Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182) - Uzbekistan (Ratification: 2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports dated 17 April, 4 June and 20 November 2012. The Committee also notes the communication of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 31 August 2012, as well as the Government’s reply thereto dated 24 October 2012, and the communication of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) dated 22 October 2012. The Committee further notes the communication from the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions, dated 11 October 2012, as well as the communication of the Chamber of Commerce of Uzbekistan, dated 17 October 2012. In addition, the Committee takes note of the report of the ILO technical advisory mission that took place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, from 2 to 5 May 2012.

Article 3(a) and (d) of the Convention. Worst forms of child labour. Forced or compulsory labour in cotton production and hazardous work. The Committee previously noted the various legal provisions in Uzbekistan which prohibit forced labour, including article 37 of the Constitution, section 7 of the Labour Code, and section 138 of the Criminal Code. It also noted that section 241 of the Labour Code prohibits the employment of persons under 18 years in hazardous work, and that the “list of occupations with unfavourable working conditions in which it is forbidden to employ persons under 18 years of age” prohibited children from watering and gathering cotton by hand. The Committee further noted the Government’s statement that the participation of children below 18 years of age in activities on a family farm is not an infringement of the Convention. The Government further indicated that the Association of Farmers of Uzbekistan, the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection had adopted, in May 2011, the “Joint Statement concerning the inadmissibility of using forced child labour in agricultural works”, which asserted that virtually all cotton was harvested by farm owners who had no interest in making extensive use of children for the harvesting of cotton.

However, the Committee also noted the assertion of the IOE that, despite the legislative framework against forced labour, school children (estimates ranging from half a million to 1.5 million school children) are forced by the Government to work in the national cotton harvest for up to three months each year. The Committee also noted the ITUC’s allegations that State-sponsored forced child labour continued to underpin Uzbekistan’s cotton industry. The ITUC stated that despite the Government’s claim that almost all of the cotton in Uzbekistan is produced on private farms, the reality is rigid state control of all aspects of the cotton industry, whereby the forced mobilization of children is organized and enforced by authorities. The ITUC referred to a 2010 study which found that the mobilization of children during the cotton harvest by the central Government was systematic, utilized the school system, and left little room for choice on the part of children, their parents, school authorities and even farmers. The ITUC further stated that approximately half of all cotton picked in Uzbekistan is the result of forced child labour, and that it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children are forced out of school each year to pick cotton during school hours. The ITUC alleged that these children are required to work every day, even on weekends, and that the work involved is hazardous, involving carrying heavy loads, the application of pesticides and harsh weather conditions, with accidents reportedly resulting in injuries and deaths.

The Committee further noted the conclusions from several United Nations bodies regarding the practice of mobilizing school children for work in the cotton harvest. In this regard, it noted that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern at the situation of school-age children obliged to participate in the cotton harvest instead of attending school during this period (24 January 2006, E/C.12/UZB/CO/1, paragraph 20), and that the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern at the serious health problems experienced by many school children as a result of this participation (2 June 2006, CRC/C/UZB/CO/2, paragraphs 64–65). Moreover, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women expressed its concern regarding the educational consequences of girls and boys working during the cotton harvest season (26 January 2010, CEDAW/C/UZB/CO/4, paragraphs 30–31) and the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it remained concerned about reports that children are still employed and subjected to harsh working conditions, in particular for cotton harvesting (7 April 2010, CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraph 23).

In addition, the Committee noted the information from UNICEF concerning the cotton harvest of autumn 2011. UNICEF completed observation visits in 12 regions, finding that: (i) children aged 11–17 years old had been observed working full time in the cotton fields across the country; (ii) the mobilization of children had been organized by way of instructions passed through Khokimyats (local administration), whereby farmers are given quotas to meet and children are mobilized by means of the education system in order to help meet these quotas; (iii) in some instances, farmers had also made a private arrangement with schools to pick their cotton often in return for material resources or financial incentives for the school; (iv) children were predominantly supervised in the fields by teachers; (v) in over a third of the fields visited, children stated that they were not receiving the money themselves; (vi) quotas for the amount of cotton children were expected to pick generally ranged between 20 to 50 kilos per day; (vii) the overwhelming majority of children observed were working a full day in the field and as a result, were missing their regular classes; (viii) children worked long hours in extremely hot weather; (ix) pesticides were used on the cotton crop that children spent hours hand picking; (x) some children reported that they had not been allowed to seek medical attention even though they were sick; and (xi) that the only noticeable progress towards the eventual elimination of the use of children in cotton picking was observed in the Fergana region.

