CC BY
13
Jan Turowski1, Krystyna Tyszuk2, Antoni Bombik2 ©
1 Department of Agricultural Mechanization 2 Department of Agricultural Experimentation, University of Podlasie, Siedlce, Poland
ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS IN POLISH AGRICULTURE
Accidents on family farms frequently take place while activities are performed by a farmer or the members of his/her family. The results of the accidents may, to a varied degree, influence their lives; some lead to permanent damage to a given person's health or can even have fatal consequences. The post-accident complications can develop with an irreversible effect on both the quality and efficiency of work.
Key words: Polish agriculture, Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (KRUS), social insurance, workplace accident, social security benefits
Introduction. The present agricultural social insurance system in Poland was established by the Law of 20th December 1990 on farmers' social security insurance (J.L. No 7, item 24, with later amendments), which was changed by the Law of 2nd April 2004 on changes to the Law on the social security for farmers and other Laws (J.L. No 91, item 873). The Law of 1990 organizationally separated farmers' social insurance by an establishment of the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (KRUS).
The system of farmers' social insurance carries out, among others, the following tasks: it provides social help guaranteed by the Law to the farmers who reach old age or are permanently or temporary unable to work; it develops conditions of safe work on the farm, and work connected with running the farm; it also stimulates actions aiming at the insured person's returning to work in the case of disability. KRUS carries out old age pension and disability pension, accident, sickness and maternity insurances. Persons insured with accident insurance scheme are entitled to the following kinds of benefits: lump-sum compensation for permanent or protracted impairment of health or death due to work injury while a person was engaged in farm duties, or as a result of agricultural occupational illness. According to the regulations of the Law, the insured person can be granted a sickness benefit or non-cash benefits which include: medical services, provision of medicine and orthopaedic equipment as well as benefits connected with medical rehabilitation or a possibility of qualifying for a new job due to permanent inability to work at an agricultural farm.
The functioning of the farmers' social security system in Poland as well as benefits insured persons are entitled to have been presented in the work by Bombik and Dziedzic-Gryczka (2006).
Similarly to other economy sectors, accidents in agriculture are associated with the development of technology, mechanization of farm production processes and working conditions of farmers. Family farms constitute the section of economy where
© Jan Turowski, Krystyna Tyszuk, Antoni Bombik, 2009 366
accidents and resulting injuries take place very often. Unlike industrial workers, the Polish law does not impose an obligation on the farmer to adhere to the health and safety regulations. Moreover, many farmers are not sufficiently skilled to perform their work activities. Lack of safe work habits and unawareness of likely risks associated with using agricultural machinery escalate the possibility of accidents (Zagórski, 1998; Stempski, 2000).
Work in agriculture is characterized by a certain specificity and distinctiveness absent in other sections of economy. The basic characteristic of the work is that there are no constant working hours (often farmers work for more than eight or even twelve hours a day), seasonal character of activities, and performing activities under changeable weather conditions, that is at variable temperature and humidity, during rainfall and at different sun exposure throughout all the seasons of the year. The activities are frequently performed outside and are connected with livestock management (Stempski, 2000; Kapela and Turowski, 2007).
The objective of the work was to analyse numbers of and reasons for accidents happening on family farm operations in Poland in the years 2005-2007.
Materials and Methods. The data for this analysis were published by KRUS, and reflect agricultural work-related accidents in the years 2005-2007 (KRUS, 2006; 2007; 2008). The analysis was based on the tabular-descriptive method and included characterization of accidents, their causes and year-by-year dynamics.
Results and discussion. Tables 1 and 2 present, respectively, the general description of accidents on family farms in the years 2005-2007, and dynamics of incidence rate.
