Pesticide-handling practices of smallholder coffee farmers in Eastern Jamaica

Pesticide use among smallholder coffee producers in Jamaica has been associated with significant occupational health effects. Research on pesticide handling practices, however, has been scarce, especially in eastern Jamaica. This explorative study aims at filling this gap and provides a first basis to develop effective interventions to promote a safer pesticide use. A random sample of 81 coffee farmers was surveyed. The majority of farmers reported to suffer from at least one health symptom associated with pesticide handling, but safety practices were scarcely adopted. There was also the risk that other household members and the wider local community are exposed to pesticides. The lack of training on pesticide management, the role of health services and the cost for protective equipment seemed to be the most significant factors that influence current pesticide handling practices in eastern Jamaica. Further research is recommended to develop a systemic understanding of farmer’s behaviour to provide a more solid basis for the development of future intervention programmes.

The Copenhagen principles on the handling of detainees: implications for the procedural regulation of internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.