Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

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

A Government representative pointed out that the legal basis for the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour had been established and was being continually improved. He recalled that protection against unacceptable forms of child labour was based on the following legislation: the Constitution, which prohibited the use of any form of forced labour; the Act on Guarantees of the Rights of the Child, which regulated the work of persons under 18 years of age, allowing them to combine work and study; the Labour Code which set the minimum age for admission to employment at 16 years (in exceptional cases at 15 years with the authorization of the child’s parents or guardians); the Administrative Responsibility Code, which provided for substantial fines for employers who committed violations of labour legislation on the use of child labour; the Act to supplement the Administrative Responsibility Code, which was adopted to punish those who bought or sold, or carried out any other transaction with regard to a minor, as well as those who exploited, recruited, transferred, delivered, concealed or carried out any other act for the purpose of exploiting a child and involving a child in any form of illegal activity; and the Act on the prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency, which was adopted on 29 September 2010. He recalled that, in order to implement the Committee of Experts’ recommendations, an Inter-ministerial Working Group was established by Cabinet of Ministers decision of 25 March 2011, which was chaired by the First Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection, and included senior officials of the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Internal Affairs, Education, Higher and Secondary Specialized Education and Health, the National Human Rights Centre, the Women’s Committee, the non-governmental youth organization “Kamolot” and farmers’ associations. The main tasks and objectives of the Inter-ministerial Working Group were the following: coordinating the activity of the relevant ministries, departments and organizations concerned with regard to the implementation of the measures, programmes and plans adopted pursuant to ILO Conventions; developing programmes and action aimed at complying with obligations under ILO Conventions; carrying out the necessary awareness-raising activities on the content and meaning of the ILO Conventions applied in Uzbekistan; liaising with international organizations on matters relating to education, health care, labour, employment, social protection and social and labour legislation. In April and May 2011, the Inter-ministerial Working Group decided on the development of measures aimed at fulfilling Uzbekistan’s obligations under ILO Conventions and updating the measures under the National Plan of Action, and approved updated reports on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) and Convention No. 182, as well as the information on non-ratified ILO Conventions. He further recalled that Uzbekistan was implementing a single National Programme for Training Managers, and that since 2009 it had introduced compulsory schooling for 12 years, this being a crucial factor in preventing child labour and eradicating its worst forms. Referring to recent data on, amongst others, the literacy rate, economic growth, job creation, average wages and state expenditure on social protection in Uzbekistan, he stressed that, as ILO experts had noted, the economic reforms undertaken in Uzbekistan had ensured stable economic growth, improved the level of employment, and improved incomes for families. These constituted an important precondition for reducing child labour in the country. As regards strengthening monitoring of compliance with ratified ILO Conventions, he stated that the practice of parliamentary monitoring was being introduced; an integrated policy document for the development and improvement of national monitoring of the rights of the child was being implemented with the assistance of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); the Government Order of 19 February 2010, extended the powers of the labour inspectorate, which was authorized to suspend the activities of undertakings not found to be in conformity with labour legislation and to initiate administrative proceedings against persons responsible for contraventions. He added that concrete measures were being taken to prosecute people for violations of labour legislation: the labour inspectorate in 2010 had recorded around 10,000 contraventions of labour laws and regulations during hiring and employment; some 829 compliance orders (orders to rectify contraventions) were issued, and administrative action was taken against 782 managers and officials, with fines totalling 75 million Sumy (UZS). He further pointed out that Uzbekistan was collaborating with the ILO and the social partners in implementing the Decent Work Country Programme.

