OIT - Extending social protection coverage to workers in the agricultural sector and their families

Lessons from international experience

April 2026

 Poverty and vulnerability remain overwhelmingly rural: rural areas account for more than three-quarters of people living in extreme poverty reflecting persistent inequalities and the high prevalence of informal employment. Large segments of rural populations remain exposed to decent work deficits, climate shocks and major gaps in social protection coverage.  Employment in the agricultural sector is highly diverse in terms of employment status, income level, land size they work on, ownership status and the nature of agricultural production. Measures to extend social protection must recognize the specific conditions of work and particular needs in the agricultural sector and rural areas, including the seasonality of production and earnings, a significant share of migrant workers and contributing family members in the sector, the remoteness of the home and workplace.  Social protection systems must be adapted to provide effective, comprehensive, adequate and sustainable coverage for these workers. This includes offering flexible contribution schedules and amounts, simplifying registration processes and of the collection of contributions, strengthening labour and social security inspection mechanisms, and finding avenues to reach these groups and increase their awareness about their rights.  Improving accessibility and quality of public and social security services and governance, as well as simplified administrative processes is essential to ensure that

agricultural workers and their families and employers perceive the system as reliable, creating a strong incentive for improved compliance and affiliation.  Developing and implementing coherent and integrated policies for the agricultural sector and the rural economy grounded in international social security principles at large is key. Linking social protection policies with policies to promote decent employment creation, sustainable enterprise development and formalization; advance access to labour rights, in particular fundamental principles and rights at work; ensure incomes and wages; enhance access to credit and land ownership, and improve food security and nutrition.  Well-designed social protection systems, are essential to reduce climate-related risks,

development and formalization; advance access to labour rights, in particular fundamental principles and rights at work; ensure incomes and wages; enhance access to credit and land ownership, and improve food security and nutrition.  Well-designed social protection systems, are essential to reduce climate-related risks, strengthen resilience, support a just and climateresilient transition in agriculture, and advance formalization, decent work, poverty reduction and food security.  The 2023 ILO Policy Guidelines for the promotion of decent work in the agri-food sector establish the first global framework for advancing the Decent Work Agenda across the agri-food sector, providing actionable strategies to achieve universal social protection for rural populations. Key points  Social Protection Spotlight Brief Extending social protection coverage to workers in the agricultural sector and their families ILO Brief 2 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

► Introduction Currently, about half of the world's population – and more than three-quarters of the world's poor population – live in rural areas (World Bank, 2025). Inequalities between urban and rural areas remain significant, including with regard to income and access to public services. Globally, rural areas hold significant economic importance, with the agricultural sector at their core, employing nearly one billion people worldwide, or around 26 per cent of all those in employment (ILOSTAT). Many agricultural workers are in informal employment, with volatile and often low earnings (96.3 per cent) (ILO 2018). Informal employment is usually associated with a lack of social protection coverage. In fact, lack of social protection is part of the very definition of informal employment. As a result of being only insufficiently covered or in some cases not covered at all, many agricultural workers and their families face higher risks of poverty (including in the form of working poverty), malnutrition and hunger, poor health, and are often directly exposed to the

definition of informal employment. As a result of being only insufficiently covered or in some cases not covered at all, many agricultural workers and their families face higher risks of poverty (including in the form of working poverty), malnutrition and hunger, poor health, and are often directly exposed to the negative impacts of natural disasters and climate change. In the agricultural sector, contributing family workers represent a defining feature of the workforce, particularly within small-scale and subsistence farming systems. For example, 86.1 per cent of the agricultural workforce in the European Union were family members. While their prevalence varies by region, contributing family workers make up 10 per cent of the global workforce. It is also important to note that the group is highly gendered, almost twothirds (63 per cent) of contributing family workers are women. Of all women in informal jobs, more than a quarter (28 per cent) are contributing family workers

(ILOSTAT).

Migration is also a significant feature of rural labour markets. In 2019, 7.1 per cent of all migrant workers were employed in agriculture (ILO 2021a). Many of these workers are temporary or seasonal migrants who move across borders for limited periods to meet labour demand in agriculture, fisheries and related activities, often returning to their country of origin or moving onward once contracts end (ILO and ISSA 2022). Migrant agricultural workers are frequently concentrated in informal, low-paid and hazardous jobs, with limited access to labour and social protection, which heightens their exposure to poverty, exploitation, occupational risks and the impacts of climate shocks, particularly in rural areas

(ILO 2022a, ILO 2025a, ILO 2025b).

