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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2023, Publication: 111st ILC session (2023)

Written information provided by the Government

As a member of the ILO since 1993, Turkmenistan is committed to its policy of creating conditions for decent work and social justice for all, including preventing and eliminating the risks of forced labour, in particular in the cotton sector, to confirm its compliance with the principles set out in the Convention. This is evidenced by the continuing active cooperation with the ILO in improving the legislative and regulatory framework governing labour, employment and social protection.

During the visit of the ILO mission to Turkmenistan on 9 March 2023, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan hosted a round table with representatives of the Parliament of Turkmenistan, ministries, departments, the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan, and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan to discuss the Legislative Review on the prevention and prohibition of forced labour.

The joint work resulted in the adoption in March 2023 of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023. This Roadmap includes the following activities:

- completion of a complete list of activities for the components of the draft concept note, Promoting fair employment during the cotton harvest in Turkmenistan;

- follow-up action on the results of the ILO review of Turkmenistan’s legislation;

- situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking;

- regulation of seasonal work and contractual arrangements;

- technical assistance to improve labour inspection;

- ILO–Turkmenistan review of the 2023 cotton harvest;

- enhancing the dialogue between the Government of Turkmenistan and the ILO.

1. Policy review and administrative framework governing the cotton harvest

In light of the ILO recommendations presented in the Review of Turkmenistan’s legislation on preventing and prohibiting forced labour, the Parliament, the ministries and departments concerned, and also the social partners represented by the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan, have carried out an analysis of the current legislation and regulatory framework with regard to application of the standards contained in the Convention.

As a result of the analysis, the relevant ministries and departments have drafted Bills to amend and supplement, in particular, article 8 of the Labour Code in terms of eliminating discrepancies in the concept of forced labour on the list of occupations excluded from the concept of forced labour, and also exempting from the concept of forced labour minor work of a social nature. On article 23 of the Labour Code, on hiring children for employment or other work, clarification has been provided of the procedure for their dismissal. In addition, a clarification was made in the regulatory legal act developed in accordance with article 255 of the Labour Code of on employment of children in harmful or hazardous working conditions, in particular, in agricultural work relating to the cotton harvest.

It should be noted that in March 2023, regular elections of deputies to the Parliament of the new convocation were held, and the composition of its Committees, determined. Consideration is currently being given to submitting the Bills to the working groups established by the relevant Parliamentary Committees.

2. Improvement of labour inspection and law enforcement

Turkmenistan previously provided information on the situation in the country with regard to labour inspection. Specifically, according to the labour legislation, state oversight and monitoring of compliance with Turkmenistan’s labour and related legislation are carried out by:

- the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection;

- the main state service, Turkmenstandartlary, and other state bodies active in the area of occupational safety;

- ministries and departments, within the limits of their competence in relation to their subordinate enterprises;

- local state authorities and local government bodies;

- trade unions, as well as technical and legal labour inspectorates under their authority.

Pursuant to the Labour Code and the Act of Turkmenistan on Employment, persons guilty of violating the law, or obstructing the activities of bodies overseeing and monitoring compliance with legislation, shall be liable in the manner established by national legislation.

The Code of Administrative Offences establishes administrative liability and provides for the imposition of penalties and sanctions for an administrative offence.

Certain articles of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan provide for criminal liability for violations of labour relations legislation.

Consideration is currently being given to the expediency of Turkmenistan’s accession to the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), which has been submitted for discussion at the regular meeting of the Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations.

In this context, in early April 2023, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection hosted an online meeting of stakeholders with Mr Nikita Lyutov, an international expert in international standards in Central Asia and Eastern Europe at the ILO. Emphasis was placed on an analysis of compliance of Turkmenistan’s legislation and law enforcement practices with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 concerning labour inspection.

In order to provide effective technical assistance from the ILO in improving labour inspections and preparing relevant analysis, the international expert requested information on the questionnaire he had submitted to familiarize himself with the legal instruments regulating labour inspections, as well as data on the actual situation regarding the functioning of labour inspections in Turkmenistan.

Discussion of the information received is expected to be held in a tripartite format with representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the social partners represented by the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan.

3. Promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector

Work is currently under way with ILO representatives on the implementation of item 3, Situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking, of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023, regarding a qualitative study on recruitment practices for the cotton harvest in Turkmenistan. The terms of reference for this study have been prepared, the main objectives of which are to understand the hiring practices and procedures used in the cotton industry, and also to study cotton pickers’ experience and perceptions of the hiring process, including the factors influencing their decision to work in the cotton fields.

In accordance with the terms of reference, there are plans to hire a national consultant who will begin work shortly on the above study. The ILO mission is expected to arrive in Turkmenistan in early-July this year to advise on the situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking.

A quantitative study is planned as part of the household survey to assess the trends in the cotton harvest over the past five years. On 19 May 2023, an online meeting was held with ILO representatives with the participation of specialists from the State Statistics Committee on the issue of conducting a quantitative and qualitative study on the topic under consideration, at which further steps to conduct the above studies were discussed, and these issues will also be considered during the forthcoming ILO mission in early-July this year.

In accordance with item 6 of the Roadmap (a review of Turkmenistan’s cotton harvest), a discussion is also taking place with ILO representatives on the Concept Note, the main purpose of which is to establish a joint mechanism to improve working conditions and prevent forced labour during Turkmenistan’s cotton harvest. The review includes visits to the cotton fields during the harvesting period to monitor working conditions systematically.

4. Improvement of cotton production and harvesting

The widespread use of the latest generations of cotton harvesters in the country’s agricultural sector, with little change in the area of cotton fields under cultivation and volume of cotton harvested, has contributed to a significant reduction in the rates of manual harvesting. At the same time, Turkmenistan is committed to its policy of creating conditions for decent work and social justice for all, including those engaged in the cotton harvest.

The amount of agricultural machinery in use has increased significantly, from 464 machines in 2016 (2017 – 948, 2018 – 1,076, 2019 – 1,322, 2020 – 1,322, and 2021 – 1,600), to 11,600 in 2022. This bears testimony to the fact that the State is prioritizing the use of mechanized cotton harvesting.

The country’s efforts are also focused on training and educating 1,710 machine operators.

5. Design and implementation of awareness-raising activities

The Parliament, represented by the deputies, is actively engaged in awareness-raising activities aimed at, inter alia, raising public awareness of the prevention and prohibition of forced labour.

The activities conducted by the trade unions in the etraps [districts] also include awareness-raising workshops involving stakeholders and civil society focused on national and local tripartite stakeholders and civil society, to ensure an open dialogue on the problems, frameworks and response mechanisms to resolve issues relating to fair employment of workers. For example, in 2021–22, more than 200 awareness-raising meetings and round-table seminars were held throughout the country on this issue, with broad participation. Forty articles and publications were issued on the topic of legal regulation of labour relations in various sectors, including agriculture.

6. Promotion of social dialogue in cotton production

As a party to the Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations, the trade unions of Turkmenistan exercise public oversight and monitoring of the observance and implementation of labour standards. Tripartite consultations enhance cooperation between the partners and help to find necessary common ground.

Trade unions work systematically to assist the Government in implementing ILO Conventions and international labour standards. In this regard, we would like to note the increased activity of trade unions in developing a system of social partnership in the field of labour, and in implementing the principles of tripartite cooperation between trade unions, employers and the Government.

As part of their statutory tasks, trade unions shall take the necessary measures to prevent violations of labour standards. Public monitoring measures exercised by trade unions include inspections and the issuance of appropriate instructions by the legal and technical inspectorates. In addition, trade unions also act as third-party interveners on behalf of employees in the courts, protecting workers’ rights and interests.

Despite the lack of official complaints from citizens about the use of forced labour in the agricultural production and processing sectors, trade unions carry out monitoring, and conduct special courses, training sessions and seminars for specialists of various levels, as well as producers and processors of agricultural products.

Most of the seminars are currently held by territorial trade union associations in local authorities and dehkan farmers’ associations, with tenants, entrepreneurs and agricultural producers. The seminars and meetings are attended by representatives of territorial trade union bodies, local representative state authorities, executive and local government authorities, local labour and employment bodies, law enforcement agencies, etc.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – We move now to the individual cases and the first case on the agenda is Turkmenistan on the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). I verified and we have 15 speakers registered, so there will be no reduction of speaking time.

Government representative – Having studied in detail the criteria for selection of cases, I would like to note that Turkmenistan adheres to their principles. In particular, as a Member of the ILO, in its policy, Turkmenistan is committed to creating conditions for decent work and social justice for all, including the prevention and elimination of the risks of forced labour, in particular in the cotton industry, to confirm its adherence to the standards set forth in the Convention. This is evidenced by the ongoing active cooperation with the ILO, including the improvement of legislative and regulatory legal acts, regulating issues of labour, employment and social protection of the population. My delegation studied the report of the Committee of Experts to the 111th Session of the Conference in terms of the implementation of the provisions of the above-mentioned Convention. In our opinion, the conclusions of the Committee of Experts are based on the information received from unverified sources which includes a biased opinion on the situation in the country. Unfortunately, specific arguments from the state bodies are not taken into account. Turkmenistan was heard in the Committee in 2021 during the 109th online Session on the implementation of the provisions of the Convention during which Turkmenistan accepted the recommendation to invite a high-level mission of the ILO to provide technical assistance. The terms of objectives of the mission were discussed by the Government of Turkmenistan and the ILO, which resulted in a visit to Ashgabat in February 2022.

I would also like to inform you about the high-level ILO mission visit to Turkmenistan in September 2022, during which issues related to the analysis of legislation as well as the preparation of the second phase of the mission were discussed. During the next mission in November 2022, the issue of the draft Roadmap for Cooperation with the ILO for 2023 was considered. At the same time, during this visit, field visits were organized in two regions of the country with the participation of representatives of state bodies and local governments. It should be noted that during the regular ILO mission in March of this year, the activities provided for by the Roadmap were considered. During the mission, various meetings were held with the participation of the representatives of the Parliament of Turkmenistan, members of ministries and respective governmental bodies including the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan.