The Employer members stressed that the worst forms of child labour was a chronic problem in agriculture. The Conference Committee conclusions last year highlighted the systematic and persistent use of forced 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. In particular, although various legal statutes prohibited forced labour and hazardous types of work for children, the legislation did not prevent child labour in the cotton harvest from occurring. It was not sufficient to have laws: such laws and the Constitution should be effective and enforced as required by Article 7(1) of Convention No. 182. As noted by the Committee of Experts in its 2010 observation, there was a convergence of allegations and broad consensus among the United Nations bodies, the representative organizations of employers and workers and nongovernmental organizations, regarding the continued practice of mobilizing schoolchildren for work in the cotton harvest. Not all of these organizations’ assessment of the situation could be wrong. According to the Government’s report of 7 June 2010, an interdepartmental working group was established, and a programme approved, for on-the-ground monitoring to prevent the use of forced labour by schoolchildren during the cotton harvest. This seemed to be an implicit and tacit admission that child labour occurred. Since the last meeting with the Government last year, there had been numerous credible reports of child labour in the cotton harvest from September to October 2010. Contrary to the Government’s statements, these children were supervised by their teachers, not their parents. Police and security patrolled the cotton fields in an effort to prevent observation by human rights groups and journalists, and at least one human rights activist was expelled from the country for observing the cotton harvest. The Employer members questioned the transparency of the Government: while last year the Conference Committee had 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 the cotton fields, the Government by inaction appeared to have rejected this conclusion. The Employer members suggested that the Government reconsider this option.

The Worker members recalled that the Convention had been adopted in 1999 with the aim of combating those inhumane and unacceptable situations, and as such constituted a relatively new instrument. The case under examination concerned the use of (often very young) children for work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it was carried out, was hazardous. The examination of the case this year, after an examination by this Committee in 2010, had been requested by the Committee of Experts on the “double footnote” basis. The Committee of Experts had initially examined the issues related to the forced or compulsory labour of children in cotton production and in hazardous work governed by Articles 3 and 7(1) of the Convention. Denunciation of the systematic and persistent use of the forced labour of children in the cotton fields was widespread and well documented. It involved the confederation of trade unions of Uzbekistan, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and other non-governmental and media organizations. Since the ratification of the Convention in 2008 and the communication of the Government’s first report, the Committee of Experts had noted serious problems relating to compliance with the Convention. Every year between 0.5 and 1.5 million schoolchildren were forced by the Government to work in the national cotton harvest for periods of up to three months. The latest figures available concerned the 2009 harvest; it had not been possible to obtain accurate and reliable data on the current situation. The situation involved hazardous work prohibited by the Convention which prevented the children from attending school during the harvest period. It also gave rise to serious health problems resulting from the harsh climatic conditions and the carrying of heavy loads, such as intestinal and respiratory infections and cases of meningitis and hepatitis. Neutral and credible international bodies such as UNICEF, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Human Rights Committee had also expressed their concern regarding the seasonal mobilization of vast numbers of children for the cotton harvest. At the same time, it was worrying to observe that the Government seemed unwilling to recognize the gravity of the situation, stating that it was traditional practice for the oldest children to help with the family business. In practice, the situation in question affected very young children (9, 10, 11 years of age and older), who worked under harsh conditions which posed a threat to their life and health, conditions that were covered by the Convention. It was therefore to be hoped that the Government would understand that it had an obligation, as established by the Convention, to take immediate and effective measures to ensure the elimination, as a matter of urgency, of the worst forms of child labour, and ensure the effective application of the Convention through monitoring and penal sanctions. The Committee of Experts had also examined the surveillance mechanisms and the programmes of action aimed at eliminating the worst forms of child labour covered by Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. It observed that the Government had adopted a National Plan of Action for the application of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) and Convention No. 182 comprising measures to combat the forced labour of children and also a resolution concerning measures for the application of these Conventions in the education system. The Government had taken initiatives to inform and raise the awareness of farmers and to collaborate with the UNICEF Child Protection Programme. Nevertheless, it still lacked specific, detailed information on the impact of the national plan of action and the measures taken in that context. Without such data and the effective involvement of the labour inspectorate, the objective of reducing the number of children working in the cotton harvest was impossible to achieve since the phenomenon could not be evaluated. The inspectorate needed not only human and financial resources but also the means of monitoring the use of school-age children in the cotton harvest. The Committee of Experts had underlined the lack of communicated data required in the report form on the autumn 2010 harvest. However, having recourse to changes to the law was no guarantee that the law was effectively applied and monitored and that penalties were imposed in relation to it, or that the application thereof would be the subject of consultations with the local social partners and other representatives of civil society recognized by the latter. The Worker members recalled that they had wanted to show confidence in the Government the previous year by inviting it to demonstrate its total political will without delay by agreeing to receive a high-level ILO tripartite observer mission having full freedom of movement and timely access to all situations and relevant parties, including in the cotton fields. To date, the Government had yet to agree to the mission. To show its serious intent, therefore, the Government would have to undertake to report regularly by supplying recent, concrete and complete data. It would also have to accept the observer mission called for by the Committee the previous year and agree to or, better still, propose technical assistance. Finally, the Government should enter into a partnership with the ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).

