Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2010, Publication: 99th ILC session (2010)

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

A Government representative informed the Committee that his Government had submitted the report on the application of Convention No. 182 for the 2008–10 period. This report had been compiled with the participation and cooperation of government institutions, the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He indicated that Uzbekistan implemented international standards on the prevention and prohibition of child labour and had reliable and effective mechanisms for the protection of the rights of children in the field of labour. More specifically, he indicated that forced labour was prohibited by the Constitution; the Act on Guarantees of the Rights of the Child defined children as persons under 18 years of age; the labour legislation set the minimum age for admission to employment at 16 years, strictly defined cases in which children of 15 years of age could work, and provided for the working conditions and preferential conditions of persons under 18 years of age; the Act on the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons provided for mechanisms to counter all forms of exploitation of persons, including forced child labour and the involvement of children in criminal activities; criminal legislation established higher penalties for involving children in illegal activities; and a list of occupations with unfavourable working conditions in which it was forbidden to employ persons under 18 years of age had been adopted.

The Government of Uzbekistan had adopted the National Action Plan (NAP) for the application of the ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and Convention No. 182. Four priorities had been identified under this Plan. Firstly, with regard to the improvement of legislation, the Administrative Responsibility Code had been amended in 2009 so as to increase the liability of officials and individuals for violations of labour legislation and for coercing persons under 18 years of age to perform work. In addition to the “list of occupations with unfavourable working conditions in which it is forbidden to employ persons under 18 years of age”, the texts approved specific authorized limits for the lifting and carrying of loads by persons under 18 years of age and the Order on the Admission to Employment of Children under 16 years of age, regulating labour relations between an employer and an employee under 15 years of age and providing for compulsory general secondary education and special secondary professional education.

Secondly, a system of monitoring the application of Convention No. 182 had been prepared and the capacity of the responsible bodies strengthened. The following bodies were involved in the monitoring of the application of the Convention: both chambers of the Parliament; the Office of the General Prosecutor; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Secondary and Higher Education; the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan; the non-governmental youth organization “Kamolot”; the Council of Ministries of the Republic of Karakalpakstan; regional and local authorities; and civil society institutions. A joint resolution on activities to implement Conventions Nos 138 and 182 in educational institutions, providing for the monitoring of school attendance and the personal liability of heads of educational institutions, as well as monitoring compliance with the prohibition of the use of forced labour by students of secondary schools, professional colleges and academic lyceums had been adopted by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Secondary and Higher Education and the youth organization “Kamolot”. The Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry had drawn up and approved the recommendation on the need to take into consideration the specific characteristics of the employment of persons under 18 years of age when concluding collective agreements.

Thirdly, all state bodies, civil society institutions, mass media and educational establishments had been involved in the dissemination of information on the rights of the child and the implementation of Convention No. 182. Recently, in collaboration with ILO–IPEC, a number of ILO documents, including Conventions and Recommendations, had been published in Uzbek. He added that, in May 2010, the delegation of Uzbekistan had taken part in the Global Conference on Child Labour organized by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment of the Netherlands and the ILO with the support of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank. Uzbekistan supported the Global Report “Accelerating action against child labour” prepared by the ILO, the World Bank and UNICEF, as well as the “Road Map”, a plan of action on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour by 2016. Together with UNICEF, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection had been implementing the project to support the implementation of the National Action Plan on child labour, which provided for the creation of a joint working group, research on the social protection of vulnerable children, awareness raising on child labour issues, the preparation of information materials and educational handbooks, the holding of seminars and the provision of training, the development of minimum standards for children with special needs, etc. In the framework of the Annual Work Plan of the Programme “Protection of the Child”, a number of regional training activities had been carried out with the participation of khokims (governors), prosecutors, representatives of departments of internal affairs, commissions on minors and labour bodies.