Additionally, the Committee noted that the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (Conference Committee), in June 2011, echoed the deep concern expressed by United Nations bodies, the representative organizations of workers and employers and non-governmental organizations, about the systematic and persistent recourse to forced child labour in cotton production, involving an estimated 1 million children. The Conference Committee emphasized the seriousness of such violations of the Convention and urged the Government to take the necessary measures, as a matter of urgency, to ensure the effective implementation of national legislation prohibiting compulsory labour and hazardous work for children below the age of 18.

The Committee notes the statement of the IOE in its most recent comment that the Government is ignoring the issue of forced child labour in the country. The IOE states that the information and data available from national media and other organizations at the national and international levels indicate that the cotton harvest of 2012 does not differ, or slightly differs, from the previous one. The IOE states that, although the Uzbek Prime Minister issued an annual order in early August 2012 to ban the use of both forced and voluntary child labour during the 2012 cotton harvest, and despite the wide diffusion of the order in schools in the country, the extensive use of labour of teenagers and young persons was registered in all regions of the country following the disposition to formally commence the national cotton harvest.

The Committee also notes the comments of the ITUC that the forced mobilization of children by the State to pick cotton during the harvest is serious, systematic and continuous, and that this practice takes place year after year, despite the Government’s denials. The ITUC indicates that during the autumn 2011 cotton harvest, children were forced to pick cotton by hand during term time, under threat of punishment, such as expulsion from school, in order to meet quotas set for each region by the central Government. The ITUC also states that independent monitors assessing the 2011 cotton harvest reported that in some more densely populated areas, such as Andijan, some schools took children out of school to pick cotton for 15 to 20 days, while others sent children to pick cotton after classes. However, the ITUC alleges that the situation was reported to be much worse in less densely populated regions, where children had to work for long hours. The ITUC reiterates that the participation of children in the annual cotton harvest is not a result of poverty or family need, but that this participation is organized and enforced by the authorities, channelled through local administration and directly benefits the Government. The ITUC reasserts that during the harvest, cotton quotas are set for each region, and that regional governors (Hokims) are appointed to ensure the delivery of these quotas. Such quotas are subdivided down through the hierarchy of state institutions, and the regional governor assigns schools quotas for harvesting cotton. Directors of schools and colleges face dismissal if their institution’s cotton quota is not met, and parents have little choice but to allow their children to participate in the harvest. In addition, the ITUC indicates that conditions appear to be worse for students above the age of 16 who attend colleges, and that these children may be sent to work on remote farms for up to two and half months in extremely poor conditions.

The Committee notes the statement of the Chamber of Commerce of Uzbekistan that it does not consider the issue of forced child labour, or the practice of employing children for cotton picking, to be an issue in the country. The Committee also notes the statement of the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions in Uzbekistan that the Government’s report is a genuine reflection of the measures taken by the Government to implement the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a distinction should be made between legitimate child work and activities prohibited as one of the worst forms of child labour. The Government also indicates that the increased politicization of the alleged large-scale exploitation of the forced labour of children in the cotton harvest is a method of unfair competition in the global cotton market. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the Government Order No. 82 of 26 March 2012 approved the Plan of additional measures for the implementation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), 2012–13 (Plan on additional measures). Noting the copy of this Plan on additional measures submitted with the Government’s report, the Committee observes that this Plan includes measures to maintain effective monitoring for the prevention of forcing children to work, measures to strengthen the monitoring of the attendance of pupils and steps to establish personal responsibility of heads of educational institutions concerning the full attendance and safety of pupils. The Government also states that pursuant to Letter No. 01-523 of the Ministry of Education dated 8 September 2012, the Ministry of Education of the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan and the central education boards of Uzbek provinces and Tashkent were warned not to allow pupils in general education schools to be employed as cotton pickers. The Government also refers to the report of a non governmental organization, wherein a person interviewed stated that the cotton harvest in the region of Khorzem this year was different from previous years, as children were not picking cotton but continued to attend school. The Government states that this difference was due to the ban on children picking cotton. However, the Committee observes that this report also contains several statements that children continue to be mobilized to work in the cotton harvest in other regions, particularly students in lyceum and colleges.