Child labour and forced labour risks persist in the sector, as poverty, informality and gaps in decent work – combined with labour-intensive nature of the work, isolation and limited awareness of rights – continue to shape working conditions. Agricultural workers often continue working when sick or injured

Child labour and forced labour risks persist in the sector, as poverty, informality and gaps in decent work – combined with labour-intensive nature of the work, isolation and limited awareness of rights – continue to shape working conditions. Agricultural workers often continue working when sick or injured because of systemic factors such as a poor occupational safety and health conditions and awareness, financial necessity, and limited access to healthcare or job security which can further exacerbate work-related injuries. Further, when experiencing income losses, they may resort to harmful coping strategies, such as the distress sale of assets, taking on predatory loans or resorting to child or forced labour (ILO 2015a, ILO 2023a, ILO 2024). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of social protection for protecting lives and livelihoods but also exposed large and persistent gaps in coverage, comprehensiveness and adequacy of social protection, not least in the rural economy

(ILO 2020a, ILO and FAO 2021; OHCHR and ILO 2025).

Health coverage, for example, is substantially lower for rural populations, with 56 per cent of the population excluded compared to 22 per cent of the urban population (ILO 2017a). While the agricultural sector is heterogeneous in nature, with considerable diversity, including soil, climate, production systems, education and skills, level of modernization and productivity, some of the practical difficulties in extending social security to its workers are widely recognized. Additionally, agricultural workers are often legally excluded, in part or in full, from social security schemes, or such schemes are ill-adapted to the realities of this sector, which has a direct impact on their coverage. The low coverage rate for agricultural workers also makes evident the prevalence of informal and casual work in the sector. Rural economies are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change is ILO Brief 3

which has a direct impact on their coverage. The low coverage rate for agricultural workers also makes evident the prevalence of informal and casual work in the sector. Rural economies are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change is ILO Brief 3 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

increasingly affecting agriculture through rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns and more frequent extreme events, directly impacting livelihoods, income insecurity and health of farmers, fishers and rural workers. As highlighted in the ILO’s World Social Protection Report 2024–26, welldesigned social protection systems, grounded in international social security principles, play a critical role in helping agriculture workers and farms absorb climate shocks and support climate-mitigation and adaptation policies. Extending social protection to agricultural workers aids adaptation to and the attenuation of environmental degradation and climate change in rural areas. Adequate social protection is also key to strengthening their resilience before economic risks, especially when complemented by measures that facilitate the transition towards environmentally and socially sustainable economies and climate-resilient livelihoods (ILO 2015a, ILO 2023a, ILO 2024). In many countries, emerging approaches illustrate the key role of social protection in reducing climaterelated risks and supporting a just transition in the agriculture sector. These experiences demonstrate the potential of integrated social protection strategies into climate action to enhance resilience and support a just transition of the agriculture sector. Social protection also facilitates formalization in the sector, enhancing agricultural workers’ access to decent, productive jobs, with positive impacts on poverty reduction and food security (ILO 2023b; ILO 2025c; ILO 2026). This Social Protection Spotlight Brief presents the key challenges in extending coverage to workers in the agricultural sector and sketches out possible solutions and good practices countries are employing to expand coverage to this sector.

2025c; ILO 2026).

This Social Protection Spotlight Brief presents the key challenges in extending coverage to workers in the agricultural sector and sketches out possible solutions and good practices countries are employing to expand coverage to this sector.

► Challenges in extending social protection to workers in the agricultural sector Diversity of employment, land ownership and production systems Employment in the agricultural sector is highly diverse, encompassing salaried agricultural workers, self-employed farmers and subsistence producers, resulting in a workforce that is far from homogeneous in terms of employment status, income levels, land size and ownership, and production systems. This inherent heterogeneity and structural complexity make extending social security to agricultural workers particularly challenging, as different groups are often excluded due to their employment status, land tenure arrangements and the specific nature of agricultural production. Seasonal, labour-intensive and informality in the sector – which also relies heavily on migrant labour in many regions – constitute challenges for registration, contribution collection and effective coverage, underscoring the need for social protection schemes adapted to the varied realities and financial capacities of agricultural workers (ILO and FAO 2021 ILO 2021b; ILO 2024). Of importance, the agricultural sector is also characterized by a significant incidence of contributing family workers, reflecting the predominance of family-based production units. A significant proportion are women. Generally, they provide vital labour in family enterprises without regular wages or decision-making authority (ILO 2019). Unpaid child labour is also higher in agriculture, whereby much of the work can be hazardous and interfere with schooling and development (ILO 2019). This further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive policy approach that takes into account the specific characteristics of family based agricultural work to ensure the extension of social protection to rural populations generally. Legal exclusion Agricultural workers are often excluded from social protection law. In some countries, all or some

