Details
The following is an interview conducted on the 27th of March 2026 by Tanja Tabbara, Senior Advisor for Social-Ecological Transformation, Africa and West-Asia at the Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation in Germany, and Colette Solomon, Director of the Women on Farms Project (WFP) in South Africa. The WFP supports women farmworkers in defending their rights, advocating for better working conditions for women, particularly in the Western and Northern Cape in South Africa. With their Double Standards campaign, they lobby European law makers and publics to ban the export of toxic pesticides that are forbidden in Europe to South Africa. Their appeal is clear: African lives are not worth less than European lives.
In South Africa, 32 years after the advent of democracy, 72% of productive agricultural land is still in the hands of mainly white men, who are probably 7 or 8% of the total population.
Tanja Tabbara: Highly hazardous pesticides banned in Europe are still exported and used in countries like South Africa. People are consequently paying a price with their health, especially women farm workers. You are Director of the Women on Farms Project in South Africa. What are the main risks and human rights violations women farm workers face in South Africa, especially when it comes to pesticide exposure?
Colette Solomon: You can trace back the current situation on farms to the colonial and apartheid periods. Many of the farm workers today are actually the descendants of former slaves that worked during these times. They can trace their ancestry back to the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuries. The colonial period was followed by the apartheid period. During these important parts of our history black people, the indigenous people, were dispossessed of their land. That is the basis of the current relations that we find on farms. In South Africa, 32 years after the advent of democracy, 72% of productive agricultural land is still in the hands of mainly white men, who are probably 7 or 8% of the total population.
Therefore, most of the farms that women are working on are owned by white men. The women themselves are landless. Because of the gendered and racial dynamics on farms, most of the women are employed only as seasonal workers, for around 4 to 6 months of the year, under very insecure and precarious contracts. So, irrespective of the labor conditions, they accept the situation and the terms of employment.
When it comes to something like pesticides, women even work while the pesticides are being sprayed. They are literally very often in the vineyards when the pesticides are applied to the crops. And they do their work without protective clothing. On many farms, there is no toilet in the vineyard, no running water. When women have to relieve themselves during the working day they have to do so in the vineyards, or in the bushes around the vineyards that have just been sprayed with these very deadly pesticides. Women often report spikes in acute illnesses during this season, including bladder infections, skin damage, burns, and breathing problems. While some effects occur immediately during pesticide exposure, many are cumulative, persisting even after the exposure ends.
Moreover, the pesticides not only affect the women workers, but also their families, because their homes are often located in the vineyards or nearby. The farmer doesn’t inform them when he’s going to spray. Pesticides thus enter their homes. The children playing outside are affected. Exposure to pesticides is something that affects farm worker communities and not only those that are actually working.
Very recently the South African People’s Tribunal on agrotoxins examined the impact of hazardous pesticides on farm workers. What were their main findings, and how will those findings be acknowledged and acted on?
Over the last couple of years, we women farm workers formed a coalition with other organizations, focusing on the exposure to pesticides. Last year the coalition organized the People’s Tribunal on agrotoxins. On the basis of their findings and their draft report, the jurors were invited by the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Agriculture. Their basic conclusion was that our government should ban these agrotoxins that have been outlawed in Europe, precisely because they are so deadly and harmful. But on another level, the Tribunal observes that part of the problem in South Africa concerns our outdated regulatory and legislative framework. We are still using a law that dates back to 1947. So obviously that law is completely out of date regarding international human rights standards. As a result, we allow the registration of certain pesticides.
Since 2019, the initial focus of our campaign has been to lobby our own government to ban pesticides that have been banned in the European Union, as well as introduce changes to the legislative framework.
Do you think the South African government will respond to those demands?
As women on farm projects, we started the Double Standards campaign in 2019, after we had commissioned research that found high levels of women’s exposure to pesticides, due to the fact that they didn’t have PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). Since 2019, the initial focus of our campaign has been to lobby our own government to ban pesticides that have been banned in the European Union, as well as introduce changes to the legislative framework. We have marched to Parliament, we have handed over memorandums, we have collected petitions.
Looking back over the last couple of years, the government is definitely more responsive. Last year the government actually initiated a colloquium on pesticides, inviting all stakeholders, including government departments, but also farm workers. Concluding the workshop, the government made some publicly stated commitments to change the respective laws, including better transparency of the pesticide registration process. They also undertook to ban a specific agrochemical called Terbufos (a highly toxic organophosphate pesticide), which was the cause of the death of six children in Gauteng Province in South Africa. As activists, we have to continue to be vigilant to make sure that they follow through with their beautiful words. Our campaign will continue engaging the government until these changes are brought about.