The Government of Uzbekistan paid particular attention to families in need of assistance, mothers and children. Despite, the financial crisis, in 2010 total spending on social services amounted to 59 per cent of the state budget. In conclusion, he reaffirmed that Uzbekistan was ready to engage in dialogue and cooperation with all the parties concerned and the relevant international organizations in relation to the protection of the rights and interests of children.

The Employer members noted that this was a double-footnote case and that, although Convention No. 182 had entered into force only in June 2009, there was a long history in Uzbekistan of the issue of children working in the cotton harvest, to which the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) had been drawing attention for a number of years. They noted that, according to the 2010 Global Report on child labour, 115 million children were engaged in the worst forms of child labour, and of this total 67 million were found in the agricultural sector. The problem of child labour in agriculture was thus a prominent one, and it was therefore appropriate that the present case should come before the Committee.

Recalling that hazardous work comprised one of the worst forms of child labour under Article 3(d) of the Convention, and furthermore that Article 5 required the States parties to establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to the Convention, they regretted the Government’s failure to provide indications on the extent to which child labour existed in the country. The Government had referred to plans, statutes and regulations respecting child labour, but had not provided any data in this respect; moreover, although the Government had referred to a national plan of action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, it remained difficult to assess how it actually implemented the specific measures called for under Article 7.

They noted that, according to the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), tens of thousands of children were forced to work in the cotton harvest for periods of up to three months, or 25 per cent of the year. Research undertaken by another non-governmental organization (NGO), the International Labour Rights Forum, further substantiated the EJF’s claims. Indeed, the widely held estimate of the number of Uzbek children engaged in the cotton harvest ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 million, and the sheer size of the figures involved gave rise to serious concern; if so many children were prevented from attending school for up to a quarter of the calendar year, this would eventually bear grave consequences for Uzbek society as a whole. The Employer members noted that, although programmes to combat this problem existed, they appeared to have no teeth. Furthermore, it was not clear whether any of the various statues and regulations referred to in the Committee of Experts’ observation were in fact being implemented.

Noting that in its direct request the Committee of Experts had identified other deficiencies in the implementation of the Convention, with respect to the other worst forms of child labour, they emphasized that the problem at hand was greater than the issue of children engaged in cotton harvesting. They concluded that, although laws concerning the elimination of child labour appeared to be in place, there was no information respecting their effectiveness or implementation. They emphasized the necessity of programmes that, inter alia, measured the number of children being removed from work in the cotton harvest each year; this was a serious problem that needed to be remedied immediately.

The Worker members recalled that the present case concerned forced or compulsory work by children in cotton production and in work liable to harm their health, safety or morals. The systematic and persistent use of child labour in the production of cotton had been denounced by an important movement composed of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, as well as NGOs and certain media. In 2008, the Committee of Experts had noted, in the context of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), allegations by the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan reporting the mobilization and requisitioning of labour consisting, among others, of schoolchildren and students for the production of cotton, which could sometimes cover a period of three months. The number of schoolchildren compelled to participate in the cotton harvest had been estimated at between 0.5 and 1.5 million, which had jeopardized their education and health, especially in rural areas, as confirmed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

According to the Government, employers could not use compulsory labour in agriculture and the public administration could not impose work on private employers. A Decree prohibiting child labour in cotton plantations had recently been adopted at the same time as the launching of a National Action Plan for the application of Conventions Nos 138 and 182. The Government had added that the Constitution and the national legislation explicitly prohibited all forms of forced labour and established guarantees for the protection of the rights and interests of children. It considered that the alleged facts were mistaken and were part of a denigration programme by NGOs intended to undermine the reputation of Uzbek cotton on the global market. Nevertheless, the introduction of legislative changes offered no guarantee at all that they would be given effect, supervised and enforced through penalties, nor that they would be the subject of consultation with the social partners, with the possible participation of duly recognized and identified NGOs.

Finally, the Worker members indicated that they were prepared to place their trust in the Government, on condition that it demonstrated without further ado its firm political will, particularly by designating an authority responsible for the implementation of Convention No. 182, accepting or proposing the provision of technical assistance and entering into partnership with IPEC.