need for a comprehensive policy approach that takes into account the specific characteristics of family based agricultural work to ensure the extension of social protection to rural populations generally. Legal exclusion Agricultural workers are often excluded from social protection law. In some countries, all or some categories of workers in this sector are excluded from coverage of social security or labour legislation. In others, they may be subject to separate legislation that provides for a less comprehensive and/or lower level of protection. ILO Brief 4 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

Even where the legislation does not explicitly exclude agricultural workers, in the case of contributory mechanisms, qualifying conditions established by law – such as minimum thresholds with regard to employment duration or working hours – may in practice result in the effective exclusion of large groups of agricultural workers, including part-time or temporary workers, such as seasonal workers, day labourers, and casual workers (ILO 2021b; ILO and FAO, 2021). Migrant workers often face additional legal, administrative and practical barriers that further restrict their access to social protection (ILO 2017b; ILO 2021b; ILO 2021c; ILO and FAO 2021). Low and fluctuating earnings Based on the above, agricultural workers often have irregular and low earnings, which limit their capacity to contribute to social insurance schemes. This includes the seasonal nature of agricultural production, which results in income patterns that are highly variable over the year and therefore not well adapted to standard monthly contribution requirements typically found in contributory schemes

(ILO 2021b).

In addition, agricultural workers – and the enterprises that employ them – are frequently exposed both to idiosyncratic shocks (such as personal illness, injury, or loss of assets) and covariate shocks (such as climate-related events, droughts, floods, pests, or significant fluctuations in input and commodity

In addition, agricultural workers – and the enterprises that employ them – are frequently exposed both to idiosyncratic shocks (such as personal illness, injury, or loss of assets) and covariate shocks (such as climate-related events, droughts, floods, pests, or significant fluctuations in input and commodity prices) (FAO 2021). These shocks may not only affect production volumes but also reduce net profits, which in turn could further constrain the ability of workers and small producers to consistently contribute to social protection mechanisms. As a result, contribution gaps and outright exclusion from contributory schemes become frequent, reinforcing income insecurity and undermining effective coverage (ILO 2015a, ISSA 2022). Administrative barriers In the absence of local offices of social security institutions and related services in rural areas, registration and access to benefits and services might be challenging and expensive (direct cost and related opportunity costs). Moreover, while digitalisation of services can improve efficiency, it may not provide an adequate solution for many rural populations who lack reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or the necessary levels of digital literacy, thereby further constraining their ability to access social protection. This highlights the importance of addressing geographical barriers to ensure effective access to social protection. Furthermore, it underscores the imperative for transparent, reliable and coherent administrative processes. Weak administrative governance can create significant obstacles to enrolment, contribution collection, claims processing and benefit delivery. The challenges can be exacerbated when workers transition between different sectors of the economy or from paid employment to self-employment or vice versa. Such labour market mobility, as well as crossborder migration, can impede agricultural workers from realizing their social security entitlements, even when contributions have been made, particularly if administrative systems lack the capacity to effectively track these changes. Weak enforcement and control mechanisms In many rural settings, law enforcement, including labour and social security inspection and regulatory compliance mechanisms, are often weak or

when contributions have been made, particularly if administrative systems lack the capacity to effectively track these changes. Weak enforcement and control mechanisms In many rural settings, law enforcement, including labour and social security inspection and regulatory compliance mechanisms, are often weak or ineffective. Labour administration and social security institutions may lack sufficient human, financial and other resources to inspect agricultural enterprises. The challenge is exacerbated by the prevalence of informality of economic units in the sector and the extensive geographic areas they may cover. Lack of enforcement and control can also arise from difficulties in locating workers, following up on their registration, and ensuring compliance with legal obligations due to frequent labour rotation and seasonality. The nature of the challenges and the strategies required to address them depend on the type of agricultural business unit and will not be the same for smallholder farms and larger plantationbased agricultural enterprises for example. In addition, access to complaint and appeal mechanisms may be limited or entirely absent in rural areas. Workers may not know where or how to file complaints, may face long distances to reach offices, or encounter administrative delays and capacity constraints that undermine the effectiveness of available mechanisms. The costs associated with filing complaints – such as transportation, documentation fees, lost earnings due to time away from work, or the need for legal assistance – can further deter workers from seeking accountability. ILO Brief 5 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