Table 1
Description of accidents on family farms in the years 2005-2007
Item Years
2005 2006 2007
Number of reported accidents 33 556 32 635 29 363
Number of accidents recognised as accidents at work 31394 30917 28113
Proportion of recognised to reported accidents (%) 93.6 94.7 95.7
Number of accidents resulting in payments
of compensations 20 869 20 651 18 723
Proportion of compensations to the number
of recognized accidents (%) 66.5 66.8 66.6
Number of fatal accidents 128 123 94
Number of accidents per 100 insured persons 13.3 12.9 11.6
Number of occupational illnesses 136 107 105
The data presented in tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that the number of reported accidents in agriculture in 2005 and 2006 exceeded 30 000 whereas in 2007 it was slightly lower than this figure (in 2007 there were by 10% less accidents than in the previous year). The percentage of accidents recognized as associated with agricultural work ranged between 94 and 96% relative to the number pf reported accidents. Accidents resulting in payments of lump-sum compensations constituted around 67%
367
of accidents recognized as accidents at agricultural workplace. The number of fatal accidents was substantial but it decreased in consecutive years (from 128 in 2005 to 94 in 2007). The number of occupational illnesses followed a similar pattern (from 136 in 2005 to 105 in 2007). The number of accidents per 1 000 persons insured under the agricultural social insurance system was substantial (within the range of 1213 cases) but it also decreased, mainly in 2007 as compared to 2006 (by over 10%).
Table 2
Changes in incidence rate in agriculture in t he years 2005-2007
Item Dynamics
2006:2005 2007:2006
Number of reported accidents 97.2 90.0
Number of accidents recognised as accidents at work 98.5 90.9
Proportion of recognised to reported accidents (%) 101.2 101.1
Number of accidents resulting in payments
of compensations 99.0 90.7
Proportion of compensations to the number
of recognized accidents (%) 100.5 99.7
Number of fatal accidents 96.1 76.4
Number of accidents per 100 insured persons 97.0 89.9
Number of occupational illnesses 78.7 98.1
The basic division of causes of accidents in agriculture is presented in table 3.
Table 3
Basic classification of causes of accidents on family farms
Item no. Causes of accidents
1. Fall of a person
2. Falling objects
3. Contact with sharp hand-operated tools or other sharp objects
4. Being struck or getting crushed by mechanically-transported objects
5. Being run over, struck, caught by a moving agricultural machinery
6. Being caught and struck by moving parts of machines and equipment
7. Being struck, crushed, bitten by an animal
8. Fire, explosion, action of natural forces
9. Action of extreme temperatures
10. Action of harmful materials
11. Sudden illness
12. Other situations
Table 3 indicates that the main causes of accidents in agriculture are connected with fall of persons and objects, contact with sharp tools and objects, being struck, crushed, run over or caught by agricultural machinery or moving parts of machines, being struck, crushed or bitten by animals, as well as fire, action of natural forces, extreme temperatures, harmful materials and sudden illness.
Table 4 contains the number, structure and dynamics of incidence rate on family farms (the accidents were followed by granting of lump-sum compensations) classified according to their causes.
368
Table 4
Number, structure (in %) and dynamics of accidents in agriculture _classified according to their causes_
Item no.1' Years Dynamics
2005 2006 2007 2006:2005 2007:2006
1. 9 990 (47.8)2/ 10 400 (50.3) 8 674 (46.2) 104.1 83.4
2. 1 455 (7.0) 1 413 (6.8) 1 423 (7.6) 97.1 100.7
3. 1 232 (5.9) 1 156 (5.6) 1 081 (5.8) 94.8 93.5
4. 453 (2.2) 472 (2.3) 465 (2.5) 104.2 98.5
5. 605 (2.9) 541 (2.6) 432 (2.3) 89.4 79.9
6. 2 856 (13.7) 2 574 (12.5) 2 465 (13.2) 90.1 95,8
7. 2 695 (12.9) 2 620 (12.7) 2 660 (14.2) 97.2 101.5
8. 62 (0.3) 77 (0.4) 75 (0.4) 124.2 97.4
9. 200 (1.0) 178 (0.9) 141 (0.8) 89.0 79.2
10. 38 (0.2) 31 (0.2) 30 (0.2) 81.6 96.8
11. 128 (0.6) 168 (0.8) 187 (1.0) 131.2 111.3
12. 1 155 (5.5) 1 021 (4.9) 1 090 (5.8) 88.4 106.8
1 - causes of accidents, as in table 3;
2/ - structure of accident causes is given in brackets.