The Government member of Spain, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Member States of the European Union of the Committee, expressed deep concern at the child labour situation in Uzbekistan. He noted with regret that, in its latest report, the Committee of Experts had expressed serious concern at the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour in the cotton fields in Uzbekistan. This concern, furthermore, was supported by well-documented evidence furnished by various organizations, including the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, the IOE and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The large-scale use of children had continued in the 2008 and 2009 cotton harvests, and estimates of the number of children engaged ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 million. Uzbekistan had not achieved any significant progress on this serious issue that had been under examination for a long time, and was thus clearly failing to comply with its obligations under Convention No. 182. He urged the adoption of rapid and effective action to resolve this problem as a matter of extreme urgency, and in this regard drew the Government’s attention to the “Road map to 2016”, the main outcome of the Hague Global Child Labour Conference of 2010. This document had been developed after several consultations, and had been adopted by acclamation on 11 May by over 450 delegates from 80 countries, representing governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, international and regional organizations, and members of academia and civil society. He also noted that the “Road map to 2016” was aimed at substantially increasing efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labour by 2016, and listed guiding principles and priority actions for governments, workers’ and employers’ organizations, NGOs and civil society, as well as regional and international organizations. The priority action points in the document provided practical guidance for the Government of Uzbekistan and all other relevant stakeholders, and could serve as a stepping stone to the elimination of the worst forms of child labour.

The Government member of the United States stated that her Government noted with concern that, notwithstanding the existence of constitutional and legislative prohibitions against forced labour and child labour in Uzbekistan, there had been persistent and credible reports that many thousands of rural school children were mobilized forcibly each autumn to harvest cotton under hazardous conditions. These reports called attention to the negative consequences for the education of rural children in Uzbekistan and for their health. Considering that forced labour and hazardous work were among the worst forms of child labour, it was understandable that the Committee of Experts had expressed serious concern at this situation so soon after the Government’s ratification of the Convention. While noting the commitment expressed by the Government of Uzbekistan to open and candid dialogue regarding its implementation of Convention No. 182, as well as the measures undertaken or envisaged by the Government to eliminate forced child labour, she stressed that much more could and must be done. Recalling that ILO technical assistance could be instrumental in helping the governments to find and implement solutions for the effective and sustained application of ratified Conventions, in both law and practice, she urged the Government of Uzbekistan to avail itself of that assistance. In particular, she joined the broad call for the Government to invite an ILO observer mission that would have full freedom of movement and timely access to all situations and relevant parties in order to assess the implementation of Convention No. 182, and all other relevant ratified Conventions, during the upcoming 2010 cotton harvest.

The Worker member of Norway indicated that reports of the 2009 cotton harvest from human rights defenders, independent journalists and photographers clearly demonstrated the still widespread use of forced child labour in Uzbekistan. According to those reports, cotton quotas for each region were prescribed directly from the central government in Tashkent to provincial governors, and then relayed down to district governors and education departments. Head teachers were also given quotas for their respective schools, and each child was ascribed a daily cotton quota.

According to the Ferghana.ru news agency, students at high schools and colleges in the Yangiyul district of the Tashkent region were forcibly sent to work in the cotton fields, as were children in the Syrdarya region. Furthermore, although officials claimed to have restricted labour in the fields to students aged 14 and older, reporters had found children between the ages of 12 and 13. She added that, according to the Central Asia News Agency, all students in the Andijan region had been recruited to participate in the cotton harvest from 17 September 2009 onwards, and that the Ezgulik human rights group had reported the mobilization of school children to pick cotton in the Surkhandarya region of southern Uzbekistan. Moreover, in the Ferghana region a 13-year old girl, interviewed by journalists in November 2009, had stated that she and her classmates had been picking cotton since 20 September and that, at the end of the harvest and in the cold weather, she was finding it difficult to meet her daily quota. Finally, a teacher interviewed in the Tashkent region last year had stated that during the harvest his school was obliged to pick 1.5 tonnes of cotton every day, and that the work was continuing throughout November, despite an administrator’s promise that it would end by October.