The Committee, therefore, observes that while several sources indicate that there may have been a decline in the number of children under the minimum age for admission to work who are compelled to work in the cotton harvest, children between 16 and 18 years of age who attend colleges continue to be forced to work during this period, instead of attending school. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the prohibition on the worst forms of child labour, including forced labour and hazardous work, applies to all children under the age of 18. Therefore, in light of the broad consensus among the United Nations bodies, the representative organizations of workers and employers and non-governmental organizations with respect to the continued practice of mobilizing school children for work in the cotton harvest, often under hazardous conditions, the Committee must express its serious concern regarding the Government’s continued insistence that children are not involved in the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. The Committee urges the Government to take immediate and effective time-bound measures to eradicate the forced labour of, or hazardous work by, children under 18 years in cotton production, as a matter of urgency. It requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard in its next report.

Articles 5 and 6. Monitoring mechanisms and programmes of action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that a programme had been approved for on-the-ground monitoring to prevent the use of forced labour by school children during the cotton harvest. The Government also indicated that the supervision of labour legislation and regulations (including the prohibition on employing children in adverse working conditions) was carried out through specifically authorized legal and technical inspections of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and trade union officials. The Government indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, in collaboration with the social partners, had implemented workshops to raise awareness among farmers on the inadmissibility of the use of child labour in agricultural works, and that the State Labour Inspection continued to carry out monitoring in farms.

The Committee also noted the IOE’s indication that it remained uncertain as to whether the implementation of the measures adopted would be sufficient to address the deeply rooted practice of forced child labour in the cotton fields. It also noted the ITUC’s statement that the monitoring of forced child labour needed to be completely independent. In addition, the Committee observed that the Conference Committee expressed regret that, despite the Government’s indication that concrete measures had been undertaken by the labour inspectorate regarding violations of labour legislation, no information was provided on the number of persons prosecuted for the mobilization of children in the cotton harvest.

The ITUC states that evidence indicates that the legislative and policy measures in place have had little effect in eradicating the ongoing and systematic mass mobilization of forced child labourers for the cotton harvest. The ITUC indicates that there is a vast disparity between the legal and policy situation and the continued practice of state-sponsored forced labour. It alleges that Government has not implemented its own national laws and policies.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, as part of the Plan on additional measures, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan, and the administration of the regions and Tashkent, will establish systematic monitoring to provide effective control to prevent enterprises, establishments and organisations from forcing children to work, and to ensure that the legislation on the working conditions of minors is respected. In this regard, the Government states that the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan has designed a structure to ensure the effective monitoring of the prohibition to compel children to work, and to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation concerning working conditions for minors and the Convention. This structure is composed of working groups established by the chairpersons of local trade union associations. The Government states that these working groups examined companies and organizations in Uzbekistan to asses compliance with the minimum age for employment and the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour, but that no evidence was found of the use of the worst forms of child labour. The Government further indicates that on 27 June 2012, the Association of Private Farmers, the Committee of the Women of Uzbekistan and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection adopted a joint decision to conduct local outreach campaigns among farmers and that seminars for private farmers on the ILO Conventions were held in August 2012 in every region in the country. Moreover, the Government indicates that at a meeting of the special national working group for organizing nationwide awareness-raising campaigns to prevent the recruitment of students for cotton-picking, special local units of this working group were formed in August 2012. In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the State Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection performs regular check of compliance with labour legislation governing minors. The Government indicates that in its 2012 inspections, the State Labour Inspectorate identified 37,818 cases of labour law violations, issued 1,273 instructions and initiated 1,221 administrative proceedings. However, the Committee once again notes with concern an absence of information as to whether any of the violations detected during these inspections pertained specifically to the worst forms of child labour, particularly the forced labour of, or hazardous work by, children under 18 years of age engaged in the cotton harvest.