I’d like to move from South Africa to Europe, in respect of what you have already talked about as double standards. In Germany, companies like BASF, Bayer, and Alzchem export highly hazardous pesticides to South Africa, pesticides that are banned here in Europe. You came to Europe to present the findings of the South African People’s Tribunal to the EU. You spoke at the Human Rights Committee of the European Parliament, where a representative from the European Commission was in attendance. This Commission, of course, is a most important body, as it has the institutional means to pass a law to ban the export of forbidden pesticides. This law has been discussed by the European Commission for, I think, more than five years, since 2020, but nothing has happened. Were they responsive to the findings of the Tribunal? Do you think there’s a chance for change in the near future at the European level?
In 2020, at the European level, there was a commitment to ban these pesticides. Unfortunately, the political configuration in Europe has changed, and we have now different political parties in charge. The current environment is much more difficult than it was in 2020 when there was this real commitment and change seemed imminent. Unfortunately, that moment has passed, and we are now in a situation where toxic pesticides are not even on the agenda for discussion, let alone for enactment of legislation.
However, having said that, when I presented at the Human Rights Committee, there were very strong, unambiguous, supportive statements from a number of members of the European Parliament, from different political parties — members who gave a commitment to continue to put pressure on the European Commission, and to continue with that original 2020 undertaking. There are lots of stumbling blocks, especially from people on the Commission who hold the actual power to move forward on this. But I felt encouraged by the fact that there is a lot of support from many of the political parties and many of the MEPs. Advocacy and lobbying need to continue so that when this configuration hopefully changes again, a lot of the groundwork would have been done. And most importantly, the issue will still be on the agenda.
Our government has a primary responsibility to protect its citizens. However, there is also an intrinsic and specific responsibility that European producers of pesticides have in continuing to export these very harmful chemicals.
Only a few days ago you also presented your case in a meeting with Alzchem Group AG, a German company exporting toxic pesticides that are banned in Europe to South Africa. How did they respond to your appeal?
That was probably the most disappointing meeting in the two weeks that we’ve been in Europe. Alzchem produces and exports for agricultural purposes a chemical called cyanamide, which is a growth stimulator sprayed in spring to regulate the budding and ripening of grapes. Cyanamide has been banned in the European Union since 2008, because of its harmful impacts on humans. The scientific evidence is irrefutable. Yesterday, my colleague Laura, who as a seasonal farm worker was every season exposed to the pesticide Dormex, talked about how women farm workers are affected by this pernicious exposure. What struck me was the lack of empathy from the Alzchem representatives. Despite hearing testimonies about the impact of cyanamide, they made it clear they have no plans to remove it from their portfolio. It felt like everything fell on deaf ears, with no real possibility for engagement. As Laura said, they’ve got hearts of stone.
We are now in Pesticides Action Week – March 20 to 30. What’s your message to these companies, to the European public, and the lawmakers?
Our government has a primary responsibility to protect its citizens. However, there is also an intrinsic and specific responsibility that European producers of pesticides have in continuing to export these very harmful chemicals. These two weeks have been so valuable, as we worked with European civil society organizations and coalitions pushing for a foreign export ban. We encourage them to continue this important rights-based and moral campaign, maintaining pressure on the European Union and governments like Germany.
The German government has a unique and powerful role to play as one of Europe’s leading countries. By taking bold action to ban the export of harmful pesticides, as France and Belgium have done[1], Germany could set an example for other European nations, and put strong pressure on the European Commission. German civil society and consumers also have a role: they can support South Africans affected by these chemicals, making it clear that exports causing harm are unacceptable. Together, this leadership and public pressure could drive an effective ban.
[1] Since 2022 France has had an export ban on pesticides that are prohibited in the EU for health or environmental reasons. This ban was politically contested and was only introduced after prolonged debates and pressure from NGOs. However, in practice, the French initiative led to parts of the production (e.g. by large chemical companies) being relocated to other EU countries where such exports were/are still permitted. France is among the first EU member states to have actually implemented such an export ban. Belgium introduced a similar export ban in May 2025 by royal decree. Before that, within the EU, Belgium had been one of the largest exporters of these substances.