She maintained that forced labour and child labour occurred not only in Uzbekistan, but was present throughout the whole of the cotton industry worldwide. Cotton was processed in sweatshops in export processing zones around the world, and then sold to textile manufacturers, who were also notorious for their mistreatment of workers. It was time, she concluded, for child labour in Uzbekistan to end by implementing the measures set out in the Committee of Experts’ recommendations.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted that the report on the application of Convention No. 182 submitted by the Government had been prepared in consultation with the social partners. With regard to the measures taken by the Government to implement the Convention, he indicated that Articles 37 and 45 of the Uzbek Constitution prohibited any compulsory labour and contained state guarantees of protection of the rights and interests of children; that a list of occupations with unfavourable working conditions in which it was forbidden to employ persons under 18 years of age had been adopted; that the Labour Code had been amended with regard to the minimum age for admission to employment and that the Nation Action Plan for the application of ILO Conventions Nos 138 and 182 had been adopted. The latter provided for the improvement of the legislation on supervising compliance with the prohibition of the use of child labour; the monitoring of the application of both Conventions; awareness raising; and the implementation of international projects on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The Government of Uzbekistan had been taking and would continue to take all the necessary measures in cooperation with the ILO to comply with its international obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of Kuwait stated that by custom and tradition many agricultural countries, especially developing ones, used a form of mutual help and family solidarity that could include the participation of children in some activities, namely in cotton or rice harvests. This form of mutual help could not be considered to be a form of forced labour or child labour in the strict legal sense for the following reasons. First, this form of work took place among family members. It was a mere expression of solidarity and a form of the transmission of knowledge among generations. Secondly, this form of work took place without a contract and without remuneration. It could not be considered a normal working relationship, even less a form of forced labour, because it was not imposed. Thirdly, this form of mutual help within the family did not involve the absence of the children from school, because it took place during school vacations and did not affect the schooling of children. It was important to recognize the efforts of the Government of Uzbekistan to adopt legislation and its request for technical assistance from the ILO.

The Government member of Belarus added that his Government supported the efforts of the Government of Uzbekistan to ensure compliance with Convention No. 182 in law and in practice. He considered that Uzbekistan, as a young and internationally active State, deserved encouragement and support and the ILO should not be taking decisions on the basis of media reports.

The Government member of Cuba noted that the Uzbek Constitution prohibited forced labour and child labour and that the legislation and National Action Plan, adopted in consultation with national organizations, demonstrated that the Government of Uzbekistan was taking positive steps for the implementation of the Convention. The ILO should encourage these steps.

The Government member of Switzerland concurred with the statement made by the Government member of Spain on behalf of the European Union.

The Government representative emphasized that his Government had complied with the principles of tripartism when preparing its report on the application of Convention No. 182. He added that young people under 18 years of age represented 40 per cent of the population of Uzbekistan. Children were not only his country’s future, but also its present. Ensuring protection against the worst forms of child labour was the priority for the Government. To that end, the necessary measures had been taken in law and in practice to monitor the application of the legislation prohibiting child labour. Particular attention was paid to the dissemination of information on the rights of the child. In his Government’s opinion, ensuring good education was the best way to eradicate child labour. Finally, he considered that the reports by NGOs on the alleged use of forced child labour were nothing more than a politically motivated campaign by developed nations competing on the cotton market. His Government wanted an honest partnership and would be grateful for any support and assistance by the ILO and international partners.

The Employer members regretted that, in its comments, the Government had failed to specify the workers engaged in the picking of cotton. Given that cotton exports totalled US$1 billion annually, and that half the country’s population comprised young persons, this was a serious question to which the Government needed to respond. Noting that there remained a substantial gap between law and practice with respect to forced and child labour, they emphasized once again the importance of statistical data on the number and ages of persons engaged in the cotton industry and suggested the establishment of independent monitoring programmes as a means of obtaining this information. They concluded that the Government needed to invest substantial resources to remove children from the cotton industry and ensure their attendance at school.