The Worker member of Uzbekistan stated that the Government representative had objectively evaluated the Government’s effort in combating child labour. Child labour could be eliminated only by eliminating its causes – informal employment, unemployment, economic and family-related problems. Trade unions were among the first to bring the issue of child labour to public attention. In 2005, it called for the ratification of Conventions Nos 138 and 182. Following the ratification of these Conventions, trade unions had participated in the development of a national plan of action for their implementation. Out of 37 measures envisaged by this plan, 13 had been adopted upon trade unions’ initiative. These measures included a review of the “List of occupations with unfavourable working conditions in which it is forbidden to employ persons under 18 years of age”, review of regulations on lifting and carrying heavy loads, and awareness-raising among farmers. On 2 May 2011, the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan, the Association of Farmers, and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection made a joint statement on the prohibition of child labour in the agricultural sector. The Administrative Responsibility Code had been amended so as to provide for the legal responsibility of officials and other persons for violating labour legislation concerning minors; for employing minors to perform work which could harm their health, safety or morals; as well as for forcing minors to perform work. Currently, a review of collective agreements was being undertaken with the aim of including provisions concerning protection of children’s rights, obliging employers to respect the minimum age for employment and prohibiting worst forms of child labour. In 2010, the monitoring of compliance with the Labour Code carried out by trade unions revealed 6,271 cases of violations, 197 of which concerned children under 18 years. The Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan conducted information sessions and seminars for trade union activists throughout the county and, together with the Farmers’ Association, among farmers, to raise awareness regarding child labour. The source of child labour lay in the informal economy and family, where trade unions had no influence. In the formal sector, the problem of the worst forms of child labour did not exist. Some parents thought that it was better for their children to work than do nothing. There was nothing wrong with children helping their parents and making some pocket money. However, children were often being employed without a proper employment contract and without respecting requirements set forth by the legislation for children and adolescents concerning working hours and rest. Today, employers, parents and children should clearly understand the difference between child labour and vocational training. The Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan would continue making the necessary efforts to ensure the full application of the Convention in the country.

The Government member of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Member States of the European Union (EU) attending the Conference, as well as the candidate countries (Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Iceland) and potential candidate countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia), Norway and the Republic of Moldova, reiterated serious concern about the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including child labour during the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. While taking note of the adoption of the Act on Guarantees of the Rights of the Child, of the relevant amendment to the Administrative Responsibility Code and of the Aide-memoire on the Application of the Convention sent by the Government, she noted with deep regret the recent conclusions of the Committee of Experts. This concern was supported by well-documented allegations and broad consensus among the United Nations bodies, UNICEF, the representative organizations of employers and workers and non-governmental organizations stating that, despite the legal commitments made by the Government to eradicate forced child labour, in practice, year after year an estimated number of 0.5 to 1.5 million school-aged children were still forced to take part in the hazardous work in the cotton harvest for up to three months each year. Whereas the Government had stated in its report that the allegations concerning widespread forced labour in agriculture were an unfounded attempt by foreign actors to undermine the reputation of Uzbek cotton in the global market, and that children were not involved in the cotton harvest as various legal provisions prohibit forced labour, she urged the Government to grant unrestricted access to independent monitors to document the cotton harvest and provide a clear picture of the situation in the country. A monitoring mission was one of the issues recently discussed by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission at his meeting with President Islam Karimov in January 2010. While expressing concern that the Government did not invite the previously recommended high-level ILO tripartite observer mission despite the detailed discussions in the Conference Committee last year and the explicit request of the Committee, she strongly urged the Government to invite such a mission in good time for the 2011 harvest and provide it full freedom of movement and timely access to all situations and relevant parties, including in the cotton fields, in order to assess the actual implementation of the Convention. She further urged the Government of Uzbekistan to strengthen its efforts on this serious issue, to take immediate and effective measures to ensure the implementation of all aspects of the Convention, to carry out thorough investigations into allegations of such practices and to take robust action with regard to the prosecution of offenders.

