Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Turkmenistan (Ratification: 1997)

Other comments on C105

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the observations received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), on 21 September 2020, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations of the ITUC.

The Committee also notes the observations of the ITUC, received on 1 September 2019.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. Cotton production. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, in accordance with section 7 of the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, in order to mobilize labour for the needs of economic development and to prevent emergencies, state and government authorities may recruit citizens to work in enterprises, institutions and organizations. The Committee considered that the notion of “needs of economic development” did not seem to satisfy the definition of “emergency” referred to in the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and was therefore incompatible with both Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which prohibits the imposition of compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act and the Act on preparation for and carrying out of mobilization in Turkmenistan do not mention the concept of “purposes of economic development”. Instead, citizens may be employed in undertakings, organizations and institutions during mobilization in order to ensure that the country’s economy continues to function and to produce goods and services that are essential to satisfy the needs of the State, the armed forces and the population, in case of emergency. Moreover, section 19 of the Labour Code provides that an employer may require a worker to undertake work which is not associated with his or her employment in cases specified by law.

In its conclusions adopted in June 2016, the Conference Committee urged the Government: (i) to take effective measures, in law and in practice, to ensure that no one, including farmers and public and private sector workers, is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest, and threatened punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas under the pretext of “needs of economic development”; (ii) to repeal section 7 of the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990; and (iii) to seek technical assistance from the ILO in order to comply with the Convention in law and in practice and to develop a national action plan to eliminate forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvest.

The Committee noted that the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), in its observations of 2016, expressed high concern at the reported practices of forced labour in cotton production which affected farmers, businesses and private and public sector workers, under threat of punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas. Moreover, the observations made by the ITUC in 2016 highlighted the practices of forced mobilization by the Government of employees of a wide range of private and public sector institutions to pick cotton, including education and healthcare institutions, municipal government offices, libraries, museums, meteorological agencies, cultural centres, sports organizations, utility, manufacturing, construction, telecommunications and fishing companies. Those who refused faced administrative penalties, including public censure, docked pay and termination of employment. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that, in certain regions of the country, local government and agricultural producers, together with local employment services, organized voluntary recruitment from among those registered during the seasonal cotton harvest in order to provide seasonal employment to that sector of the population.

The Committee further noted from the report of the ILO technical advisory mission of September 2016 that although representatives of international organizations and foreign embassies that the mission met with indicated that the practice of forced labour existed, in most cases they did not have direct proof of this as it was difficult to access the cotton fields. The mission report took note of the various national strategies and action plans developed by the Government, including the National Human Rights Action Plan (2016–2020); the National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons (2016–2018); the United Nations Partnership Framework for Development signed in April 2016; and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2016. It also took due note of the political will demonstrated by the Government to address the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting in the country. The Committee urged the Government to continue to collaborate with the ILO with a view to eliminating, in law and in practice, forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvesting.

The Committee notes from the observations made by the ITUC in 2019 that in November 2018 workers in all sectors of the national economy were sent to the cotton fields, some even sent to remote districts hundreds of kilometres away from their homes. For the first time in 15 years, teachers were forced to spend their nine-day fall break picking cotton. In the region of Mary, an estimated 70 per cent of the teachers were required to pick cotton during the 2018 harvest season. The ITUC also states that people worked from early morning until dusk with a 30–60 minute break for lunch and in the evening they were bussed back to the city. People who were sent away to the fields for ten or more days stayed in a temporary base with an earth floor and without sanitation facilities. Farmers were required to produce a large cotton yield and were expected to meet the state quotas and pay the workers that were forced to work by the Government to pick cotton. Authorities threatened farmers with loss of land if they did not meet government-imposed quotas.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the Decision of the Public Council adopted in September 2018 aims to improve the working methods in the agricultural sector and place work in this field on a modern footing and provide for the broad recruitment of private producers in agriculture. According to this Decision, plots of land shall be offered on a contractual basis to joint stock companies, family farms and other legal entities and producers for use for a period of 99 years for the production of crops like wheat and cotton. The Committee also notes the Government’s information that it has resorted to using cotton harvesting machines to pick cotton and hence there is no need for the mass recruitment of human resources for this purpose. The Government indicates that during the harvesting season in 2017, 1,200 harvesting machines were used and in 2018, 500 additional machines were purchased from Uzbekistan and a contract for 200 such machines were concluded with a company that manufactures agricultural equipment. The Committee further notes the Government’s information that together with the social partners, a draft cooperation programme has been developed and submitted to the ILO for consideration. This draft sets out measures for the implementation of international rules and standards, decent work, fair pay and social protection, and the active participation of social partners on issues of decent work and employment. The Committee notes, however, that this draft cooperation programme has not been agreed upon.

The Committee further notes from the recent observations of the ITUC that during the 2019 cotton harvests, public sector employees, including teachers, doctors, municipal service and utility companies’ employees continued to be mobilized for cotton picking or forced to pay for replacements pickers. Those unable or unwilling to pick cotton had to pay a substantial part of their income. As of October 2019, teaching staff had each paid 285 Turkmenistan manats (US$16) while their average monthly income is around US$90. Further evidence shows that public sector workers are being mobilized for the 2020 harvest.

The Committee notes that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its concluding observations of October 2018, expressed concern at the reported continued widespread use of forced labour among workers and students under threat of penalties during the cotton harvest (E/C.12/TKM/CO/2, paragraph 23). It also notes from the Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions of February 2018 to the United Nations Human Rights Council that people forced to pick cotton had been compelled to sign declarations on “voluntary” participation in the harvest (A/HRC/WG.6/30/TKM/3, paragraph 49).

The Committee must express its deep concern at the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector and the poor working conditions of workers employed in this sector. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take measures to ensure the elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in cotton farming, and requests it to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the violations detected and the sanctions applied. In this regard, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, with a view to eliminating, in law and in practice, forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvesting as well as to improve recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government, which reiterates the content of its previous request adopted in 2019.

In light of the situation described above, the Committee is bound to observe that there has been no meaningful progress to address the issue of mobilization of persons for forced labour in the cotton harvest since the discussion of the case by the Conference Committee and the visit of an ILO technical advisory mission to the country in 2016. It notes with deep concern the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 109th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]