The Worker members observed that the Government’s argument rested on two main points. First, it considered that it had been the victim of a smear campaign by NGOs seeking to damage the reputation of its cotton products. Second, it had highlighted the adoption of new provisions intended to ensure the development of an effective education system and the creation of a legislative framework guaranteeing protection for children’s rights, through an Act amending the Code on Administrative Responsibility to increase the liability of those prosecuted for violating the legislation prohibiting child labour. However significant those steps might be, it was vital for the legislation on administrative liability to be applied and to be subject to consultation with the social partners, without excluding the participation of NGOs. The Government should consequently take steps to nominate a competent authority responsible for the implementation of the provisions of Convention No. 182; accept a technical assistance mission; develop a partnership with ILO–IPEC; and submit a progress report before the next session of the Committee of Experts in November 2010.

The Government representative indicated that 100 per cent of Uzbek cotton was produced by private farms. It was possible for children over 15 years of age to assist some 400,000 private farmers in the harvesting of cotton, as long as it was not detrimental to their health and education, and parental agreement had been obtained. Furthermore, national legislation prohibiting forced child labour was effectively implemented. Between 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court had examined 128 criminal cases involving allegations of forced labour and forced child labour. Of 180 accused persons, 137 had been sentenced to imprisonment and others had been remanded. Finally, he indicated that compliance with Convention No. 182 would be discussed by the Parliament later this year and that relevant ministries and civil society institutions would be participating in these discussions.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted that the report of the Committee of Experts referred to comments from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) relating to the systematic and persistent use of forced child labour in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan for up to three months every year, as well as the substantial negative impact of this practice on the health and education of school aged children obliged to participate in the cotton harvest.

The Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government outlining the laws, policies and action programmes put in place prohibiting the forced labour of, and hazardous work by, children in cotton production and harvesting. The Committee also noted the Government’s information on the measures taken within the framework of the National Action Plan for the application of Conventions Nos 138 and 182 to ensure the protection of children’s rights. The Committee further noted the Government’s statement denying the coercion of large numbers of children to participate in agricultural work, and that the use of compulsory labour was punishable with penal and administrative sanctions.

The Committee noted that, although various legal provisions prohibited forced labour and the engagement of children in hazardous work, it remained an issue of grave concern in practice. The Committee also noted the concern expressed by several speakers about the systematic and persistent recourse to forced child labour in cotton production. The Committee emphasized the seriousness of such violations of Convention No. 182. It reminded the Government that the forced labour of, or hazardous work by, children, constituted the worst forms of child labour and that member States were required to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of these worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. It accordingly 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. In this regard, the Committee requested the Government to clearly identify the competent authority responsible for monitoring the legal provisions giving effect to Convention No. 182.

It also called on the Government to expand the capacity and reach of the labour inspectorate in enforcing the law to ensure that persons who infringed the Convention were prosecuted and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions were imposed.

Moreover, noting with serious concern the significant number of children removed from school and made to work in the cotton fields in hazardous conditions and underlining the importance of free, universal and compulsory education in preventing and combating the worst forms of child labour, the Committee called on the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that school age children in rural and disadvantaged areas were not removed from school for the purpose of cotton production and harvesting. The Committee further requested the Government to supply detailed information in its report to the forthcoming meeting of the Committee of Experts on the effective and time-bound measures taken to remove children from forced labour and hazardous work and to provide for their rehabilitation and social integration, in conformity with Article 7(2) of the Convention.

The Committee urged the Government to accept an ILO high-level 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. It expressed the preference that the mission would take place in time to report back to the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts. It expressed the firm hope that, following this mission and the additional steps promised by the Government, it would be in a position to note tangible progress in the application of the Convention in the very near future.

Finally, concerning the issue of insufficient data on children working in the cotton sector, the Committee suggested that the Government carry out a national household survey on child labour or an area or sector specific survey.