The Government member of Switzerland stated that her Government associated itself with the statement made by the Government member of Hungary on behalf of the Member States of the European Union.

The Government member of Azerbaijan noted the positive measures taken by the Government of Uzbekistan, for instance the adoption of legislation in 2010 to prevent the exploitation of children, the establishment of the Inter-ministerial Working Group to monitor the implementation of ILO Conventions, and the 2011 decision to set up a specific programme for the eradication of child labour. He also recalled that new legislation was adopted in 2009 on compulsory education and his Government was of the view that all those measures would ultimately produce positive results for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour.

The Government member of the United States stated that her Government remained concerned that, notwithstanding the constitutional and legislative prohibitions against forced labour and child labour in Uzbekistan, there was reason to believe that many thousands of rural schoolchildren continued to be mobilized forcibly each autumn to harvest cotton under hazardous conditions. She echoed the concerns of UN bodies, employers’ and workers’ organizations, and non-governmental organizations, regarding this deeply rooted practice. Her Government urged the Government of Uzbekistan to implement its existing prohibitions on forced and child labour. She recalled that ILO high-level tripartite technical assistance could be instrumental in helping governments to develop and implement solutions for the effective and sustained application of ratified Conventions, and it was regrettable that last year’s recommendation for an ILO mission was not accepted by the Government. Her Government joined the other members in calling for the Government to invite an ILO observer mission that would have full freedom of movement and timely access to all information and relevant parties to assess the implementation of the Convention during the next cotton harvest.

The Government member of Canada stated that her Government welcomed the adoption of various legal provisions prohibiting forced labour and the engagement of children in hazardous work, but shared the concerns raised by the Committee of Experts that forced child labour continued to be practised in the cotton industry. This situation, and its negative impacts on the health and safety and education of children, had been raised by international workers’ and employers’ organizations and commented on by a number of UN bodies. Her Government was encouraged by the measures for implementation of Conventions Nos 138 and 182, undertaken by the Government under the National Programme of Action approved in 2008, and the joint resolution adopted in 2009, but expected more detailed information on the practical results of these initiatives. Her Government therefore urged the Government of Uzbekistan to accept a high-level tripartite observer mission and to work with the ILO to strengthen enforcement of forced labour and child labour laws to fully meet its obligations under the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States recalled that the 2010 cotton harvest had involved the use of child labour on a massive scale: more than 2 million schoolchildren aged between 10 and 16 years. He recalled that, by the time the 2010 harvest had ended, two months of schooling, mainly in rural areas, were effectively lost. The mobilization of this involuntary labour originated from the top and was transmitted through governors to school administrators. The harvest mobilization was overseen by government officials and police, while parents who refused to send their children to work reportedly faced economic sanctions such as the removal of welfare subsidies or the cutting off of gas and electricity. According to some accounts, children who failed to meet quotas, ranging previously from 15–75 kilos per day based on age, were beaten or humiliated. Security was employed throughout the region to prevent eyewitnesses from reporting abuses, while children and parents were instructed to deny that they were picking cotton. Children were reported to suffer from exhaustion and malnutrition. The speaker questioned the Government’s denial of the existence of statesponsored forced child labour and its statement that national programmes, commissions and other measures proposed or previously established were serious efforts to combat child labour in the cotton industry. He noted the broad consensus among all social partners, including the employers and workers, and governments, which were supported by reports from international and inter-governmental organizations, universities and human rights organizations, that state sponsored forced child labour in the cotton industry continued on a massive scale. He called for an ILO high-level tripartite mission with unrestricted and unsupervised access during the harvest season and expressed the view that if this mission were rejected by the Government, other measures should be considered to bring about quickly and completely the end of forced child labour.