Ability to organize Agricultural workers’ ability to organize collectively is often hindered by structural and contextual challenges, including the seasonal and migrant nature of their work, high levels of informality, and the geographically dispersed locations in which agricultural work frequently takes place. These conditions limit workers’ visibility within labour administration systems and weaken their ability to form or join representative organizations, engage in collective bargaining, or access institutional mechanisms for social dialogue. Informal employthe geographically dispersed locations in which agricultural work frequently takes place. These conditions limit workers’ visibility within labour administration systems and weaken their ability to form or join representative organizations, engage in collective bargaining, or access institutional mechanisms for social dialogue. Informal employment relationships reduce workers’ legal recognition and protection, while long supply chains and the presence of intermediaries further complicate accountability structures (ILO 2015b). Seasonal and migrant workers – in particular those employed by multiple employers or labour contractors – may lack contracts, documentation, or residency status, and may face language barriers, dependence on recruiters, or fear of reprisals, all of which would restrict their ability to organize (ILO 2011; ILO 2020b). Limited information and digital literacy Limited literacy, language barriers, and low levels of digital skills can significantly restrict many agricultural workers’ ability to access information, use organizing tools, or effectively advocate for their social security entitlements. These challenges are compounded by the increasing digitalization of labour administration and social protection services in some countries, which may not adequately serve rural populations with limited or unreliable internet connectivity, low smartphone penetration, or insufficient digital literacy. As a result, workers and employers may be unable to complete registration procedures, submit claims, or engage with complaint and appeal mechanisms, thereby reducing their ability to exercise their rights and participate in collective action.

► Good practices and possible solutions Building on the ILO’s normative framework, including Convention No. 12 (1921), which requires Member States to extend employment injury benefits to agricultural wage-earners, this section presents good practices and policy solutions to address the challenges outlined above. Complemented by more comprehensive up-to-date ILO standards, in particular Convention No. 102 and Recommendation No. 202, that give concrete expression to social security principles embedded in international human rights instruments, it highlights approaches to extend legal

challenges outlined above. Complemented by more comprehensive up-to-date ILO standards, in particular Convention No. 102 and Recommendation No. 202, that give concrete expression to social security principles embedded in international human rights instruments, it highlights approaches to extend legal coverage, facilitate effective access to social protection across the life cycle and remove administrative barriers – such as simplified administrative processes, improved physical access and the portability of benefits. The section also examines measures to ensure sustainable financing, strengthen compliance and inspections, raise awareness, support workers’ organization and voice, and build trust and incentives for formalization and access to decent work through coherent linkages with other policy areas. For social protection to reach agricultural workers and their families effectively, schemes need to be adapted to their specific needs and financial capacities. This typically necessitates conducting detailed assessments of different groups of agricultural workers, and their employers, where applicable, to better understand their unique circumstances, such as their contributory capacity, employment patterns, land and production realities and available infrastructure. Such assessments should involve the participation of social partners and other relevant stakeholders. Extending Legal Coverage Many countries have moved towards including agricultural workers under general social security legislation. To ensure effective coverage under such schemes, they must be adapted to ensure that the national legislation include agricultural workers in all types of employment, including seasonal workers and those who may combine part-time dependent employment with self-employment. What is more, in a number of countries, the law mandates coverage on a household or family basis – particularly for healthcare benefits – which supports the inclusion of contributing family workers. ILO Brief 6 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

 Box 1. Extending general social security schemes to agricultural workers ► Canada has adapted an unemployment insurance scheme to provide certain seasonal workers with an additional 5 weeks of benefits

Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

 Box 1. Extending general social security schemes to agricultural workers ► Canada has adapted an unemployment insurance scheme to provide certain seasonal workers with an additional 5 weeks of benefits to cope with seasonal income gaps (art. 12(2.3) Employment Insurance Act S.C. 1996, c.23). ► The Philippines’ social security law provides for the compulsory coverage of self-employed workers, including individual farmers. The legislation provides for reduced contributions by self-employed workers who earn less than 1,000 pesos a month and allows for quarterly payments (sec. 19-A, 22-A, Social Security Act of 2018, Act No. 11199). The National Health Insurance Act of 1995 and the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act of 2019 both extend coverage to all Filipinos (Republic Acts No. 7875 and 11223). Other countries have chosen to adopt specific legislation aimed at extending the social protection to agricultural workers including through the development of special schemes to respond to the patterns of employment in the agricultural sector (see Box 2). Regardless of whether agricultural workers are included in the general social security scheme or special schemes are created for them, it is essential to adapt these schemes to the specific characteristics of agricultural work (e.g. eligibility criteria, qualifying periods for entitlement to benefits, etc). ► Box 2. Tailoring social protection legal frameworks to agricultural workers ► Within its Social Security Law, Spain has enshrined a specific scheme for agricultural workers (Sistema Especial para Trabajadores por Cuenta Propia Agrarios) as well as a scheme for self-employed persons with special provisions for self-employed farmers (Sistema Especial para Trabajadores por Cuenta Propia Agrarios). In particular, it has included a benefit to address the partial or permanent cessation of business activities, from which self-employed farmers may benefit. Upon

for self-employed persons with special provisions for self-employed farmers (Sistema Especial para Trabajadores por Cuenta Propia Agrarios). In particular, it has included a benefit to address the partial or permanent cessation of business activities, from which self-employed farmers may benefit. Upon meeting qualifying conditions, beneficiaries receive cash benefits and subsidized social protection contributions (art. 329 Real Decreto Legislativo 8/2015, de 30 de octubre (BOE-A2015-11724) am. 2023). ► Ecuador’s Peasants’ Social Insurance (Seguro Social Campesino, SSC), regulated under the general social security law and managed by the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute (IESS), provides own-account agricultural workers with family health and maternity coverage and benefits for old age, disability and survivors. Financed on a solidarity basis and accessible through individual or collective registration, the SSC is the main social security scheme for rural workers, covering about 73 per cent of the rural population and reaching 1.2 million people in 2017. Ensuring adequacy and quality of social protection benefits Ensuring effective social protection coverage for agricultural workers also requires attention to the adequacy of benefits and the quality of services provided. It is essential to guarantee minimum benefit levels and regular indexation to inflation so that cash benefits can effectively secure income and enable beneficiaries to suspend work when needed, a consideration that is particularly relevant in the agricultural sector where earnings tend to be low and volatile. The inclusion of short-term benefits that address immediate and medium-term risks, including medical care and sickness and unemployment benefits is also important, as these benefits are often more tangible and relevant for workers facing seasonal employment and income volatility (see example of Spain, Box 2). Moreover, there is a need to ensure that benefits can be accessed easily and close to where people live, through appropriate cash delivery mechanisms and the availability of goodmore tangible and relevant for workers facing seasonal employment and income volatility (see example of Spain, Box 2). Moreover, there is a need to ensure that benefits can be accessed easily and close to where people live, through appropriate cash delivery mechanisms and the availability of goodquality health and social care services in rural areas. This in turn builds trust in the system which is key to increasing registration and contributions, as reflected in a recent study on extending social health protection in Madagascar (ILO 2022b). Facilitating access to social protection and lifting administrative barriers The administrative challenges highlighted above underscore the imperative for transparent, reliable, and coherent administrative processes. Such ILO Brief 7 Extending social protection coverage to persons in the agricultural sector

processes are essential to ensure that beneficiaries can understand their rights, navigate procedures, claim and receive benefits, and submit related complaints and appeals, amongst others, without undue burden. What’s more, strengthening administrative capacity, simplifying procedures, and ensuring clear communication are central to improving effective coverage, particularly for workers in rural areas. Facilitating registration and physical access Enhancing social protection coverage in the agricultural sector requires facilitating registration and other administrative procedures. This may include measures such as deploying mobile social security offices, reducing documentation requirements, or simplifying other procedures (ILO 2021b). Access can also be facilitated through collective registration agreements with agricultural and rural workers' organizations (trade unions, cooperatives or rural producers' associations), which can also support extending social protection coverage to the agricultural sector (ILO 2021b; ILO and FAO, 2021). Anothe