Data in table 4 reveal that the greatest number of accidents (up to 10 000 per year, that is about 50% of all accidents) were accidents caused by fall of persons. Significant causes of agricultural accidents (over 10%) include being caught or struck by moving parts of machines and equipment as well as being struck, crushed or bitten by an animal (also over 10% of all cases). Also falling objects constituted a significant cause of accidents in agriculture (up to 7% of accidents) in addition to contact with sharp tools and objects (almost 6% of all accidents). It should be underlined that, of the most important causes of accidents in agriculture, only in the case of the latter cause there was observed a clear tendency towards reduction in accident number in years (year-to-year dynamics: 94.8 and 93.5%). A drop in the number of accidents in the study years was also observed in the case of being run over, struck or caught by agricultural machinery and action of extreme temperatures. A significant tendency was found towards an increase in the number of sudden illness cases which can also cause accidents in agriculture.
Table 5 presents the number, structure and dynamics of fatal accidents on family farms classified according of the causes of their occurrence.
It can be noticed that the greatest number of fatal accidents in agriculture (from 57 in 2005 to 34 in 2007, that is 44.5 and 36.2% of all fatal incidences, respectively) resulted from a person being run over by a moving agricultural machinery as well as sudden cases of illness (in successive years: 14.1, 23.6 and 18.1% of all fatal accidents, respectively). Also fall of persons, falling objects, being caught and struck by moving parts of machines and equipment as well as being struck, crushed or bitten by an animals constituted a significant cause of fatal accidents. Dynamics of the above-mentioned causes of fatal accidents in the study years does not reveal a clear tendency. The number of accidents caused by a moving
369
agricultural machinery or animal related incidents decreased in consecutive years (year-to-year dynamics was respectively 66.7 and 89.5% as well as 60.0 and 66.7%).
Table 5
Number, structure (in %) and dynamics (in %) of fatal accidents in agriculture _according to their causes_
Item no.1' Years Dynamics
2005 2006 2007 2006:2005 2007:2006
1. 13 (10.2)2/ 19 (15.4) 9 (9.6) 146.2 47.4
2. 6 (4.7) 9 (7.3) 7 (7.4) 150.0 77.8
5. 57 (44.5) 38 (30.9) 34 (36.2) 66.7 89.5
6. 8 (6.2) 9 (7.3) 6 (6.4) 112.5 66.7
7. 5 (3.9) 3 (2.5) 2 (2.1) 60.0 66.7
11. 18 (14.1) 29 (23.6) 17 (18.1) 161.1 58.6
12. 21 (16.4) 16 (13.0) 19 (20.2) 76.2 118.8
1 - causes of accidents, as in table 3;
2/ - structure of accident causes is given in brackets.
The analysis of accidents in agriculture presented in the current report allowed distinguishing three basic groups of accident causes: human causes associated with incorrect behaviour of people operating agricultural machines (e.g. removing factory-installed guards from machines and equipment, not following recommendations included in manuals on how to operate machines and equipment, not being sufficiently cautious while driving agricultural vehicles, repairing machinery that was still operating, using worn-out or faulty machines and equipment, not complying with health and safety regulations), technical causes connected with constructional solutions of agricultural machinery as well as random incidents independent on man or technical condition of a machine or equipment. Also Turowski and Sowa (2008) mention these hazards and conclude that the human factor, that is lack of knowledge of risks or farmers' ignoring them, is one of main causes of accidents.
Conclusions
1. The total number of accidents as well as number of accidents per 1 000 of insured persons resulting in payments of lump-sum compensations dropped consistently (from 13.3 in 2005 to 11.6 in 2007, per 1 000 of insured persons). A similar tendency over years was also observed in the case of the number of fatal accidents as well as occupational illnesses.
