Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2011, Publicación: 101ª reunión CIT (2012)

Convenio sobre las peores formas de trabajo infantil, 1999 (núm. 182) - Uzbekistán (Ratificación : 2008)

Otros comentarios sobre C182

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports dated 24 May, 1 August, 25 August and 12 September 2011. The Committee also notes the communication of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 31 August 2010. The Committee finally takes note of the detailed discussions that took place at the 100th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2011 concerning the application by Uzbekistan of Convention No. 182.

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. However, the Committee noted the assertion of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) that, despite the legislative framework against forced labour, schoolchildren (estimates ranging from half a million to 1.5 million schoolchildren) are forced by the Government to work in the national cotton harvest for up to three months each year. The Committee also noted ITUC’s allegations that state-sponsored forced child labour continues to underpin Uzbekistan’s cotton industry. The ITUC communication emphasized that this involvement is not the result of family poverty, but state-sponsored mobilization which benefits the Government. The ITUC further 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 continued practice of mobilizing schoolchildren 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 schoolchildren 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. The UN Human Rights Committee emphasized that the Government needed to ensure that its national legislation and international obligations regulating child labour are fully respected in practice (7 April 2010, CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraph 23). Lastly, the Committee noted the statement in the UNICEF publication entitled “Risks and Realities of Child Trafficking and Exploitation in Central Asia” of 31 March 2010 that the issue of seasonal mobilization of children for the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan was a growing concern (page 49).

The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report dated 12 September 2011 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 states that children cannot be involved in the cotton harvest for three months, as the harvest only lasts one month, and that the involvement of children in gathering cotton does not have a negative effect on their health or education. The Committee notes Government’s indication that the Association of Farmers of Uzbekistan, the Council of Trade Union Federation and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection adopted, in May 2011, the “Joint Statement concerning the inadmissibility of using forced child labour in agricultural works” (Joint Statement). The Joint Statement asserts that various false insinuations and fabrications by certain biased foreign enterprises and organizations and the media, concerning the alleged large-scale coercion of children to participate in the country’s agricultural production, are aimed at undermining the high rating of Uzbekistan’s agricultural produce, especially cotton, in foreign markets. The Joint Statement also indicates that virtually all cotton is harvested by farm owners who, in economic terms, have no interest in making extensive use of children for the harvesting of cotton. The Committee further notes the indication in the Joint Statement that it is appropriate to encourage the voluntary participation of children in economic activity, according to their capacity, but that this employment is permitted only outside of school hours and must not impede their full participation in general educational and vocational training programmes. The Joint Statement further indicates that agricultural producers, including farms, which employ children over the age of 15 years for work on a voluntary basis should assume the obligation to ensure fair pay, compliance with provisions for working time and rest periods, safe working conditions, nutritious food and any necessary medical care. The Committee further notes that the Joint Statement indicates that any form of coercion to force children to work by any party, including by the threat of penalties applied to them or to their parent, is inadmissible.

However, the Committee notes the more recent allegations of the ITUC dated 31 August 2011 indicating 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 mobilisation of children is organized and enforced by authorities, as channelled through the local administration. In this regard, the ITUC refers 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 also alleges 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, to fill the shortfall in voluntary adult labour. The ITUC states that strictly enforced cotton quotas are set for each region by the central Government, and these quotas are subdivided to schools. Thus, headmasters are given quotas, which are passed onto students, dictating how much cotton each must harvest. The ITUC communication indicates that in 2010, daily quotas in some regions were between 25 to 40 kilograms for school children. The ITUC further indicates that school principals and teachers face dismissal if their students do not meet their share of the quota, and that parents have little choice but to allow their children to participate. Moreover, students who fail to meet their quotas or who pick poor quality cotton may be punished by beatings, detention, or told their grades will suffer, and that those who run away from the cotton fields or refuse to take part can face expulsion from school. Moreover, the Committee notes the allegations in the ITUC communication that forced child labour was used in the autumn 2010 cotton harvest with children receiving little pay, if any, despite working long hours, and that children can be left exhausted and suffering from ill health after weeks of arduous labour. In addition, the ITUC states that reports from at least nine of Uzbekistan’s 13 regions confirmed that school children were forced to pick cotton in 2010: Andijan, Fergana, Jizzakh, Kaskadrya, Khoresm, Namangan, Surkhandarya, Syrdarya and Tashkent. Lastly, the Committee notes the statement in the ITUC’s communication that state-sponsored forced child labour remains a profound and widespread problem in Uzbekistan, and that there is a vast disparity between the legal and policy situation, and the practice on the ground.