The Committee once again observes that the Government has taken significant awareness-raising and preventive measures regarding the mobilization of children during the cotton harvest. In the Committee’s view, this would appear to amount to an implicit and tacit admission that such child labour occurs within the country. The Committee must, therefore, once again note with regret the absence of information from the Government on the concrete impact, if any, of the monitoring activities undertaken pursuant to the Plan on additional measures, by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the social partners. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the concrete impact of the measures taken to monitor the prohibition of the use of forced and hazardous child labour in the agricultural sector. It also requests the Government to provide specific information on the number and nature of violations detected specifically with regard to the mobilization of children under 18 to work in the cotton harvest. Where possible, the information should be disaggregated by sex and age.

Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. Forced or compulsory labour in cotton production and hazardous work. The Committee previously noted the Government’s assertion that children are not involved in the cotton harvest. The Committee considered it essential that independent monitors be granted unrestricted access to document the situation during the cotton harvest. The Committee also noted the statements in 2010 from the ITUC, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the European Trade Union Federation – Textiles, Clothing and Leather (ETUF–TCL), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Association (IUF) and the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), as well as the joint communication of 2010 from the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (EURATEX) and the ETUF–TCL indicating that a mission must be carried out as soon as possible in order to address the practice of child labour in the cotton sector and to initiate steps towards its eradication. The Committee further noted that the Conference Committee expressed its serious concern regarding the insufficient political will and the lack of transparency of the Government to address the issue of forced child labour in cotton harvesting. It urged the Government to accept a high-level ILO tripartite observer mission that would have full freedom of movement and timely access to all situations and relevant parties, including in the cotton fields, in order to assess the implementation of Convention No. 182. The Conference Committee also strongly urged the Government to receive this ILO high-level tripartite observer mission in time to report back to this Committee, and strongly encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and to commit to working with ILO–IPEC. In this regard, the Committee noted the statement of the Government indicating that technical assistance or alternative cooperation with ILO–IPEC could not be reduced only to the issues of forced labour of children in cotton harvesting. In addition, the Committee noted the statement of UNICEF that its findings following the visits undertaken in 12 regions of the country were only snapshots that could not replace substantive and independent monitoring under the auspices of the ILO, which UNICEF continued to advocate for.

The Committee notes the statement by the IOE that the Government has not shown any will to accept the tripartite observer mission recommended by the tripartite Conference Committee. The Committee also notes that the ITUC, in its communication, urges the Government to invite an ILO high-level tripartite observer mission to visit the country, and also to accept ILO technical assistance to eradicate forced child labour in the cotton industry, including through work with ILO–IPEC. The ITUC further states that once again during the 2011 harvest, the cotton fields were strictly patrolled by police and security personnel, in an attempt to prevent independent monitoring, and that persons seeking to monitor the harvest experienced harassment and intimidation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has made every effort to eliminate the worst forms of child in the country, and that for this reason, there are no grounds for inviting an ILO high-level mission to the country to examine the use of child labour. The Government states that this should not be seen as refusal to cooperate with the ILO, and that the examination of the application of the Convention should address all of the worst forms, not only cotton-picking. The Government further indicates that a seminar entitled “Implementation of ILO Conventions ratified by Uzbekistan” was held in May 2012. The Government states that this seminar was organized by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, and included participation of ILO officials from both Headquarters and the Moscow Bureau, during which participants had an opportunity to discuss various issues related to the fulfilment by Uzbekistan of its commitments within the ratified ILO Conventions. In this regard, the Committee notes the statement in the mission report of the Technical Advisory Mission that the ILO delegation attending the seminar underlined that the Technical Advisory mission should not be seen as replacing the high-level mission which had been requested by the supervisory bodies. This mission report also indicates that the ILO delegation indicated to the Government that the Office was prepared to pursue technical assistance, and that the delegation highlighted that high-level tripartite missions were not sanctions, but instead an important way forward in helping to verify facts and resolve implementation gaps.

Therefore, the Committee must once again note with serious concern that the Government has yet to respond positively to the recommendation to accept a high-level tripartite observation mission. The Committee’s concerns are reinforced by the evident contradiction between the Government’s position that children are not removed from school for work in the cotton harvest, and the views expressed by numerous UN bodies and social partners that this worst form of child labour remains a serious problem in the country. It, therefore, considers an ILO mission to be both necessary and appropriate, to fully assess the situation of children’s engagement in the cotton sector. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to accept a high-level ILO tripartite observer mission, and expresses the firm hope that such an ILO mission can take place in the very near future. It also strongly encourages the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in respect of the situation in question.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 102nd Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]