This study examined the association between labour intensification due to work intensification and work extensification and ill health in women in certain manufacturing work in the Philippines. Work intensification is defined as more workload for each worker, and work extensification as less deadtime or work rest and more overtime.
The sample was 23 establishments and respondents. Workplace environment monitoring showed exposure to hazards such as noise, chemicals, poor ventilation, and poor illumination. The most prevalent illnesses and health problems were headache and coughs and colds. Results of focus group discussions showed adverse work conditions, hazard exposures among women workers, fast pace of work, close supervision, prevalent occupational illnesses, and management style that do not comply with the national work standards.
The results indicate that the health issues of women workers depend on many factors, such as management and supervisory style, job autonomy, nature of task, and hazard exposures. Lu, Jinky Leilanie Journal of International Women's Studies , 10 4 , Women's Studies Commons. In the remaining countries it was not possible to identify a clear trend. However, to properly interpret the trend in each country, it is necessary also to have in mind the range of the "intensity" level Table 2.
When analysing the sub-indicator on "average level of input expenditure", at Member State level it emerges that Portugal, Greece and Malta are involved in a clear extensification process. Intensification processes were going on in Estonia, Bulgaria, Ireland, Belgium and Cyprus, with different level of input intensity. For the other countries it was possible to identify the level of intensity in inpus use, but not a clear trend over the time. Obviously the average level may hide big differences between regions.
Map 1 shows the regional average level of input expenditure per hectare and the trend, when available and clearly identifiable. For the map, the trend is assessed by comparing averages in given years vs , and therefore the overall picture may look a bit different. In the EU, the share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farms during the period showed a stable trend for most of the farming types, with the exception of horticultural farms and mixed livestock farms Figure 3a.
In particular, the first type of farms decreases its share by 12 percentage points in the period, whereas the second type increases its share by 8 percentage points. For the other types of farms, the changes over the period were around percentage points; a slight decrease of the main indicator from to , followed by a slight increase in The share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms decreased by between 3 and 6 percentage points for most of the farm types between and A particularly fluctuating trend over the period was observed for horticultural farms Figure 3b ; and at the end of the period the share had returned to the initial level.
For low intensity farms Figure 3c there was an increasing trend in the area managed by several types of farms, especially for horticultural farms thereby confirming a clear extensification process indicated in Figure 3a. For mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farms the share decreased by 4 percentage points, demonstrating a general intensification process.
In terms of input expenditure by type of farms, Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in input expenditure - averages and - within the EU group and the group of EU countries that have joined in and after for the different farm types.
It provides at the same time information on the average value of expenditure expressed by the size of the spheres. The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods and is in general stronger for the newer EU Member States than for the EU Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestock farms.
On the contrary, field crop farms, mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in input expenditure in both EU groups. Intensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity.
It is a complex concept involving monitoring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available. Therefore, the concept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator. In this fact sheet, intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price indexes in the year and country in question. The inputs taken into account are fertilisers , pesticides and purchased feed. It allows covering both crop and livestock productions.
Water use could not be included because there is no consistent information available. Energy use is not included since it is addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator Energy use and it would have been difficult to interpret the results.
This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farms with different input use. At aggregated level, a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farms together with an increase or no change in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted as extensification, the contrary for intensification.
In a given region or Member State, a rise in the share of UAA managed by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by high intensity farms. This is interpreted as "no clear trend".
This is also "no clear trend" when the shares of UAA in the three intensity classes remain fairly stable, or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend. This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use. To identify a process towards intensification or extensification, the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-year averages, and In all the other cases a clear trend was not recognizable.
FADN is a European system of sample surveys conducted every year to collect structural and accountancy data on farms, with the aim of evaluating the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy. It covers only farms above a minimum size. The rules applied aim to provide representative data from three dimensions: region, economic size and type of farming.
FADN is the only source of micro-economic data that is harmonised, i. The complementary source used for this indicator is the database on price indices of the means of agricultural production from Eurostat. Farms are classified in intensity categories according to an estimate of input volume per hectare of UAA. The inputs considered are fertilisers, pesticides and other crop protections and purchased feed.
Fertiliser expenditure purchased fertilisers and soil improvers [1] is divided by the fertiliser price index in the country of the same year in order to estimate the volume used. Similarly, crop protection expenditure plant protection products, traps and baits, bird scarers, anti-hail shells, frost protection [2] is divided by the pesticide price index in the country of the same year. Purchased feed cost [3] is also divided by the feed price index in the country of the same year.