The result of the joint work was the adoption in March 2023 of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Turkmenistan for 2023. This Roadmap includes the following activities: completion of a complete list of activities for the components of the draft concept note ”Promoting fair employment during the cotton harvest in Turkmenistan”; follow-up action on the results of the ILO review of Turkmenistan’s legislation; situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking; regulation of seasonal work and contractual arrangements; technical assistance to improve labour inspection; the ILO-Turkmenistan review of the 2023 cotton harvest; and enhancing the dialogue between Turkmenistan and the ILO. Here I would like to refer to the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and provide the following information.

Regarding the review of the policy and administrative structure governing the cotton harvest, I would like to note that taking into account the recommendations of the ILO regarding the review of the legislation on prevention and prohibition of forced labour, the Parliament, the ministries and the departments concerned and also the social partners represented by the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan have carried out an analysis of the current legislation and regulatory framework with regard to the application of the standards contained in the Convention. Based on the results of the analysis, relevant ministries and departments of the country have drafted Bills to amend and supplement relevant legislations.

It should be noted that in March 2023, regular elections of deputies to the Parliament of the new convocation were held and the composition of its committees were determined. Consideration is currently being given to submitting the Bills to the working groups established by the relevant parliamentary committees. In particular, draft legislation has been prepared to introduce amendments and additions to the Labour Code and the law on “Employment of the Population” arising from the Convention which has been submitted for consideration by the working group of the Committee on Social Issues of the Parliament of Turkmenistan.

On the issue of improving labour inspection, we note that Turkmenistan previously provided information on the situation in the country with regard to labour inspection. Specifically, according to the labour legislation, State oversight and monitoring of compliance with Turkmenistan’s labour and related legislation is carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population of Turkmenistan; the main State service Turkmenistan “Turkmenstandartlary” and other state bodies active in the area of occupational safety; the Ministries and departments within the limits of their competence in relation to their subordinate enterprises; local state authorities and local government bodies; trade unions as well as technical and legal labour inspectorates under their authority. The institutions indicated above within the limits of their authority exercise supervision and control over compliance with the law and the application of measures of administrative responsibility in the manner prescribed by the legislation.

I would like to share the following data which reflects the effectiveness of the activities of control and supervision bodies by the legislation in the field of labour and employment. If in 2021, more than 3.6 thousand individuals, officials and legal entities were brought to administrative responsibility for violations of labour legislation and employment, including in the field of labour protection, then in 2022, their number decreased to 2.6 thousand individuals. At the same time in case of violations of the law in terms of the use of forced labour, those responsible for their admission may also be subject to administrative measures provided for in Article 304 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Consideration is currently being given to the expediency of Turkmenistan’s accession to the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) which have been submitted for discussion at the regular meeting of the Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations. In this context, in early April 2023, the Minister of Labour and Social Protection hosted an online meeting of stakeholders with the international expert on international standards in Central Asia and Eastern Europe at the ILO. Emphasis was placed on an analysis for compliance of Turkmenistan’s legislation and law enforcement practices with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 concerning labour inspection. In order to provide effective technical assistance from the ILO in improving labour inspections and preparing relevant analysis, the international expert requested information on the questionnaire he had submitted to familiarize himself with the legal instruments regulating labour inspections as well as data on the actual situation regarding the functioning of labour inspections in Turkmenistan. Discussion of the information received is expected to be held in a tripartite format with the representative of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection and social partners represented by the National Trade Union Centre of Turkmenistan and the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan.

On the promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector, work is currently under way with the ILO representatives on the implementation of Item 3 of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023, on the situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking, which includes a qualitative study on recruitment practices for the cotton harvest in Turkmenistan. The terms of reference for this study have been prepared, the main objectives of which are to understand the hiring practices and procedures used in the cotton industry and also to study cotton pickers’ experience and perceptions of the hiring process, including the factors influencing their decision to work in the cotton fields. At the same time, the methodology and the process of conducting the study are being studied. In accordance with the terms of reference, there are plans to hire a national consultant who will begin work shortly on the involved study. I want to point out that the ILO mission is expected to arrive in Turkmenistan in early July this year to advise on the situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking. The quantitative study is planned as a part of the household survey to assess the trends in the cotton harvest over the past five years. On 19 May 2023, an online meeting was held with the ILO representatives with the participation of the specialists from the State Statistics Committee on the issue of conducting quantitative and qualitive studies on the topic under consideration, at which further steps to conduct the above studies were discussed, and these issues will also be considered during the forthcoming ILO mission in early July this year.

In accordance with Item 6 of the Roadmap – a review of Turkmenistan’s cotton harvest– a discussion is also taking place with ILO representatives on the Concept Note, the main purpose of which is to establish a joint mechanism to improve working conditions and prevent forced labour during Turkmenistan’s cotton harvest. The review includes visits to the cotton fields during the harvesting period to monitor working conditions systematically.

On the issue of improvement of cotton production and harvesting, it is worth mentioning the widespread use of the latest generations of cotton harvesters in the country’s agricultural sector, with little change in the area of cotton fields under cultivation and volume of cotton harvested which has contributed to the significant reduction in the rates of manual harvesting. At the same time, Turkmenistan is committed to its policy of creating conditions for decent work and social justice for all, including those engaged in the cotton harvest.

The number of used agricultural machinery in 2022 increased significantly compared to 2016, by 25 times. This indicates that Turkmenistan prioritizes policies for the use of mechanized cotton harvesting, including the training and education of machine operators.

On the issue of design and implementation of awareness-raising activities, it should be noted that Parliament is actively engaged in awareness-raising activities aimed at, inter alia, raising public awareness on the prevention and prohibition of forced labour. The activities conducted by the trade unions in the etraps (districts) also include awareness-raising workshops involving stakeholders and civil society focused on national and local tripartite stakeholders and civil society, to ensure an open dialogue on the problems, frameworks, response mechanisms to resolve issues relating to fair employment of workers. For example, in 2021 and 2022, more than 200 awareness‑raising meetings and round-table seminars were held throughout the country on this issue with broad participation. 40 articles and publications were issued on the topic of legal regulation of labour relations in various sectors, including agriculture.

On the issue of promotion of social dialogue in cotton production and processing, I would like to note that as a party to the Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations, the trade unions exercise public oversight and monitoring of the observance and the implementation of labour standards. Trade unions work systematically to assist the Government in implementing ILO Conventions and international labour standards.

The information provided indicates genuine progress in Turkmenistan on the issues considered during the current meeting. In this regard, the inclusion of Turkmenistan on the shortlist of countries does not correspond to the spirit of bilateral cooperation. That being said, we express hope for mutual understanding on the part of the Committee of Experts and their objective assessment of the current situation in the country. Turkmenistan, for its part, is always ready for dialogue and any technical assistance from the ILO.

Employer members – First of all, we would like to thank the Government of Turkmenistan for the written and oral information provided. What is at stake in this case is the compliance with another ILO fundamental Convention, namely Convention No. 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour. From the outset, the Employer members wish to stress their deep commitment towards the eradication of forced labour and the great importance attached to the Convention. We are firmly convinced that no relevant stakeholder should turn a blind eye on any of such practices, especially if they are planned, conducted or tolerated by the central authorities. Moving to the procedural aspects, we note that Turkmenistan ratified the Convention in 1997. We also take note that between 2015 and 2022, six observations have been provided by the Committee of Experts on this case, highlighting the persistence of compliance issues.

The application of the Convention by Turkmenistan has been discussed three times in this tripartite setting, the last time in 2021. We are aware that the Government submitted written information in advance of the Conference, which we have taken into due consideration and on which I will come back later.

Let me start with some contextual information on the country. Turkmenistan’s economy is almost fully state-driven; the private sector remains small and closely regulated by the State. At the political level, in February 2022, after 17 years in power, the Prime Minister announced preliminary elections. These resulted in the election of the exiting Prime Minister’s son as leader of the country. Several media reported that no election since the country became independent in 1991 has been genuinely competitive. It is also reported that civil and political rights are highly denied in practice, leaving no space to opposition to develop. According to the 2023 observations by the Committee of Experts regarding Turkmenistan’s implementation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), doubts have been raised regarding the independence of the trade union movement and there appear to be significant legal restrictions of the autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country.

Turning to the legal issues, in its 2022 observations, the Committee of Experts highlighted several aspects entailing a violation of the Convention by Turkmenistan, notably of Article 1(b) of the Convention on using forced or compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and for purposing of economic development. We note that, in 2021, the Committee of Experts had noted with deep concern the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector and had urged the Government to take measures to ensure that no one is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest.

With a view to implementing the conclusions of the Committee of 2021, a two-phase ILO high-level mission took place in Turkmenistan throughout 2022. The high-level mission also undertook visits to Mary and Lebap provinces, during which it met with the regional authorities and visited the cotton fields. The main outcome of the high-level mission was an agreement on a draft Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023, with a focus on the cotton harvesting sector. The Employer members note that the Roadmap provides for the elaboration of activities in a series of areas, including revision of legislative, policy and administrative frameworks; strengthening of labour inspection; conduct of situational assessment and analysis; and enhancement of social dialogue. As a follow-up, an ILO technical mission took place in Turkmenistan in March 2023 to support the implementation of the activities identified in the Roadmap, while the next ILO technical mission is scheduled for 3 to 7 July 2023.

However, the Employer members also take note of the observations formulated by the ITUC in 2022, alleging: first of all, the continued recourse by the State to the use of forced labour in picking cotton; secondly, the poor conditions and abusive practices which workers have been subjected to, notably during the 2021 harvest; as well as thirdly, the forced employment of the most vulnerable categories of workers, including migrants and students. Finally, we note that the Government, in its report, remarks that no allegation of the use of forced labour in the cotton sector has been reported to state bodies, judicial authorities, representative organizations of employers and workers, or the Ombudsman’s Office. It is instead highlighted that the latter made recommendations to various ministries and other public authorities to strengthen monitoring to prevent forced labour. In its written information, the Government also highlights the ILO mission to Turkmenistan of this year and the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government. We take note that the Roadmap focuses on six activities and some efforts have been made towards completing these activities.