The Government member of Turkmenistan stated that his Government welcomed the adoption of the National Action Plan for the implementation of ILO Conventions. The National Action Plan on Convention No. 182 set out specific measures to prevent child labour, monitor compliance and raise awareness, and provided training for employment agencies, media, trade unions and local administrations. The Government consistently carried out nationwide programmes for the protection of social and economic rights of children. National monitoring mechanisms had been incorporated into the Government administration from the highest to local government levels. The Government’s attention to child development was evidenced by the fact that 99 per cent of the population was literate. Uzbekistan had one of the strongest social systems, especially with respect to vulnerable families, large families and children in need. He therefore concluded that the examination of this case should be discontinued.

The Government member of Singapore noted the concrete steps taken by the Government of Uzbekistan to eliminate child labour, including efforts made in strengthening the legislative framework and enhancing the monitoring mechanism to prevent illegal child labour, increasing the penalties for violations of labour legislation and compulsory labour of persons under 18 years of age, and implementing targeted programmes including educational activities to raise awareness on the rights of the child. The Government had demonstrated its commitment to tackle the problems and to cooperate with international agencies, such as translating and publishing educational material on the elimination of child labour, in partnership with ILO–IPEC; and developing and implementing a concept of development and improvement of national monitoring of children’s rights in partnership with the UNICEF office in Uzbekistan, which contained the basic principles, goals, mechanisms and tools for monitoring children’s rights, including the right to work. However, her Government was of the view that there was still room for improvement, and encouraged Uzbekistan to continue its efforts to strengthen the effective implementation and enforcement of the various provisions prohibiting forced labour and the engagement of children in hazardous work. She stressed that the social partners and stakeholders had an important role to play in addressing these challenges in a comprehensive manner, and supported their involvement to collectively formulate effective implementation plans. Her Government considered that the Government of Uzbekistan had taken proactive and resolute steps to address the challenges of the elimination of child labour and concluded by stating that the Committee should offer further assistance to the Government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of Cuba drew attention to the National Plan of Action that the Government had introduced to implement Conventions Nos 138 and 182, which contained 37 measures covering four fundamental areas: improving legislation, monitoring and follow-up, raising awareness of the Conventions, and implementing international cooperation projects. She emphasized that the Government was making great efforts to prevent child labour, including holding seminars and awareness-raising campaigns aimed at employment agencies, workers’ organizations and local authorities. Since 2008, there had been a telephone line for children and their relatives to report violations of their rights. She highlighted the constitutional prohibition of child labour, criminal legislation which laid down tough penalties for those who involved minors in illegal activities, and the list of prohibited occupations for children below 18 years of age. She stressed the Government’s willingness to engage in dialogue and cooperate with all interested parties in order to take steps with a view to strengthening the system of preventing child labour.

The Government member of Belarus emphasized that the Government had taken practical measures for the eradication of the worst forms of child labour, such as the adoption of a National Plan of Action and a monitoring system, the inclusion of the prohibition of forced labour in the Constitution and the adoption of legal provisions penalizing persons who exacted the worst forms of child labour. All of these measures demonstrated the will of the Government to honour the obligations deriving from the ratification of the Convention and the Committee should make a positive assessment of them.

The Worker member of Germany stated that there was no doubt that children aged 11 to 17 years were taken out of school and were forced to spend several months in the cotton harvest under physical, economic and social pressure. Experts and independent sources had provided reliable information that the parents did not have any possibility to escape the system of forced labour, and that the particular form of labour was dangerous for the children’s health. The situation could not be feasible without the active role of the Government. While some progress had been made at the legislative level, the situation remained unchanged on the ground. Forced child labour persisted in clear violation of Conventions Nos 138 and 182. It was unacceptable that school children were losing the precious opportunity to have an education, and their health was being threatened. The ILO should be given full access to the children and parents concerned. He therefore fully supported the suggestion for a high-level tripartite observer mission during the harvest season.

