maria J, et al. (2019) established that forestry is an industry with a highly gendered division of labour in which men dominate across a range of key activities, including harvesting, production, and management [31].

3.1. Job Title of the Respondent

Most respondents (63.6%/ n=28) were general workers; only 4.5% (n=2) were first-aid workers assisting employees in case of any emergencies; 9.1% (n=4) of the respondents were peer educators; 9.1% (n=4) operated saw chains; and 13.7% (n=6) were health and safety officers (Table 2).

The next section focuses on the level of awareness regarding occupational health and safety among employees and contractors in the WfW project in Tzaneen (Table 3).

Workers were asked if the officials of the company conduct compliance monitoring and respondents (86.4% (n=38) reported that they did not; 13.6%(n=6) answered “yes”. About 50% (n=22) responded “yes” when asked if the PPE at work is stored as per the manufacturer’s recommendation. Most workers (70.5% (n=31) responded “yes” that there is a system in place to monitor the contracted employers or the self-employed persons. When workers were asked if they were provided with a First Aid kit, most (86.4%/n=38) answered in the negative. The study findings highlighted that most workers (84.45%) were not aware of the potential hazards associated with radiation exposure, and only 13.6% (n=6) were aware. Most respondents (86.3%/n=38) said they are not taken for induction or training when there is new machinery, while only 13.7% (n=6) responded that they had been taken for orientation. These results concur with those of Federico and Hanna (2015) that there are still diverse challenges that must be addressed in conservation programs (Table 4).

Section C: Role of contractors in the training process of workers.

More than half, 54.5% (n=24) of the workers indicated that they needed training regarding safety and health responsibilities. Most respondents (79.5%/n=35) answered “no” when asked if there was an established schedule for any training required, and only 20.5% (n=9) agreed with the statement. Most respondents (72.7% (n=32) responded “no” when they were asked if workers were evaluated to ensure competency with the training provided, and only 27% (n=12) replied in the affirmative. Most respondents (65.9% (n=29) stated that there was no evaluation of the training provided to ensure its effectiveness, and 56.8% (n=25) respondents maintained that they did not receive any training before starting with the work. Mohamad and Valliappan (2020) concluded that evaluation could help assess the effectiveness of current training, help to improve the quality of future training programmes, identify areas where training is needed, and determine if training has the desired impacts (Table 5).

On the issue of whether there are avenues to assist employees with personal issues and to offer counselling, the majority of the employees (70% (n=31) responded that they had no idea of any existing policies; 23% (n=10) said there were peer educators, while only 7% (n=3) mentioned that there are social workers for that purpose (Table 6).

Table 6 shows the results on whether the workers receive regular medical examinations. Half of the respondents, 50% (n=22), indicated that they had never received any medical examination; 29.5 (n=13) had received an examination once; and 20.5% always receive such examinations.

Section D: Role of Contractors in Promoting Practices to Improve OHS (Table 7).

This section covered the role of contractors in promoting practices to improve OHS. Employees were asked if they knew how to raise safety and health concerns; more than half (59.1%/n=26) responded in the negative, and 40.9% (n=18) responded in the affirmative. Most employees (86.3%/n=38) agreed that there is an evaluation schedule and that there are procedures to investigate health incidents at the workplace.

Table 8 shows a cross-tabulation of the level of education and employee awareness of the potential hazards associated with radiation exposure. From the details, (34,09%) of the employees who were not aware of the potential hazards related to radiation had only primary education, and 36.4% of the employees who were aware had attained tertiary education. The chi-square test was statistically significant as it showed that the level of education influences the level of awareness of the potential hazards associated with radiation (P=0.003, df =2).

4. DISCUSSION

This section discusses the findings of the study with the support of existing literature. An interpretation of the descriptive data generated by this research, conducted among employees of WfW projects in Tzaneen, leads one to conclude that these employees are relatively young and uneducated since most had completed only some level of secondary education. Against the backdrop of the increasing casualisation of workers on the WfW programs, there is a need for stable and regular employment opportunities that would transfer skills to this working population. This explains why the WfW programme is often welcomed as an alternative employment opportunity by residents in a region. However, the findings raise concerns about the extent to which the regulations of Expanded Public Works Programmes (EPWPs) are conscientiously implemented by the projects’ management; for instance, the gender representation target for women was clearly not attained. The reasons for this should be clarified and researched more extensively.

The study also found that, generally, people with low levels of education find employment opportunities in such community programs; however, frequent workplace changes and casualisation of the workforce mean that their lack of knowledge and experience makes occupational health and safety issues more challenging for them. Some participating contractors acknowledged that lack of funding for PPEs necessitates neglecting occupational health and safety training and exercises.

CONCLUSION

In any workplace, occupational safety and health management procedures should be strictly adhered to, and this requires managerial commitment. If employers and employees neglect their respective duties, occupational health and safety standards will be compromised and unable to function effectively. An employer is responsible for compiling accident reports, keeping track of health and safety issues, posting safety alerts and legislative information, and offering health and safety instruction and training. The employer, hence, must establish a safety committee to handle all matters relating to health and safety.

References