The Employer members are clear on their position regarding forced labour and the Convention, we cannot tolerate any of such practices. Forced labour becomes even more intolerable when it emanates from the Government or other central authorities and is specifically designed to serve the economic development of the State. In this regard, we note with interest the steps taken by the Government to address the issues raised in collaboration with the Office. Encouraging steps forward have been the 2022 high-level mission, which led to an agreed Roadmap, as well as the further Government’s commitment to such collaboration, as signaled by the ILO technical mission scheduled for July this year. We trust that more concrete action will follow. In light of these developments, the Employer members request the Government of Turkmenistan to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students in cotton production.

We also encourage the Government to continue engaging in cooperation with the ILO within the framework of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government. In this context, we would stress the importance of the involvement of fully independent and autonomous employers’ and workers’ organizations for a sustained and proper application of the Convention in practice. We request the Government to provide information on concrete measures taken, including on the activities indicated in the Roadmap. We look forward to hearing the views of the other groups on this case.

Worker members – We have already discussed the case of Turkmenistan twice before in the Committee, in 2016 and again in 2021. Following the last review, a high-level ILO mission visited the country in 2022 with a view to reaching agreement on the parameters of a development cooperation project and immediate activities for cooperation between the ILO and the Turkmen constituents.

At the end of that mission, an agreement was reached on a draft Roadmap for Cooperation for 2023 between the ILO and the Government. This Roadmap provides for the development of activities in various fields, such as the review of the policy and administrative framework governing the cotton harvest, the improvement of labour inspection and law enforcement, the promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector, the improvement of cotton production and harvesting, the design and implementation of awareness-raising activities and the promotion of social dialogue in cotton production.

The Roadmap also includes activities aimed at:

- the improvement of the legislative framework for the prevention and prohibition of forced labour;

- the undertaking of a situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking;

- the improvement of the regulation of seasonal work in agriculture and contractual arrangements;

- the improvement of labour inspection to strengthen oversight;

- the undertaking of field visits during the 2023 cotton harvest; and

- the further enhancement of dialogue between the ILO and the Government.

It will be essential to start work as soon as possible on these various areas of activity. The Worker members regret however, that this process did not involve tripartite constituencies of this Organization as we had hoped for when we discussed the case in 2021. We also regret that, despite the many initiatives put in place following the recommendations made by the Committee to Turkmenistan, forced labour practices in cotton production are nevertheless still prevalent on a massive scale in the country.

In 2021, we reported on the institutionalized nature of these practices in Turkmenistan. The persistence of this phenomenon demonstrates the difficulties faced by the Government in putting an end to it. We can only join the Committee of Experts in expressing our deep concern at the continuation of these practices. The Government of Turkmenistan continues to be accused of serious breaches.

Forced labour in cotton harvesting, and likewise in silk harvesting, is organized by the Turkmen authorities. This system is implemented directly by the State, which produces cotton production quotas centrally and uses local administrators to force farmers to grow cotton and local populations to harvest it, all under the threat of penalty. The authorities are thus creating an environment conducive to abuse throughout the country’s cotton and silk production chain. Many workers are forcibly mobilized for the cotton and silk harvests and forced to give up their jobs. Many students, some of them very young, are also requisitioned. Public sector employees constitute the main workforce to pick cotton, especially at the initial stage. Women are especially vulnerable in this situation, since they constitute the majority of the lower-paid public sector workforce involved in the cotton harvest. During the 2021 harvest, authorities also mobilized other vulnerable segments of the population, including migrant workers, people receiving treatment for addiction and people accused of prostitution or of alimony delinquency.

This forced mobilization leads some workers to pay a replacement or even send their own children to work in the cotton or silk fields. We understand that while child labour was not directly organized by the State, it nonetheless still exists, driven by both poverty and the current forced labour system. As well as being forcibly mobilized, these workers and students must often work without decent or adequate healthy and safe working conditions. They are subjected to pressure and threats. They are forced to work excessively long hours and are denied personal protective equipment.

Article 1 of the Convention provides that ratifying Member States undertake to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, particularly as a method of mobilizing labour for purposes of economic development. However, section 7 of the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990 allows the State and government authorities to mobilize the workforce for the purposes of economic development and to prevent emergencies. Under article 19 of the Labour Code, an employer may in cases specified by law, require a worker to undertake work which is not associated with his or her employment. This provision is likely to allow abuses of concern in the examination of the Convention. Even though Turkmen legislation also contains provisions prohibiting the use of forced labour, it is clear that these legal provisions remain purely and simply a dead letter in practice.

Moreover, the lack of press freedom and the non-existence of independent trade unions in Turkmenistan makes it very difficult to monitor the practical application of these laws. The Government has even never acknowledged the existence of widespread, state-sponsored forced labour practices in the cotton and silk industries.

Despite the Government’s efforts to keep it hidden, independent monitors were able to document systemic, government-mobilized forced labour in the agricultural sector of Turkmenistan, not just in cotton, but in silk production as well. Gaspar Matalayev was sentenced to three years imprisonment in October 2016 for his attempt to report the working conditions in cotton fields and was made to serve the entirety of his term. The warrant for his arrest was issued just a few months after the Committee examined the issue of forced labour in Turkmenistan for the first time. Those who report on labour exploitation continue to be punished.

It appears from the ITUC’s latest observations in 2022, which are based on independent reports, that the forced mobilization of workers in many sectors of activity continued during the 2021 harvest. We are aware of similar reports about the 2022 harvest which confirm that forced labour practices still persist. Other international bodies have also made the same observations and are concerned about the situation in the country, notably the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council. The involvement of these bodies in the case of Turkmenistan also testifies to the lack of respect for many fundamental rights in the country.

Of course, the establishment of the Roadmap following the high-level mission is a good thing. It demonstrates the intentions of the Government to work with the ILO, an important and necessary step toward ending the practice of forced labour. However, the Government must ensure that this process is credible and transparent, by allowing monitors, independent journalists and human rights defenders to document and report concerns about the use of forced labour without fear of reprisals. It also needs to involve constituencies of this house. Otherwise, we take the risk that the effective implementation of the many projects it contains will not address the core of issues.

It is insufficient to simply adjust the cotton production system without solutions grounded in a rights-based approach for the farmers and workers in that system. Lasting and robust solutions to state-imposed forced labour require enabling the exercise of labour rights and civil rights, including freedom of association, assembly, and collective bargaining. The success of such an approach will depend on the guarantee of genuine trade union freedom, the involvement of independent trade unions and the freedom of action of civil society organizations.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Turkmenistan – I would also like to comment on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, in particular, with reference to the implementation by Turkmenistan of the Convention. We should note that cotton cultivation in our country is an age-old activity. Indeed, in our agricultural sector, we have tenant farmers, farmers who own their land and private homesteads. They are given privileges and compensation from the State. This makes it possible for them to manage effectively, profitably and independently their business. I therefore cannot agree with the idea that private agricultural businesses are compelled to grow cotton and to enter into agreements to that effect. Here I would like to note the following:

- cotton cultivation in our country is profitable. Yes, we have a state order for cotton, but that’s very interesting for businesses to be involved in. Why is it so profitable? Well, they get loans for ten years, with an Annual Percentage Rate (APR) of 1 per cent which allows them to acquire equipment and they are able therefore to invest in their business. At present more than 3,000 pieces of John Deere equipment have been purchased, in other words tractors, and we are also working allowing people now to purchase agricultural machines “Сase” and “CLAAS”;

- secondly, they are exempt from all taxes and fees if they are involved in cotton cultivation;

- further, if you are involved in the cultivation of wheat, cotton, and other agricultural products, again you do not have to pay the lease fees;

- another point is that excess production over the State quota can be used as you wish.

At present in Turkmenistan, we have more than 500 peasant farmer associations. 35 per cent of them have already moved into the private sector, and by 2025 they will all be in the private sector. As it has been said before, in our country, businesses are considered as being very important. Businesses invest a lot in its lands to enrich the soil when it comes to cultivation. We must bear in mind the fact that people who want to make profits are clearly going to do what is in their own interests and they have no need then to have recourse to any kind of forced labour. It is in everyone’s interest to be involved in cotton cultivation. I myself, am a regional leader within the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan, and I can tell you with certainty that at all stages of cotton cultivation and harvest, there is no use of forced labour whatsoever.

The Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Turkmenistan brings together an enormous number of private employers within our country. In the course of any given year, we look at thousands of complaints that come to us. However, we have never received one complaint of forced labour in cotton companies and in any kind of cotton trading posts. We have never received any such complaint, neither within our union nor in terms of the authorities in our country. I would like therefore to note that there are unofficial sources on the alleged use of forced labour by cotton companies and we are willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis if we have objective and concrete information submitted in the appropriate form. We respect the opinion expressed by the Committee of Experts, but we do call for our views and arguments to be taken into account. I would like to point out also, that our union is actively involved in a number of the events foreseen by the Roadmap for Cooperation between Turkmenistan and the ILO, which was referred to in the Government’s report and that will include field visits.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Turkmenistan – As everybody knows, the unions of any country, in tackling the problems that the trade union movement shares around the world, work within its national circumstances. Each country has its own history, culture, specific structure of the State and structure within which it has economic development as well as spiritual traditions and social attitudes. Trade unions cannot be set up or operate without taking these particular features into account because they, to a very great extent, determine the strategy for future development of the trade union movement in each individual country. The unions of Turkmenistan fully support the Convention, including its requirements to ensure the fundamental principles of decent work. We support tripartism and support social dialogue and the principles of social justice.