The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the Constitution of Uzbekistan contained two articles that expressly prohibited child labour, and that new legislation had been adopted that raised the minimum working age, prohibited trafficking in children and included other provisions consistent with the Convention. His Government welcomed both the tripartite declaration stating that child labour was unacceptable and criminal sanctions for contracting under-age workers. He said that the National Plan of Action, which was supported by employers’ and workers’ organizations, made provision for updating legislation, conducting awareness-raising campaigns and carrying out specific projects. The Government’s actions should be welcomed, and cooperation between the ILO and the Government should be strengthened.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that his Government welcomed the measures taken by the Government which had led to progress since discussions in the Committee the previous year. His Government also welcomed the fact that the Government of Uzbekistan had demonstrated its desire to work in cooperation with the Office. The Government should continue allocating 10 per cent of its gross domestic product to guaranteeing that the country’s children could enjoy education and health, and there was no doubt that it would continue to enhance its activities to ensure implementation of the Convention. The Government was continuing to make progress in applying the Convention, which the Committee should emphasize in its conclusions.

The Government member of Pakistan stated that his Government welcomed the measures taken by the Government of Uzbekistan, which represented elements of progress and should be noted with interest. The Government had shown cooperation by adopting legislation and administrative measures towards eradicating the worst forms of child labour. If needed, technical assistance should be provided by the ILO to help the Government overcome this problem and comply with its international obligations.

The Government member of China highlighted the Government’s positive attitude towards implementing Conventions Nos 138 and 182. He observed that proper measures were being taken, including the creation of labour systems and frameworks, and expressed support for the Government in its efforts to eradicate child labour from the country.

The Government representative thanked the Committee members for the positive assessment of the action taken by his Government to ensure the effective implementation of national legislation prohibiting compulsory labour and hazardous work for children. He indicated that the improvement of the legislative framework was a key element and that the Government would continue its efforts on matters such as the minimum age, compulsory education for 12 years or an adequate system of sanctions. He also stressed that the inspection services would be reinforced and that the Government was considering several measures for the elimination of all forms of child labour, including human trafficking, drug addiction and prostitution. He further stated that a special law on social partnership would be adopted shortly which would contain specific measures to address the situation of child labour.

Another Government representative recalled that only three years after the Convention had been ratified, significant progress had been made as regards the protection of children from hazardous work. His Government recognized that legislative conformity in itself was not enough and that practical implementation and effective monitoring were also needed. He also admitted past delays in reporting but pointed out that all available information had now been communicated to the Conference Committee. He felt that there was some mistrust regarding the information provided by the Government and strongly opposed the view that his Government was not concerned about the problem of child labour. This could not be true in a country where 40 per cent of the population was under 18 years of age. The ratification of the Convention alone proved the Government’s commitment to the protection of children and the enhancement of their personal and social development. He concluded by reaffirming that the fight against the worst forms of child labour remained high on the agenda of his Government, that collaboration with international organizations would continue and that building a constructive partnership was the best approach to address this issue.

The Employer members recalled that up to 2 million children worked in the cotton harvest each year, which made the situation acute because it involved children and their development during a crucial stage of their lives. They noted the positive closing statement made by the Government representative with respect to the harmonization of the national legislation with the Convention, the efforts to deal with all aspects of the worst forms of child labour, and the setting up of a system of monitoring. However, recalling that Committee members had frequently heard expressions of goodwill, only to find decades later that the issues were not resolved, the Employer members considered that the Government needed to be more transparent in these circumstances; this was why an observer mission had been proposed last year to assess the situation during the cotton harvest. They expressed support for all the steps proposed by the Worker members, including the need for timely reporting to the ILO, accepting an observer mission, accepting ILO technical assistance and collaborating with ILO–IPEC. Finally, the Employer members noted that this was a serious situation and asked that the conclusions of the Committee be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Worker members emphasized that, as could be seen from the information supplied, the Government had realized the necessity of acting to combat child labour and had taken measures in the areas of education and protecting childhood, as well as increasing criminal liability for those who flouted the prohibition of child labour. However, the Government did not seem disposed to recognize the gravity of the situation of thousands of children engaged in dangerous work harvesting cotton. It must therefore demonstrate its political will in that regard, without delay, and provide evidence that legislation adopted was being applied effectively. The Government should also demonstrate that the effect given to legislation would be the subject of consultations with the social partners and, where appropriate, with relevant non-governmental organizations that they recognized. The Worker members considered that taking the following measures would provide proof of the Government’s serious commitment: submitting reports containing recent and complete information; accepting a high-level tripartite observer mission, which would visit the country during the cotton harvest and would have complete freedom of movement, as proposed by the Committee the previous year; and accepting technical assistance and partnership with ILO–IPEC. To conclude, the Worker members accepted the proposal made by the Employer members to include this case in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude for the constructive proposals and assessment of the situation in Uzbekistan during the discussion of the case. He regretted, however, that the conclusions did not reflect concrete proposals voiced by representatives of various member States. He further regretted that the discussion of this case revolved around the use of child labour in the cotton harvest, without reflecting the efforts of the Government to combat poverty, prostitution and drug abuse, and the absence in the country of forced child labour or cases of the use of children in armed conflicts. The conclusions should have reflected the multi-faceted nature of the issue. He confirmed the Government’s intention to further cooperate with the ILO.