In addition, the Committee notes the recent information from UNICEF concerning the cotton harvest of autumn 2011. According to this information, the cotton harvesting began in Uzbekistan in the second week of September 2011 and was almost completed by the third week in October. During that time, two rounds of UNICEF observation visits in 12 regions were successfully completed. The Committee notes that UNICEF draws up an analysis of the findings which includes the following elements: (i) children aged 11–17 years old have been observed working full time in the cotton fields across the country; (ii) the mobilization of children has 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 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 20–50 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.

The Committee notes that the 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 one million children. The Conference Committee emphasized the seriousness of such violations of the Convention. It 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.

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 schoolchildren 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 once again recalls that, by virtue of Article 3(a) and (d) of the Convention, forced labour and hazardous work are considered as the worst forms of child labour and that, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, member States are required to take immediate and effective measures to secure the elimination of these worst forms of child labour, as a matter of urgency. 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 an interdepartmental working group had been established, and a programme approved, for on-the-ground monitoring to prevent the use of forced labour by schoolchildren during the cotton harvest. The Government further indicated that the supervision of labour legislation and regulations (including the prohibition on employing children in adverse working conditions) was carried out by the specifically authorized legal and technical inspections of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and trade union officials. However, the Committee noted an absence of information from the Government on the concrete results of this monitoring. Moreover, the Committee 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.

The Committee observes 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 or on the number of children.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that no information is available on the number of persons pursued for mobilizing children for cotton gathering because there are no persons, including government officials or private persons, who have committed such offences. The Government further states that it has received information from 12 regional governments stating that children were not involved in cotton harvesting in these regions. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that relevant instructions have been issued to the regions to avoid the use of forced child labour. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Association of Farmers of Uzbekistan, the Council of Trade Union Federation and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection implemented workshops in 11 regions between January and May 2011, to raise awareness among farmers on the inadmissibility of the use of child labour in agricultural works. The Government also indicates that more than 45,000 heads of farmers’ households and 3,500 trade union activists have taken part in these workshops and discussions at the district level. In addition, the Committee notes the information in the Joint Statement that the enforcement of measures to prevent child labour on the part of the social partners is the responsibility of the Association of Farmers of Uzbekistan and the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan, and that enforcement on the part of the State is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. The Joint Statement also indicates that a special joint working group will be established by the Association of Farmers and the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in order to improve the legal labour relationships on farms, the State Labour Inspection has carried out monitoring covering more than 73,000 farms in 2010. The Government’s report also indicates that 1,600 verifications were conducted in 2009 and 2010.

The Committee observes that the Government has taken significant awareness-raising and preventative 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. It also notes that the labour inspectorate appears to have undertaken a significant number of inspections on a considerable number of farms in 2010. However, the Committee 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 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 Joint Statement, 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 with regard to the mobilization of children under 18 to work in the cotton harvest.

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, but observed that it was carrying out a project with the assistance of UNICEF to address the situation of child labour in the cotton sector. The Committee, therefore, considered it essential that independent monitors be granted unrestricted access to document the situation during the cotton harvest. The Committee also noted the statements 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 dated 22 November 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 notes the statement from the ITUC, in its more recent allegations, that the cotton fields are strictly patrolled by police and security personnel, in an attempt to prevent independent monitoring. The Committee also notes 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 at its current session. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Conference Committee also strongly encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and to commit to working with ILO–IPEC.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report dated 12 September 2011, that it has demonstrated political will in its ratification of the Convention. Regarding ILO technical assistance or alternatively cooperation with ILO–IPEC, the Government indicates that there is a National Plan of Action on implementing Conventions Nos 138 and 182, and that such cooperation cannot be reduced only to the issues of forced labour of children in cotton harvesting. The Government also states that it is not necessary to invite a high-level observer mission to Uzbekistan on the use of child labour, and that this should not be considered as a refusal by the Government to cooperate with the ILO.

Finally, the Committee notes UNICEF’s indication that according to its analysis of the observation visits undertaken in 12 regions from September to October 2011, that its findings are in no way indicative of the number of children working in the cotton harvest, nor can UNICEF verify that the situation as observed by UNICEF teams corresponds to all circumstances in all cotton fields. UNICEF underlines that such findings are snapshots that cannot replace substantive and independent monitoring under the auspices of the ILO, which UNICEF continues to advocate for.

The Committee notes with serious concern that the Government has yet to respond positively to the recommendation to accept a high-level tripartite observation mission or to avail itself of ILO technical assistance. 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.

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