The indices used are available from the Eurostat database [4]. The result is thus expressed in "constant input prices, EUR per ha". The method allows not only deducting inflation, but also the input prices fluctuation. Thus it allows approaching the trend in volume of inputs used per hectare.
However, it does not capture differences of input prices between countries and the differences of prices within each category of input for example between a pesticide A and a pesticide B. Therefore, it does not give the exact volume of inputs used for a year in a country. Intensification in a country with very low intensity does not mean the same for the environment as intensification in a country with high intensity.
That is the purpose of the supporting indicator, average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices.
It is not the ideal measurement of intensity; however it is the best estimate that we can obtain from the available data for now. It should be underlined that Member States do not all have euro and that changes in the exchange rate may explain some differences between Member States. The area of common land used by the farm is actually very difficult to estimate. This can have an impact on the results for Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria in particular.
The area used by the farm may be underestimated. It means that the ratio of inputs per hectare may be overestimated and therefore the share of area managed by medium and high intensity farms in these countries. At farm level, when the UAA is null, which can happen in certain very intensive livestock farms with only buildings and no agricultural area, inputs are divided by the other area of the holding [5] ground occupied by buildings.
Finally it should be underlined that the potential environmental damage is not always proportionate to the volume or expenditure of inputs: for example, one kg of a certain pesticide might be more damaging for the environment than 5 kg of another one.
Therefore, the results should be interpreted with care. Each farm is classified according to the level of input use per hectare. Otherwise, it is "medium". These levels should not be interpreted to represent the boundaries of what is extensive and intensive farming. They are only set in order to study the trends of shares in UAA managed by farms of different categories of intensity. The same thresholds are used for each EU group, country, and type of farming and it allows comparing the trends between them.
It is described below:. Intensification is an important restructuring process that has characterised European agriculture for several decades e. European Commission, [6]. Intensification is in here understood as an increase in agricultural input use per hectare of land, which usually leads to an increase in the level of production per unit of land, livestock unit and agricultural working unit. Intensification often goes together with an increase in efficiency in the use of inputs during the agricultural production process.
If the yield increase grows more than the use of fertilisers, pesticides and water for irrigation then improved crop varieties, better management and technological development have made the utilisation of inputs more efficient.
However, intensification may nevertheless result in negative externalities to the environment. The total value of inputs in this analysis the costs of fertilisers, pesticides, and feedstuff in constant national input prices purchased by the holding as a whole is only a proxy indicator, in absence of data on trends in the volumes of inputs used in specific production activities undertaken by a holding.
Some of these processes are covered by other indicators. The process of intensification has been driven by several factors. In the period just after the Second World War an important driver was the decline of the agricultural labour force which stimulated the introduction of labour saving technologies and continuous technological development [7] [8] [9] [10].
In the following decades, the main driver for intensification was the need for economic efficiency gains in farming, supported by price support and import restrictions provided by the Common Agricultural Policy. However, the trade-offs between agriculture and environment emerged with increasing clarity and the policy was gradually targeted towards a more sustainable management of land systems. The recent CAP reforms, especially the most recent one covering the period , aim to improve the environmental performance of the agricultural sector.
The main tools for this are cross-compliance , the green direct payment and the agri-environmental measures. The CAP intends to foster sustainable farming, to protect the landscape and its features, natural and genetic resources, soil and biodiversity.
An intense debate has developed recently on "sustainable intensification" [11] [12] , a term referring to the need to simultaneously increase agricultural productivity to face the greater demand for food expected in the next 35 years while further reducing negative environmental aspects.
The primary role of agriculture is to supply food. Given that demand worldwide will continue rising in the future, the EU should be able to contribute to world food demand. Therefore, it is essential that EU agriculture maintains and improves its production capacity while respecting EU commitments in international trade and Policy Coherence for Development.
EU agriculture finds itself today in a considerably more competitive environment, as the world economy is increasingly integrated and the trading system more liberalized. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years. It represents a challenge for EU farmers, but also offers an opportunity for EU food exporters. Therefore, it is important to continue to enhance the competitiveness and productivity of the EU agriculture sector. Although favourable in the medium-term, the perspectives for agricultural markets are nonetheless expected to be characterised by greater uncertainty and increased volatility.
On the other hand, agriculture and forestry play an important role in producing public goods; notably environmental public goods such as landscapes, farmland biodiversity, climate stability and greater resilience to natural disasters flooding, drought and fire. At the same time, some farming practices have the potential to put pressure on the environment, leading to soil depletion, water shortages and pollution, and loss of wildlife habitats and biodiversity.
0コメント