It is very important for us that in 2018, the Turkmen Parliament adopted a law on a tripartite committee to govern social and labour relations. In almost every state body and private enterprise there are collective agreements signed which regulate social and economic relations on the ground.

At the moment, the national union of Turkmenistan is focusing its work on the following fundamental areas: (i) further strengthening of our national economy through active support to businesses, organizations and enterprises, irrespective of their legal structure or status; (ii) improving implementation and monitoring of collective agreements; (iii) ensuring the rights of workers to decent work, which means having a job, having a decent salary, having healthy and safe working conditions, enjoying social protection and engaging in social dialogue.

Here we very actively support the far-reaching changes which are taking place at the moment in Turkmenistan. The position of Turkmen’s unions has frequently been outlined in various international fora. Over the last few years, there has been a considerable increase in the role of trade unions in dealing with issues of labour protection at all levels. Technical and legal inspections carried out by the Labour Inspection Service of the unions in Turkmenistan has meant that specialists have monitored the way employers are complying with legal and other legal provisions to protect labour.

As far as the Convention is concerned, we strive to ensure decent working conditions without forced labour and without exploitation and we are working hard to cooperate with the Government, with regional authorities and to ensure that they all comply with international labour standards. Measures taken by the unions to bring this about include checking that technical and legal inspection conclusions are being complied with. Furthermore, we protect the rights and interests of workers and inter alia by supporting workers when issues come to courts and there are legal proceedings.

We have not received any complaints about forced labour in our union offices, but nonetheless, we are still carrying out careful monitoring and we hold training courses, seminars and briefings for specialists in various areas and from various levels, including workers and employers in our agricultural sector. Most of the seminars at the moment are being held in the regions, together with the local authorities, and they involve the associations of peasant farmers which have been referred to often in the agricultural sector. In these, we involve the local authorities, the Government, the local employment service, the police force and other private and state structures.

We attach enormous importance to cooperation with the ILO in Turkmenistan and our cooperation with the Organization is increasing each year. We hold consultations with ILO representatives on various questions which are of mutual interest. Representatives of Turkmenistan’s unions also participate actively in measures in defence which are organized within their framework and under the aegis of the ILO.

In March last year, high-level ILO representatives visited Turkmenistan and our unions participated actively in drawing up a Roadmap to prevent forced labour. That has been referred to in the statement just made by our Government’s representative.

The social partners and unions have been working together and continue to on implementing this Roadmap. We have carried out analysis for example, of our existing legislation to see whether it is fully in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. At the same time, we are working actively with our regional and local trade unions as well as local and regional authorities and other parties which have an interest in ensuring that we comply with international labour standards in all our economy and particularly in agriculture and in cotton farming.

In conclusion, Turkmen trade unions are actively involved in all the measures included in the Roadmap. We are cooperating with our Government and with the ILO this year as well, and we will continue to give support to the ILO in tackling this issue.

Government member, United States of America – We thank the Government of Turkmenistan for providing additional information to this Committee in response to the recent observations of the Committee of Experts, as well as for accepting the high-level mission to Turkmenistan in November 2022.

We welcome that an agreement was reached on a Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government in 2023, which focuses on six priority areas and includes activities on the improvement of the legislative framework for the prevention and prohibition of forced labour; the undertaking of a situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking; improvement of the regulation of seasonal work in agriculture and contractual arrangements; improvement of labour inspection to strengthen oversight; monitoring by the ILO of the 2023 cotton harvest; as well as further enhancement of dialogue between the ILO and the Government.

We encourage the Government to continue to actively pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour in cotton production. We note with interest the Government’s report that it has carried out an analysis of the current legislation and regulatory framework with regard to application of the standards contained in the Convention, and consideration is currently being given to submitting the Bills to the working groups established by the relevant parliamentary committees. We encourage the Government to continue to work with the ILO to ensure revisions are fully in line with international labour standards.

We recall independent workers’ representatives will be essential partners for building new legal and policy approaches to the cotton sector that eliminate the root causes of forced labour and urge the Government to amend provisions in the Trade Union Law and Law on Public Associations that enable the Government to exert undue control over union activities, including over the selection of trade union leadership.

We note with concern the continued reports of forced labour in the sector and policies that perpetuated the mobilization of workers for forced labour. We recall that the high-level mission’s conclusions recognized persistent difficulties in openly discussing the existence or practices of compulsory labour in the cotton harvest and that many persons during the mission indicated the practice existed, albeit without direct or tangible proof of the extent due to limited access to cotton fields.

We encourage the Government to regularly make public, high-level policy statements condemning forced labour, specifically including forced labour in the cotton sector, and as part of awareness-raising activities under the Roadmap.

The United States remains committed in engaging with the Government to advance worker rights in Turkmenistan.

Worker member, Sweden – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries. Turkmenistan is discussed under the Convention today, but before I talk about that, I would like us to, for a minute, think about what we actually know about Turkmenistan. I assume not very much. There is a reason for that. Turkmenistan is a very closed country. The authorities exercise strict control over the flow of information and all media. Turkmenistan is a Central Asian country not far from here and cotton is grown and harvested, at least partly, by forced labour, something that the Government consistently denies. The extreme limitations on free expression and association make it difficult to document and report anything that is going on within Turkmenistan. One thing we know is that people who have shared information with international media might be persecuted and some have received long prison sentences. But with that said, the consistency of reports about Turkmenistan year after year, including the last year, leave no room for doubt when it comes to the use of systemic, state-organized forced labour.

Turkmen News and the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights conduct independently monitoring of the cotton harvest, compiling monitoring reports supported by additional documentary evidence. Their joint report indicates that tens of thousands of workers from various state bodies were mobilized during the 2021 harvest. The reports from 2022 harvest give the same grim picture. While denying forced labour, the State is continuing to mobilize workers in forced labour in violation of its commitments under the Convention and also under the National Action Plan for Human Rights in Turkmenistan for 2021-2025.

In fact, government authorities began forcibly mobilizing workers for the cotton harvest only four months after the Action Plan was signed in April 2021. A mere denial from the Government is far from enough. Given the lack of transparency, free media, independent trade unions, civil society organizations, and real freedom of association, Government reports are not credible. The Turkmenistan Government should stop the use of forced labour in the country and continue cooperating with the ILO but also with the social partners within the ILO.

The Government should guarantee freedom of association in Turkmenistan, including freedom for independent trade unions and civil society organizations. We know that forced labour flourishes when freedom of association is suppressed.

Worker member, United States of America – Since this Committee last discussed this case in 2019, independent monitors and news outlets have continued to document the systematic use of state-sponsored forced labour in all cotton-growing regions of Turkmenistan. Indeed, in some ways the 2022 harvest, the first presided over by President Serdar Berdimuhamedow, was worse than previous years given the political pressure to make his first harvest appear successful. An independent monitoring report noted that state employees were once again mobilized en masse and that some children were paid to work as “replacement pickers” by public employees. Alarmingly, the Government of Turkmenistan continues to deny the existence of forced labour in its annual cotton harvest. In 2022, the Government reported to the Committee of Experts that it had not received a single allegation of forced labour with regard to the last cotton harvest. This kind of blanket denial strains credulity and suggests to us the Government is ready to ignore what it does not want to see.

Indeed, the only way to solve the forced labour problem in Turkmenistan is for the Government to finally acknowledge the root causes of the problems and ensure Turkmen workers have the means to combat it with the fundamental tools of effective grievance and remedy mechanisms.

Accordingly, we call on the Government to fully implement the Roadmap negotiated with the ILO and to ensure full access for the high-level mission and independent civil society to the 2023 cotton harvest.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – The report from the Committee of Experts this year is based on information from 2021. In an analysis of the real situation with reference to the Convention on the part of Turkmenistan, we base ourselves on more recent data, that is to say, data for 2022, submitted by independent, non-governmental organizations with reference to the cotton harvest in 2022.

We believe that this is convincing and representative information. We are grateful to the Government of Turkmenistan for the material submitted. The monitoring shows that practice of the use of different forms of forced labour in the cotton harvest continues on a massive and systemic scale. Large groups of public centre workers are sent to the cotton fields, including teachers, people from nurseries, schools, from health centres, from other kinds of state institutions and utilities. There is a lot of evidence from workers to the fact that in the course of this mobilization there are threats of people losing their jobs or losing part of their wages if they don’t comply. Other restrictions are also used to force them to work on the cotton harvest. When it comes to the cotton harvest, those workers who stay in their regular jobs, tell us that they are compelled to pay part of the wages of the pickers and also to incur additional expenses relating to the cotton harvest. Experts provide information on the fact that government bodies establish quotas for cotton production and there are threats of penalties and fines as well as loss of land if you do not meet these quotas. As well as that, they establish the purchase price for the cotton unilaterally.

The working conditions under which mobilised pickers are forced to work, in our view, are also clear evidence of the coercive nature of recruitment. They work in open fields without shelter, they often do not have enough drinking water, and there are reports to the effect that they are obliged to pay for food, water, transport, and accommodation. They do not receive personal protective equipment for their work in the cotton fields when they are exposed to chemicals and fertilizers. The Government asserts that a lot of the manual work is now being done mechanically, but that is not confirmed by independent experts. When cotton is gathered by hand, it is of a higher quality and can be sold at a higher price. We also know that equipment is expensive, and that the very system itself means that certain public officials have financial interests in keeping the system going as it is right now.

We must note the fact that experts have noted the use of child labour in cotton production, although the specific mobilization of children is not noted. In interacting with the supervisory bodies of the ILO and other international organizations, the Government continues to deny the mass use of forced labour and one of the arguments that they put forward is that there are no complaints about this. However, in the country you do not have the conditions for there to be appropriate monitoring of the situation by the authorities. Nor do you have unions who could act in a way that could respond to any such complaints and cooperate with international organizations appropriately, in order to defend the conditions of workers.