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 allegations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and a significant number of other international workers’ organizations 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 further noted the concerns expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, as well as information in two UNICEF publications with regard to this practice.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government outlining the laws and policies put in place to combat the forced labour of, and hazardous work by, children. The Committee also noted the Government’s statement that it had established a tripartite inter-ministerial working group with a view to developing specific programmes and actions aimed at fulfilling Uzbekistan’s obligations under ILO Conventions, as well as to update 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. Furthermore, the Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government on economic reforms undertaken in Uzbekistan, which had improved the level of employment, raised incomes for families and strengthened the banking and financial system. Moreover, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that concrete measures were being taken by the labour inspectorate officials to prosecute persons for violations of labour legislation, and that a number of administrative and disciplinary proceedings had been undertaken and fines imposed. 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, once again, that, although legal provisions prohibited forced labour and the engagement of children in hazardous work, there was broad consensus among the United Nations bodies, the representative organizations of workers and employers and non-governmental organizations, regarding the continued practice of mobilizing school children for work during the cotton harvest. In this regard, this Committee was obliged to echo the deep concern expressed by these bodies, as well as several speakers in this Committee, about the systemic and persistent recourse to forced child labour in cotton production, involving an estimated 1 million children. The Committee emphasized the seriousness of such violations of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee noted with regret that, despite the Government’s indications 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, despite previous requests by this Committee and the Committee of Experts for this information.

While noting the establishment of a tripartite inter-ministerial working group on 25 March 2011, the Committee observed that the Committee of Experts had already noted the establishment of an earlier interdepartmental working group on 7 June 2010, for on-the-ground monitoring to prevent the use of forced labour by school children during the cotton harvest. It noted with regret the absence of information from the Government on the concrete results of this monitoring, particularly information on the number of children, if any, detected by this interdepartmental working group (or any other national monitoring mechanism) engaged to work during the cotton harvest. In this regard, the Committee regretted to note that the significant progress that had been made regarding economic reform and growth had not been accompanied by corresponding progress with regard to combating the use of children for cotton harvesting.

The Committee expressed its serious concern at the insufficient political will and the lack of transparency of the Government to address the issue of forced child labour in cotton harvesting. It reminded the Government that the forced labour of, or hazardous work by, children, constituted the worst forms of child labour 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 once again called on 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 the Convention. Observing that the Government had yet to respond positively to such a request, the Committee strongly urged the Government to receive such a mission in time to report back to the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts. The Committee 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.

The Committee also strongly encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and to commit to working with the ILO International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour.

Finally, the Committee invited the Government to provide comprehensive information in its next report to the Committee of Experts on the manner in which the Convention was applied in practice, including, in particular, enhanced statistical data on the number of children working in agriculture, their age, gender, and information on the number and nature of contraventions reported and penalties applied.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude for the constructive proposals and assessment of the situation in Uzbekistan during the discussion of the case. He regretted, however, that the conclusions did not reflect concrete proposals voiced by representatives of various member States. He further regretted that the discussion of this case revolved around the use of child labour in the cotton harvest, without reflecting the efforts of the Government to combat poverty, prostitution and drug abuse, and the absence in the country of forced child labour or cases of the use of children in armed conflicts. The conclusions should have reflected the multi-faceted nature of the issue. He confirmed the Government’s intention to further cooperate with the ILO.