Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 105th Session, May–June 2016)

The Committee notes the detailed discussion which took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2016, concerning the application by Turkmenistan of the Convention. The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2016, and the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2016, as well as the Government’s reports, received on 5 September 2016 and 10 November 2016. Lastly, it notes the report of the Technical Advisory Mission of the ILO to Turkmenistan that took place from 26 to 29 September 2016.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for the purposes of economic development. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, in accordance with section 7 of the Law 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. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act and the Law on preparation for and carrying out of mobilization in Turkmenistan do not mention the concept of “purposes of economic development”, but that 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.

The Committee also noted the ITUC’s allegations that tens of thousands of adults from the public and private sectors were forced to pick cotton, and farmers were forced to fulfil state-established cotton production quotas, all under threat of a penalty. According to the ITUC, the President issued cotton production orders every year to regional governors, who face dismissal if they fail to meet the quotas. The governors assign responsibilities to district and city officials who, in turn issue orders to school administrators, other public institutions and businesses. Under the applicable legislation, the Government dictates the use of the land through farmers’ associations, which may take away a farmer’s right for “irrational and inappropriate use” of the land. Reporting to the President, the regional governors oversee the farmers’ associations, which manage farmers, and local-level officials, who mobilize other citizens to harvest cotton. The ITUC further alleged that state-owned companies also maintained monopolies over cotton production. According to the ITUC, the Government forced public sector workers, including teachers, doctors, nurses and the staff of government offices, to pick cotton, pay a fine or hire a replacement worker, under threat of losing their jobs, having work-hours cut or salary deductions. The Committee further noted that, according to the ITUC, for the 2014 cotton harvest, the Government also forced businesses from the private sector to contribute workers to pick cotton. Local authorities decided to limit the operating time for all markets and grocery stores, thus forcing owners of small businesses to close their store and pick cotton, while having to provide a form signed by the farmer as proof of their work in the cotton fields. Private bus owners were allegedly forced to contribute by transporting forced labourers to the cotton fields, without any compensation and under threat of confiscation of their licences by the police.

The Committee notes that, 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 Law 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 notes that the IOE, in its observations, expressed high concern at the reported practices of forced labour in cotton production which affect farmers, businesses and private and public sector workers, under threat of punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas. The IOE states that the Government of Turkmenistan should seek technical assistance of the ILO and, together with the national social partners, should develop a national action plan to eliminate forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvest.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the ITUC, which highlight the recent 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 health-care institutions, municipal government offices, libraries, museums, meteorological agencies, cultural centres, sports organizations, utility, manufacturing, construction, telecommunications and fishing companies. Moreover, government-led forced labour of parents to fulfil harvest quotas also resulted in children picking cotton alongside their parents. The ITUC alleges that the Government has treated refusal to contribute to the cotton harvest as insubordination, incitement to sabotage, lack of patriotism and even contempt of the homeland. Those who have refused faced administrative penalties, including public censure, docked pay and termination of employment.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, in certain regions of the country, local government and agricultural producers, together with local employment services, organize voluntary recruitment from among those registered with such bodies as seeking employment, during the seasonal cotton harvest. The Government states that in this way seasonal employment is provided to that sector of the population. The Committee also notes the Government’s information that it is paying more attention to developing and improving the recruitment conditions in the agricultural sector by introducing modern technological innovations, and sustaining farms and small and medium-sized businesses. The Government, further referring to the inspections carried out by the trade union bodies in 2015 and 2016, indicates that no complaints or statements about the use of forced labour during the cotton harvest have been made by any citizens. The Committee finally notes the Government’s information that the new version of the Constitution (the Basic Law) adopted on 14 September 2016 recognizes the right of a person to work, to choose the type and place of employment and to work in healthy and safe working conditions (article 49). Moreover, it prohibits forced labour and the worst forms of child labour and also provides for the institution of the Human Rights Commissioner.

The Committee further notes from the ILO mission report 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 report also reflects the statements made by the same stakeholders that there were no reports of child labour in the cotton harvest. The mission report indicated a clear political will on the part of the Government to deal with and resolve the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting. In this regard, the mission report took note of the various national strategies and action plans developed by the Government, including the National Human Rights Action Plan (2016–20); the National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons (2016–18); the UN Partnership Framework for Development signed in April 2016; and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2016. The mission considered that both the UN Partnership Framework Agreement, whose outcome 7 refers to employment as well as SDG Goal 8, target 8.7, which relates directly to the elimination of forced and child labour, provide a clear entry point for ILO technical assistance, especially since these newly adopted instruments would require concrete measures to be taken by the Government for their implementation.

The Committee welcomes the legal and policy measures and initiatives taken by the Government, including the adoption of national strategies, action plans as well as the SDGs. It also takes due note of the political will demonstrated by the Government to address the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting in the country, including through its acceptance to receive an ILO technical advisory mission to examine the issues raised by the Committee and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. Moreover, the Committee notes from the ILO mission report that although the representatives of all ministries and the social partners denied that there was coercion exercised on persons who engaged in cotton harvesting, they indicated that concrete measures needed to be taken to prevent the occurrence of this phenomenon. In this regard, noting the Government’s indication to the members of the Technical Advisory Mission of its willingness to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, the Committee urges the Government to continue to collaborate with the ILO on a broader basis by seeking ILO technical assistance with a view to eliminating, in law and in practice, forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvesting, within the framework of a national action plan to eliminate forced labour or to improve recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the measures taken in this regard as well as any other measures taken to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of farmers, public and private sector workers in cotton farming, and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the sanctions applied.

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