We are, however, willing to look positively at the recent signing of the recent Roadmap between Turkmenistan and ILO. This is intended to eradicate forced labour in the country as you know, but sadly, we must note that the Government was prepared without the participation of the workers and without the expertise that the trade unions could have brought to bear on the situation.

We believe, however, that a number of the measures could have a significant impact on the situation, but if the changes are going to be real and irreversible, we need to ensure that the whole system of cotton production in Turkmenistan is brought into line with universal standards for the protection of rights of citizens and ensuring decent work for all at a decent wage. On behalf of the delegation of the workers of the Russian Federation, we call upon the Government of the Republic of Turkmenistan, to cooperate with the ILO on the issue of bringing their legislation into line with international standards, in particular with the provisions of the Convention. This work, as we see it, is essential, but it can only be successful if we see genuine implementation by the country of the core Conventions of the ILO and the fundamental rights of workers, foremost among them the right to freedom of association within the overall context in which the human rights of people in Turkmenistan are protected.

Worker member, Netherlands – Year after year during the cotton harvest, which takes place between August and December, the Turkmen Government forces tens of thousands of public sector workers to pick cotton or pay for replacement pickers under threat of penalty, including loss of employment, reduction of work hours or pay, and extorts money from the same workers to pay expenses related to the harvest. In Turkmenistan, harvesting cotton using forced labour is not an anomaly, but an integral part of a command system of agricultural production that drives both rural poverty and child labour. The system of state control and coercion is so entrenched that farmers plant according to State dictates, instead of the soil, water and climate conditions. To comply with the systems, farmers have been forced to plant crops before fields are ready or in places with inadequate irrigation, ensuring the crops will fail, while the farmers themselves remain at the mercy of the government authorities.

Forced labour of public sector employees to pick cotton is and was widespread and systematic in all regions that were monitored by independent researchers. Teachers, doctors, cultural workers and other civil servants reported mobilizations by mid-August. By December, despite temperatures below freezing, about 25 per cent of public sector employees were forced to pick cotton or pay for replacements during the week, and all employees were sent to the fields on the weekend. The Government continues to deny the use of forced labour in the cotton harvest. The recently signed Roadmap and intention to work with the ILO is an important and necessary step toward ending this practice. However, it is also insufficient to simply adjust the cotton production system without grounding solutions in a rights-based approach for farmers and workers in that system. When going for the eradication of forced labour and child labour, the exercise of fundamental labour rights like freedom of association and collective bargaining are key and indispensable.

When working on solutions, independent workers’ organizations must be involved in the whole process. It cannot be the case that Government representatives of Turkmenistan present plans to the ILO, without involving any of the social partners. As previous speakers said, we also urge the authorities from Turkmenistan to fully cooperate with and implement recommendations from the ILO Supervisory Mechanisms. Under the framework of ILO technical advice, the Government of Turkmenistan should establish, monitor and report on clear benchmarks to fulfill its obligations under all fundamental labour Conventions of the ILO.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – On behalf of the IUF, the Global Union of Agriculture Workers, I support the voiced earlier comments indicating that forced labour in Turkmenistan’s cotton sector continues to be widespread and systematic. Each year during the cotton harvest, the Government forces tens of thousands of public and private sector workers to pick cotton, or pay a bribe, or hire a replacement worker to pick cotton instead of them. 2022 was no exception. Independent monitoring conducted during that cotton season found that the forced labour of public sector employees to pick cotton was widespread and systematic in all regions where it was monitored. Conducting this work in secret, the monitors put themselves at great personal risk. The Government takes extensive measures to prevent documentation and the cotton fields are under strict surveillance by the police and security services.

Workers in the fields faced difficult and sometimes abusive or dangerous working and living conditions to meet mandatory daily quotas of cotton. Their forced participation in the harvest was organized and enforced by the government. People are intimated, publicly censured, and threatened with wage deductions and loss of jobs in order to ensure compliance. Poverty and the pressure to fulfil quotas leads to child labour, with children picking cotton alongside parents, or to earn money as replacement workers hired by people forced to pick.

We welcome the Government’s recent engagement with the ILO. But at the same time, the Government continues to publicly deny the use of forced labour in the harvest – most recently during its review by the UN Human Rights Committee in March 2023 – and to harass and attack anyone who dares to speak out about human and labour rights abuses. Long-lasting solutions to ending forced labour in Turkmenistan must be grounded in a rights-based approach for the farmers and workers in that system – and require the enabling of freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of collective bargaining. As it stands, in two months’ time, tens of thousands of people will once again be forced to work in the fields, picking cotton under threat of punishment, under government orders. The 2022 independent monitoring findings show that the Government has not taken meaningful steps to eradicate this practice since the last review. Change is long-overdue.

We urge the Government to take urgent action to end the practice of state-sponsored forced labour in the cotton sector. The Government must enforce national laws that prohibit the use of forced and child labour; take action to hold officials to account for forcing citizens to work; and fully cooperate with and implement recommendations from UN treaty bodies, special procedures, and first of all ILO supervisory mechanisms. It must enable monitors, journalists, human rights organizations and labour rights defenders to operate freely and without the threat of reprisal, and allow workers to organize, form and join independent trade unions, and bargain collectively.

Government representative – Allow me, on behalf of the governmental delegation of Turkmenistan, to express gratitude to the Committee for the work done and constructive dialogue, as well as to the Governments and Employer and Worker members for their statements addressed to Turkmenistan.

Here, of course, we have listened to so much information regarding Turkmenistan. We took note of some of them. Some delegations’ approaches were very constructive and took into account the materials provided by Turkmenistan in the process of preparing this meeting.

As noted in the main speech of our delegation, a lot of work has been done and is being done to implement the norms of the Convention, not only at the level of legislation, but also in practice. In this context, I would like to once again urge the Worker members and Employer members to pay more careful attention to the Government’s comments. Some of the information provided is basically untrue, even there was a concern of the democratic elections held in our country. I want to reassure that elections are being held in Turkmenistan with the active participation of international observers. The criticism of my country’s leadership is unacceptable and unprofessional and should not be used at this event. We explicitly declare that the information about legalization of the forced cotton harvest by the State is unfounded and does not reflect the real situation on the ground. The policy of my country in this area is aimed at mechanization of the cotton harvest, as indicated in my main report.

All constructive proposals and recommendations of international experts in the context of the issue under consideration, will be carefully studied and analysed. On behalf of my Government, I want to note with confidence that we seek cooperation with the ILO on a systematic basis. The Roadmap of our partnership is solving the tasks of fulfilling the universally recognized norms of international law and is aimed at implementing a mechanism of improving both the legislative framework and its law enforcement practice.

This interaction can be carried out through technical cooperation on the implementation of the relevant Conventions in national legislation, awareness-raising, and capacity-building of specialists, as well as through a system for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Convention using the mechanisms of tripartite cooperation.

After successful implementation of the short-term Roadmap for 2023, Turkmenistan will be ready to discuss the prospects for long-term cooperation and interaction with the ILO.

Worker members – We would like to thank the Government representative for the information they provided during the discussion. We would also like to thank the speakers for their contributions. It is undeniable that Turkmenistan still uses forced labour on a massive scale to harvest cotton and silk. Please allow me to respond to a comment made by the Government representative regarding the supposedly unverified sources reporting practices of forced labour in the country. In a situation when there are no independent social partners, nor any genuine form of functioning civil society, we cannot consider information by the Government wholly credible. If the Government wishes to contest critical information provided by non-governmental sources and the ITUC and insists instead on its own alternative narrative of greater progress, we are compelled to ask why does it continue closed door policies? Why does it not engage with reputable global workers’ organizations, or the media or with human rights groups? We share the Committee of Experts’ deep concern at the persistence of forced labour practices and the poor working conditions of those forced to work in the cotton and silk sector, in clear violation of the Convention.

We request the Government to ensure the full implementation of the recommendations made following the review of its case by our Committee in 2021. The Government must also ensure that the implementation of the Roadmap is made in cooperation with the social partners and in a time-bound manner. In particular, it is essential that the Government takes all measures, in law and practice, to eliminate the use of forced labour by workers in the public and private sectors, as well as students, in particular by ensuring that the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Intervention Act, the Act on the preparation and implementation of mobilization in Turkmenistan, Article 7 of the Emergency Legal Regime Act 1990 and section 19 of the Labour Code cannot be used as legal bases for forced labour in cotton and silk fields. The Government must stop threatening those who fail to meet the quotas set by the authorities. It must also make public, high-level policy statements condemning forced labour, specifically including forced labour in the cotton sector and making clear that all work should be voluntary and fairly compensated. The pressure exerted on the authorities at all levels to meet these quotas leads to numerous abuses of which workers are the first victims.

The Government should act in accordance with the Convention and national legislation against the use of forced labour by issuing clear instructions on the prohibition of the use of forced labour and by prosecuting and punishing any civil servants who nevertheless resort to it. Strengthening labour inspection and law enforcement is essential if these practices are finally to be eradicated. The Government must work with the social partners to develop a national action plan to sustainably eliminate forced labour in the state-organized cotton and silk harvest. This plan must be time-bound and address the root causes of forced labour in agriculture. It will be essential for the Government to guarantee access to the cotton and silk fields for the social partners, monitors, independent journalists and human rights defenders who should be free to document and report their findings without fear of reprisals. It is further clear that the involvement of the social partners in the development and implementation of the Roadmap will require full recognition of trade union freedom in the country, so that the country’s workers and employers can be represented. We expect that Turkmenistan implements all fundamental labour rights, especially the prohibition of the use of forced and child labour, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, in alignment with the ratified ILO Conventions. To guarantee the achievement of all these objectives, we invite the Government of Turkmenistan to continue to avail itself of the ongoing ILO technical assistance and to accept the arrival of a high-level tripartite mission from the ILO, which must be given every facility to be able to carry out its mission.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank all the speakers who have taken the floor. In particular, we thank the Government of Turkmenistan for its intervention, as well as the oral and written information it provided, as it helps build a more comprehensive picture regarding the developments on the ground.