2. Fall of persons, being caught or struck by moving parts of machinery as well as being struck, crushed or bitten by animals were most frequent causes of accidents which resulted in payments of lump-sum compensations (they constituted over 70% of all causes of accidents in the study years). In turn, fatal accidents most often resulted from being run over, struck or caught by a moving agricultural machine (around 37%) as well as sudden illness cases (about 19% of accidents over the study years).
3. The presented analysis of accidents and diagnosis of their circumstances, causes in particular, can provide the basis of undertaking preventive actions (prevention), and make it possible to develop the still insufficient awareness of farmers of possible risks associated with working on a family farm.
370
References
1. Bombik A., Dziedzic-Gryczka D., 2006: Funkcjonowanie systemu rolniczych ubezpieczen spolecznych w Polsce. Rocz. WSBiA w Lukowie, 2, 249-275.
2. Kapela K., Turowski J., 2007: Analiza wypadkow zaistnialych przy obsludze zwierz^t w gospodarstwach indywidualnych. XIII Mi^dzynarodowa Konf. Nauk. „Problemy intensyfikacji produkcji zwierz^cej z uwzgl^dnieniem ochrony Srodowiska i standardow UE", IBMER, Warszawa, 255-258.
3. KRUS, 2006: Wypadkowosc przy pracy i choroby zawodowe rolnikow oraz dzialania prewencyjne KRUS w 2005 roku. Wyd. KRUS, Warszawa.
4. KRUS, 2007: Wypadkowosc przy pracy i choroby zawodowe rolnikow oraz dzialania prewencyjne KRUS w 2006 roku. Wyd. KRUS, Warszawa.
5. KRUS, 2008: Wypadkowosc przy pracy i choroby zawodowe rolnikow oraz dzialania prewencyjne KRUS w 2007 roku. Wyd. KRUS, Warszawa.
6. Stempski R., 2000: Bezpieczenstwo pracy w rolnictwie. PIP, Warszawa.
7. Turowski J., Sowa J., 2008: Wypadki w srodowisku pracy rolnika indywidualnego. XIV Mi^dzynarodowa Konf. Nauk. „Problemy intensyfikacji produkcji zwierz^cej z uwzgl^dnieniem ochrony Srodowiska i standardow UE", IBMER, Warszawa, 243-245.
8. Ustawa z dnia 20 grudnia 1990 roku o ubezpieczeniu spolecznym rolnikow (Dz.U. Nr 7, poz. 24, z pozn. zm.).
9. Ustawa z dnia 2 kwietnia 2004 roku o zmianie ustawy o ubezpieczeniu spolecznym rolnikow oraz o zmianie niektorych innych ustaw (Dz.U. Nr 91, poz. 873).
10. Zagorski J., 1998: Zagrozenie zdrowotne i wypadkowosc w rolnictwie. Inst. Med. Wsi, Lublin.
Summary
On the basis of data published by the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund we carried out analysis of accidents occurring on family farms in Poland in the years 2005-2007.
It was found that the total number of accidents as well as number of accidents per 1 000 of insured persons resulting in payments of lump-sum compensations dropped consistently (from 13.3 in 2005 to 11.6 in 2007, per 1 000 of insured persons). A similar tendency over years was also observed in the case of the number offatal accidents as well as occupational illnesses. Fall of persons, being caught or struck by moving parts of machinery as well as being struck, crushed or bitten by animals were most frequent causes of accidents which resulted in payments of lumpsum compensations (they constituted over 70% of all causes of accidents in the study years). In turn, fatal accidents most often resulted from being run over, struck or caught by a moving agricultural machine (around 37%) as well as sudden illness cases (about 19% of accidents over the study years).
The presented analysis of accidents and diagnosis of their circumstances, causes in particular, can provide the basis of undertaking preventive actions (prevention), and make it possible to develop the still insufficient awareness of farmers ofpossible risks associated with working on a family farm.
Cmammx nadiumna do peda^ii 8.04.2009
371