In closing, we would like to stress once again that the Employer members consider unacceptable, any forms of forced labour and other abusive practices amounting to forced labour. Notably, when they target the most vulnerable categories of society and are orchestrated by central authorities. Our position aligns in this regard with that of the Committee of Experts, the Office and the Worker members. While we welcome the efforts undertaken to address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in 2022, in particular the collaboration started with the ILO, we also take note of reports of continued recourse to practices of forced labour by the State in the cotton harvesting sector. In light of the discussion we have had on this case in this Committee, the Employer members request – even urge – the Government to first of all, pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students in cotton production. Secondly, continue engaging in cooperation with the ILO and independent social partners, to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice, including within the framework of the Roadmap for Cooperation between the ILO and the Government. Thirdly, and lastly, provide information on concrete measures taken in this respect, including on all activities indicated in the Roadmap.

We trust that the Government will implement such recommendations in a timely manner, to achieve full compliance with the Convention, both in law and practice.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

While taking due note of the Government’s explanations regarding collaboration with the ILO to address the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting, the Committee deplored the persistence of the widespread use of forced labour in relation to the annual state-sponsored cotton harvest in Turkmenistan and the Government’s failure to make any meaningful progress on the matter since the Committee discussed the case in 2016 and 2021.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation and cooperation with the social partners, to:

- ensure the full implementation of the Committee’s recommendations of 2021 and of the roadmap for cooperation between the ILO and the Government;

- reinforce its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in state-sponsored cotton production by developing, in consultation with the social partners and in the context of the ongoing ILO assistance, an action plan aimed at eliminating, in law and practice, forced labour in connection with state-sponsored cotton harvesting, and improving recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector in line with International Labour Standards;

- eliminate the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton and ensure that no one is threatened with punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas in line with the Convention;

- issue clear instructions on the prohibition of the use of forced labour and strengthen labour inspection and law enforcement;

- prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton;

- ensure that, in line with the Convention, the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act, the Act on preparation for and carrying out of mobilization in Turkmenistan and article 19 of the Labour Code are not used as a legal basis or pretext for forced labour;

- promote social dialogue in cotton production and continue engaging in cooperation with the ILO and relevant organisations of workers and employers to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice, including within the framework of the road map and to monitor and document any incidences of forced labour in cotton harvest without fear of reprisals.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a report containing information on concrete measures taken, including on the activities indicated in the road map, and respective progress made, to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2023.

Government representative – I would like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to all participants on the case of Turkmenistan including the social partners and representatives of Governments and non-governmental organizations. We take note of the conclusions and express our willingness to cooperate with the social partners and the ILO on the legislation relating to the application of the Convention and its application. I would like to reiterate that the Government of Turkmenistan has already done and will continue to make a great effort to apply the Convention in law and in practice.

With regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, we would appreciate the communication of the text of the draft conclusions well in advance and not one hour before their adoption in order to give the Government the possibility to fully review the document and its implications for our domestic and international obligations.

Once again, we would like to note that the comments on the broad use of forced labour in the cotton harvest are unfounded. We note, unfortunately, that the Committee has not taken into account the great efforts made by Turkmenistan with regard to the mechanisation of the cotton harvest and the elimination of forced labour, including child labour.

In conclusion, once again, I would like to reassure the Committee that the Government is looking forward to regular and systematic cooperation with the ILO in order to effectively implement the measures provided for in the road map in 2023 and on a longer-term basis.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

Response to the observations of the ITUC

The observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the widespread use by the State of forced labour in cotton harvesting are groundless and do not reflect the real situation and, most importantly, recent achievements in law and in practice aimed at:

1. preventing forced labour in general and in particular in cotton harvesting;

2. the mechanization of cotton harvesting to reduce manual harvesting. Information on ongoing work on both dimensions is provided below.

Clarification on the State of Emergency Law

The Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990 was voided by the State of Emergency Law of 2013. However neither the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990 nor the State of Emergency Law of 2013 refer to or use the notion of “needs of economic development”, which is mentioned in the CEACR’s observations.

Preventing forced labour

Legal norms

An important step in this direction is the fact that the Constitutional Law of 2016 introduces in the new version of the Constitution of Turkmenistan a rule prohibiting forced labour and the worst forms of child labour.

National programme documents

National Plan of Action on Human Rights for 2021–25

By the decree of the President of Turkmenistan of 16 April 2021, the National Action Plan on Human Rights for 2021–25 (NAPHR) was adopted.

Lessons from the Plan for the previous five-year period (2016–20) and international best practices were taken into account while drafting the Plan – a process which involved a wide range of stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academia and international organizations.

The current NAPHR includes a special section on “Freedom of Labour” in the chapter on “Social, Economic and Cultural Rights” which foresees measures aimed at:

- improving the legislation on the prohibition of forced labour;

- cooperation with the International Labour Organization on the issue of preventing forced labour;

- the development of measures to prevent the use of forced labour, including by ensuring compliance with legislation and strengthening control over its observance;

- ensuring the right of workers to join trade unions;

- bringing trade union legislation into line with the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

- ensuring the prosecution of employers who violate labour legislation in terms of compliance with labour safety rules and compensation for damage to injured workers.

The official presentation of the NAPHR to stakeholders, including international organizations, took place on 19 May 2021.

The Government of Turkmenistan expresses its readiness and invites the ILO to cooperate in the implementation of the relevant provisions of the National Action Plan on Human Rights for 2021–25.

Plan of Cooperation with International Organizations for 2021–23

Another national document which provides a basis for cooperation with the ILO on issues of mutual interest is the Plan of Cooperation with International Organizations for 2021–23 adopted by decree of the President of Turkmenistan on 30 April 2021.

One of the provisions of this plan suggests introducing a new form of cooperation with the ILO, namely the development of a yearly cooperation programme on specific topics. The cotton industry may be one of the priority items to start with in the cooperation programme, where we can envisage measures aimed at increasing cotton industry efficiency and ensuring compliance with international labour norms.

We have already had a preliminary discussion with the ILO Moscow Office and the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Turkmenistan on ways of cooperating on cotton issues and have suggested bringing international financial institutions like the World Bank into the discussions.

International cooperation

Cooperation framework on sustainable development

The Cooperation Framework between the Government of Turkmenistan and the United Nations on Sustainable Development is an important legal basis for cooperation between Turkmenistan and the ILO on promoting international labour norms.

This document was signed on 14 March 2020.

All key strategic directions of the Cooperation Framework are closely related to the SDG Goals and indicators adopted by Turkmenistan, and provide for further interaction between Turkmenistan and the United Nations in various areas, including maintaining economic stability and growth, protecting the social rights of the population, improving the healthcare system and maintaining an ecological balance.

The joint implementation of the Cooperation Framework in practice involves a significant number of United Nations agencies, including the ILO.

Mechanization of cotton harvesting

The cotton industry, namely the export of cotton and textile products in 2020, constituted only 1 per cent of national GDP. In 2015, this figure was equal to 1.8 per cent of GDP (see table below).

Export of cotton fiber, cotton yarn and textile products in 2015–20 (US$ million) [Table not reproduced]

However, the cotton industry is still one of the important sectors of the national economy of Turkmenistan. Its importance mainly consists of its ability to create jobs in textile mills, etc., but not in cotton harvesting.

Turkmenistan has introduced practical measures to reduce the manual harvesting of cotton. The figure below gives statistical data for harvesters (more than 90 per cent are from Case New Holland and John Deere), cotton fields and harvested cotton during the period between 2015 and 2020. [Graph not reproduced]

The next figure shows changes in the percentage of those parameters over the same period of time with the year 2015 as the starting point. [Graph not reproduced]

The figure shows that the cotton fields and volume of harvested cotton are changing slightly, whereas the number of harvesters has increased significantly.

The widespread use in the country’s agricultural sector of the latest generation of cotton harvesters in the process of picking cotton demonstrates the absence of the need to massively involve human resources in this process.

The figure below shows that the percentage of manually harvested cotton dropped from 71 per cent in 2015 to 28 per cent in 2020. [Graph not reproduced]

The figures for the cotton industry provided above are proof that the Government is undertaking all measures in order to reduce the manual harvesting of cotton and that the accusations of the ITUC are baseless.

In order to fulfill their obligation to prevent forced labour in cotton harvesting, the state authorities are taking appropriate measures. Regarding the comments of the Committee on the issues on the requirement for teachers, medical staff, employees of municipal services and communal enterprises, etc. to engage in the forced harvest of cotton, violations of sanitary standards, violations of the rules for their transportation in vehicles not intended for that purpose, it should be noted that, based on the results of inspections carried out by the law enforcement agencies of Turkmenistan, the above information has not been confirmed. Statements on these issues, as well as materials regarding the coercion of payments by citizens of funds intended for cotton harvesting, have not been registered.

The personnel of the Police Department for Road Surveillance of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Turkmenistan are constantly on duty in rural areas, including on roads adjacent to farmland, where they responsibly approach the issue of preventing the transport of people in trucks that are not intended for that purposes.

In addition, the personnel of the traffic police, as well as employees of the firefighting units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Turkmenistan, during the harvest season, are instructed on compliance by tenants, persons engaged in the harvesting and transportation of agricultural products, as well as farm managers and local authorities, with the rules respecting road traffic, the technical serviceability of vehicles and agricultural machinery, as well as fire safety rules.

The above activities and ongoing work for the prevention of forced labour, the use of illegal methods of forcing citizens to perform duties that are not within the scope of their activity, show the State’s commitment to the implementation of universally recognized norms and provisions, within the framework of the international agreements and treaties to which Turkmenistan has acceded, as well as continued compliance with the obligations arising out of the resolutions adopted by United Nations institutions.

Discussion by the Committee

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Population – The Government of Turkmenistan, having carefully studied the Addendum to the 2020 report of the Committee of Experts and the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the use of forced labour by the State in the cotton harvest, would like to provide the Committee with information on the main elements of its policy to implement the provisions of the Convention.

First of all, in May of this year, Turkmenistan provided additional information at the request of the international workers’ and employers’ organizations, highlighting the situation of the country’s cotton industry. In that information, the Government responded in detail to the comments. In this regard, let me draw your attention to some economic indicators in the cotton industry. In particular, the export of cotton and textiles in 2020 amounted to only 1 per cent of the country’s GDP, while in 2015 this figure was 1.8 per cent. These indicators reflect the prevailing use of cotton products on the domestic market, resulting from the creation of new products in the agricultural and textile industries, medical and food industries, and other sectors of the economy. This, in turn, contributes to the creation of jobs, both in the public and private sectors of the economy.

The widespread use of the latest generation of cotton harvesters in the country’s agricultural sector, with little change in the area of cotton harvested, and the volume of harvest, made it possible to reduce the rates of manual harvesting from 71 per cent in 2015 to 28 per cent in 2020. This data indicates clearly that the Government is taking effective measures to reduce the manual picking of cotton, and that there is no need to involve mass human resources in this process.

Further, on the issue of mobilizing the population and using the labour force for the needs of economic development, I would like to note that the 1990 Act on the Legal Regime governing the State of Emergency was superseded by the State of Emergency Act in 2013. However, neither of these Acts, nor the Act on Emergency Situations, as amended in 2021, address the concept of economic development needs nor do they provide for the mobilization of the population to this end, which is again noted in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Turkmenistan, a Member of the ILO since 1993, is committed in its policies to creating conditions for decent work and social justice for all. This is confirmed by the ratification by Turkmenistan of the United Nations (UN) Conventions on human rights, and the fundamental and technical Conventions of the ILO. The implementation of the Conventions is provided for, in the first instance, by the new draft of the country’s Constitution, which provides for the prevention of forced labour and the worst forms of child labour. The signing, on 14 March 2020, between the Government of Turkmenistan and the UN of the Partnership Framework for Development for 2021–25, should be noted. The implementation of this programme provides for the participation of a significant number of UN organizations, including the ILO, in key strategic areas of cooperation.

The new Action Plan on Human Rights for 2021–25, approved by decree of the President of Turkmenistan on 16 April 2021, has a chapter on social, economic and cultural rights, including a section on freedom of labour that covers measures aimed at developing cooperation with the ILO to prevent forced labour, developing measures to prevent the use of forced labour, including by ensuring compliance with legislation and strengthening controls over its implementation, ensuring the comprehensive implementation of programmes to improve the employment sector in Turkmenistan, especially in order to ensure the maximum level of employment of persons with disabilities, improving legislation prohibiting forced labour, protecting the rights of workers to join trade unions, bringing trade union legislation into line with the provisions of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and ensuring that employers who violate labour legislation with regard to compliance with labour safety rules are effectively held responsible, including for compensation for injured workers. The new plan was developed in light of the concluding remarks to the Government after the review of its national reports to the UN treaty bodies, the universal periodic review and the ILO’s 2016 recommendations.

A further national document that lays the foundations for our cooperation with the ILO on issues of mutual interest is the plan for cooperation with international organizations for 2021–23, approved by decree of the President of Turkmenistan on 30 April 2021. One element of this plan involves the introduction of a new form of partnership with the ILO, namely through the development of annual cooperation on specific topics. One example of successful cooperation is the implementation of annual work plans and projects with UN agencies and other international organizations.

The cotton industry can be one of the main areas for further cooperation within this programme, where we can establish measures to further compliance with international labour standards. Further, in the part of the plan on strengthening the legal framework for cooperation with international organizations, there is a provision to consider joining international Conventions and multilateral agreements, including ILO international instruments. Our focus will be on ratifying ILO labour inspection Conventions.

Representatives of the private sector at the international level have already had experience in assessing the situation under discussion. In line with ILO recommendations provided between 2016 and 2020, inspection visits to the cotton fields were organized for representatives of consulting groups at the request of major companies among the main buyers of Turkmen cotton. Following these visits, reports were prepared for interested parties. The visits were carried out during the cotton season when the workers themselves were in the fields and during these visits no violations or irregularities were found, and those present clearly were able to establish that there was no practice of using forced labour.

All this reflects the Government’s desire to conduct an open and trustful dialogue with its partners. In this regard, the Government would like to express its willingness to cooperate with the ILO going forward. In addition, we have already had preliminary discussions with the ILO Office in Moscow and the Office of the UN Coordinator in Turkmenistan on forms of cooperation on issues relating to cotton, and proposals were made to involve international financial institutions in these discussions.

Further, I would like to respond to the recommendations relating to the application in law in the context of relations between different stakeholders in the agricultural sector. Currently, work is being done to improve procedures for concluding contracts between local executive authorities and local self-governing bodies, as well as agricultural producers and persons involved in the cotton harvest.

In conclusion, Turkmenistan is open to receiving further technical assistance from the ILO and, for its part, will take specific measures to ensure the full application of the provisions of the international treaties. At the same time, we can develop further cooperation and reach agreement in the near future.

Employer members – This fourth double-footnoted case on the agenda of the Committee relates to another fundamental Convention ratified by Turkmenistan in 1997. Convention No. 105, together with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), ratified respectively by 176 and 179 countries, are of crucial importance for the abolition of all forced labour practices in all countries and under all jurisdictions. The Employer members are highly involved and committed to the eradication of forced labour. We cannot turn a blind eye on any forms of forced labour especially if they are planned, conducted or tolerated by the central authorities.

This is the second time the Committee is discussing Turkmenistan’s application in law and in practice of this Convention. The first discussion of these issues took place in 2016. The Government of Turkmenistan has provided the Committee of Experts with its report on Convention No. 105 in due time. It has also provided the submission to the Conference Committee that we read with interest. We thank the Government for this additional information.

The Employer members deplore the fact that a second discussion in this forum is necessary to drive further change. At the same time, we want to emphasize the positive attitude of the Government, deriving both from the statement we have just heard and from the written submission. This is what the Committee represents – a forum for dialogue and a precursor of improvements.

The case refers to practices of forced labour in cotton production which affects employees of a wide range of private and public sector institutions, under threats of punishment for a lack of fulfilment of production quotas. Punishment includes wage cuts, providing a replacement worker or other forms of harassment. The Committee of Experts’ observation reports on those practices by quoting different sources of information including the ILO technical and advisory mission of September 2016; ITUC submissions from 2019 and 2020; the UN Committee on the Economic Social and Cultural Rights observation of October 2018; and the stakeholder submission of February 2018 to the UN Humans Rights Council for the universal periodic review.

On the other side, the Government denies the existence of such practices. In its written submission, it states “the observations of the ITUC on the widespread use by the State of forced labour in cotton harvesting are groundless and do not reflect the real situation, and most importantly, recent achievements in law and in practice aimed at: (1) preventing forced labour in general and, in particular, in cotton harvesting; (2) the mechanization of cotton harvesting to reduce manual harvesting. Information on ongoing work on both dimensions is provided below”. This contradictory information is not helpful for the discussion and it is clearly adding a layer of difficulty to the open and frank debate we aim at in this forum.

So let us focus on the positive changes reported by the Government in its submission and in its presentation just recently. The first relevant change is legislative advancements, since forced labour and the worst forms of child labour are now prohibited under the Constitution, which was modified in 2016.

The second point referred to the adoption of the National Action Plan on Human Rights for the period 2021–25 in April of this year that foresees measures aimed at improving the legislation on the prohibition of forced labour and establishing cooperation with the ILO on the issue of preventing forced labour, as well as strengthening the monitoring of application of legislation that prohibits forced labour.

The third change is the plan of cooperation with international organizations for 2021–23, adopted by the Government in April this year that should speed up the request for assistance to the ILO on yearly cooperation programmes on specific topics, including on the cotton industry.

The fourth change will further the adoption of a cooperation framework with the UN on sustainable development that also involved the ILO.

Finally, the fifth change is the mechanization of cotton harvesting that has drastically reduced manual harvesting from 71 per cent in 2015 to only 28 per cent in 2020. These are all positive developments that the Employer members praise. They certainly constitute a good basis for further improvement. However, we would like to remind the Government that already in 2016, it stated its readiness for constructive dialogue and further cooperation with the ILO. This cooperation, even if preliminary discussions with the ILO Moscow Office have started, has not been signed yet. We reiterate, as a priority and a way forward, the importance for the Government of Turkmenistan of availing itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

Nevertheless, the positive developments mentioned above deal only with legislative changes and the intention of strengthening cooperation with international institutions but add little to the application in practice of the Convention. Twenty-four years have passed since the ratification of the Convention in Turkmenistan, and important steps are still to be made to fully implement the Convention. The Employer members recall that a similar situation was discussed by the Committee for the case of Uzbekistan and became a success story. As shown in the case of Uzbekistan, in countries with specific systems of “mobilizing labour for the purpose of economic development” some alternatives and adequate macroeconomic solutions are possible. Implementation of the Convention in practice may imply, for instance, awareness-raising of local authorities and society; fighting against bribery and zero tolerance on corruption of public officials in the cotton fields; capacity-building of labour inspectors and other relevant officials; and involvement of social partners and relevant stakeholders in the monitoring of compliance with national laws.

Such an approach may require additional laws and financial resources, as well as the establishment of new institutions, possibly in cooperation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country. The ILO is the key actor to ensure the proper implementation of the Convention through its technical assistance and very constructive approach, and should be addressed to develop a national action plan to eliminate forced labour in connection with the cotton harvest. Important information that the ILO and the Committee of Experts could benefit from would include information on the number and nature of contraventions reported for forced labour in the cotton fields, and the penalties applied.

To conclude, the Employer members would also like to express concerns at the information reported in the Committee of Experts’ direct request to the Government that refers to the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views.

Worker members – Forced labour within the context of cotton production is unfortunately an issue that is too common in certain countries in various regions of the world. And also in Turkmenistan, where the Government still has massive recourse to forced labour for cotton production. This use of forced labour is truly institutionalized and is still guided by the highest authorities in the country. Through the imposition of production quotas and threats of reprisals against all those who do not achieve them, the authorities create an environment that is conducive to abuse throughout the production chain of cotton in the country.

Workers who are forcefully mobilized for the cotton harvest are the principal victims, as they are obliged to stop their occupational activity to go and work in the cotton fields. Many students, often very young, are also requisitioned. The proper operation of many public institutions and enterprises is therefore affected. In addition to being forcefully mobilized, these workers and students have to work under health and working conditions that are not decent. They are subjected to pressure and threats. They are forced to work long hours and are refused personal protective equipment, which is indispensable in a context of health crisis.

According to the 2019 observations of the ITUC, workers in all sectors were sent by force to work in the cotton fields. The observations indicate that 70 per cent of the teachers in the region of Mary were mobilized to participate in the harvest in 2018. The latest ITUC observations indicate that the forced mobilization of workers in many sectors continued for the 2019 and 2020 harvests.

And yet Turkmenistan ratified Conventions Nos 29 and 105 in 1997. The first observations by the Committee of Experts on these forced labour practices for the purposes of economic development go back to 2011 and, despite a first discussion in 2016 in this Committee, we have seen no improvement in the situation in Turkmenistan and we deplore the fact that the Government does not even recognize the existence of a very serious problem in the country.

Other international bodies have also made the same observations and express concern with regard to the situation in the country, including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council. The involvement of these bodies in the case of Turkmenistan also bears witness more generally to the failure to comply with many fundamental rights in the country.

Article 1 of the Convention provides that Member States that have ratified the Convention undertake to suppress and not to make any use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, among others as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. Section 7 of the Act on the Legal Regime governing the State of Emergencies of 1990 allows the State and government authorities to recruit citizens to work in enterprises, institutions and organizations with a view to mobilizing labour for the purposes of economic development and to prevent emergencies. The Government denies that this concept of economic development is used in its legislation and refers in preference to the concept of emergency contained in the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act and the Act on preparation for and carrying out mobilization in Turkmenistan, which seem to serve as the legal basis or pretexts for forced labour in the cotton fields.

In so doing, the Government is endeavouring to avail itself of an exception set out in Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29, which provides that forced or compulsory labour shall not include any work or service exacted in cases of emergency. We must however agree with the Committee of Experts on this point, as the annual cotton harvest does not constitute a case of emergency as envisaged in this provision. The Government cannot therefore avail itself of this exception. And even if the concept of economic development is not used in the legislation, it appears in practice that it is indeed for the purposes of economic development that the Government allows forced labour campaigns.

It also appears from the report of the Committee of Experts that 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 Government has not provided a response on this subject in its written information.

Even though the Turkmen legislation also includes provisions prohibiting recourse to forced labour, it seems clear that these legal provisions are not applied in practice. However, the absence of freedom of the press and the non-existence of independent trade unions in Turkmenistan make it very difficult to monitor the application of this legislation in practice.

The Government refers to various draft national plans of action to bring an end to forced labour, although free and independent social partners do not appear to have been involved in these processes. The Government adds that it is investing in the mechanization of the cotton harvest so that it will no longer be necessary to have recourse to too much labour. The mechanization of the cotton harvesting process does not however appear to us to offer the necessary guarantees to bring an end on a lasting basis to the systematic practice of forced labour in Turkmenistan.

While we appreciate the openness of the Government to closer cooperation with the ILO with a view to developing and implementation plans of action to bring an end to forced labour, it seems to us that an important step for the Government is to finally recognize the extent of the problem and to take measures in practice to demonstrate its expressed will to end forced labour. For that purpose, Turkmenistan will also in future have to facilitate investigations by international organizations on its territory as a basis for effective and useful technical cooperation. Indeed, it is to be regretted that the ILO technical advisory mission in September 2016 encountered the greatest of difficulties in visiting cotton fields to make the usual observations.

We invite the Government to engage in a new positive process similar to those that we have already seen in other countries on this issue. The success of such a process will be conditional on guaranteeing the true exercise of freedom of association, the involvement of independent trade unions and the freedom of action of civil society organizations. The opening of tripartite dialogue with the social partners is fundamental for the sustainable changes that are required in the country.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Turkmenistan – I would like to provide comments on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts with regard to the participation of farmers and private business in the cotton sector. I cannot agree that farmers are being forced to harvest cotton. Cotton growth is a traditional sector and we have much experience in this area.

There is state purchasing and businesses are attracted by the possibility of having the right to farm land for a period of 99 years. Why is agricultural cotton production attractive for farmers? There is credit available at an interest rate of 1 per cent over ten years. That means that agricultural enterprises can acquire farming equipment. More than 3,000 John Deere agricultural technical units have been acquired and there is interest in Case IH and CLAAS brands as well. There is also a release from the duty to pay taxes and levies, and a release from rental payment. Cotton, which goes beyond the amount recovered by the State purchase, is available to farmers to dispose of as they wish, and there are also attractive leaseholds available on land for 99 years. At the moment there are 517 associations in the cotton sector, 180 of which have become part of the private sector, and the remaining will do so by 2025. The agricultural enterprises are attracted by the possibility of making profits in this area and in no way would be attracted to or could use forced labour. The association of enterprises for Turkmenistan receives thousands of statements from our enterprises each year but none of them contain information about being forced to grow or harvest cotton.

Our association does a huge amount of work in supporting our enterprises and represents their legitimate interests in the state bodies. We are aware of the information on cases of forcing enterprises to farm cotton contained in the report, and we are willing to consider any case where there is objective and concrete information. We are aware of the information provided by the Committee of Experts but we would ask that our opinion be considered as well.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Turkmenistan – Let me begin by saying that in 2016 the delegation of Turkmenistan was heard at the 105th Session of the Conference on Convention No. 105. We have studied the comments and recommendations made by the ITUC on the issue of the use of forced labour during the cotton harvest and I would like to use the opportunity of this meeting to provide information about some measures that have been taken by the unions to ensure the implementation of those recommendations.

The unions of Turkmenistan are very much attached to the principle of “tripartism”, as representatives of workers. According to our trade union law and its charter, trade unions exercise social control over the implementation of labour legislation in the country. For this purpose, we have carried out legal and technical labour inspections.

We have also worked in many government and parliamentary working groups and expert groups on the development and improvement of labour legislation and other laws and regulations related to labour and its protection and the implementation of the provisions of ILO Conventions in our law.

One of the activities of trade unions is to assist the Government in implementing international labour standards. I have to say that in comparison with past years, the outcome of this year has been much more positive. We regularly participate in the work of a special tripartite commission on labour issues in accordance with the law that was adopted in 2019.

The country ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), a couple of years ago which is now in force in the country. In addition, this year Turkmenistan became a State party to the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122). Turkmenistan has ratified 11 Conventions and of those, 9 are fundamental and 1 is technical. This is an indication of our attachment to ILO values.

We participate actively in the work of the tripartite commission set up in Turkmenistan in the Social Affairs and Labour Ministry. We have made various proposals there on improving our labour legislation and, at this very moment, we are working on a new draft of our Labour Code which is going to have provisions added to it to improve what it can do with respect to the issue under discussion.

Between 1 January and April this year we concluded 121 agreements between workers’ and employers’ organizations. Over 2,000 – nearly 3,000 – collective agreements are in force in institutions and businesses. Furthermore, and despite the restrictions placed on us at the moment by the pandemic, we are working as far as we can with regional branches of our unions in the country so that they can continue their work. Some 113 inspections were carried out last year and 15 have been carried out on compliance and legislation this year.

As far as the question of forced labour is concerned, we have not received any comments either from individual citizens or from businesses, not this year. Special seminars, meetings and training courses are being offered to make sure that farmers and workers are aware of the situation and their rights. Eighteen such seminars have been held this year.

In the last couple of years, we have also stepped up our cooperation with international institutions, including the ILO. A delegation of the National Centre of Trade Unions of Turkmenistan, headed by its chairman, visited ILO headquarters in Geneva last year and fruitful consultations were held with officials there. So, we understand your concern, we do and we are doing whatever we possibly can in order to ensure that our legislation is in line with our country’s commitments. We are sure that the cooperation we have will lead to further positive results. At the moment, progress has certainly been made and we hope it will continue.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Countries, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, and the EFTA country Norway, Member of the European Economic Area, as well as the Republic of Moldova, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection and respect of human rights, including labour rights, freedom of association and the abolition of forced or compulsory labour as specified in Article 1 of the Convention. We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including the Convention and we support the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the implementation of international labour standards and of the fundamental Conventions in particular.

We thank the Office and give our full support for its constant engagement in the promotion of labour rights and the abolition of forced labour in Turkmenistan.

We regret that no meaningful progress has been achieved in addressing the issue of the mobilization of persons for forced labour in the cotton harvest since the discussion of the case by the Committee and the visit of an ILO technical advisory mission to the country in 2016.

The EU and its Member States are deeply concerned by the enduring practice of forced labour in the cotton sector and the poor working conditions of workers employed in this sector. Forced labour affects not only farmers, but it also impinges on businesses, private and public sector workers, such as teachers and doctors, and students.

We would also like to express our disappointment that the draft cooperation programme developed by the Government of Turkmenistan together with the social partners, has not been agreed upon, and urge the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

In this context, the EU and its Member States urge the Government to take the necessary measures to completely eliminate the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students in cotton farming.

Furthermore, we fully share the Committee of Experts’ observations calling for the amendment of the legislation to bring it in conformity with the Convention, and to ensure, in law and in practice, that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of views opposed to the established system. Pending the adoption of such measures, we expect the Government to provide information on the application of the aforementioned legislation.

We welcome the written information provided by the Government of Turkmenistan and the recent adoption of the second National Plan of Action on Human Rights and strongly urge the Government to step up efforts towards its implementation.

The EU and its Member States stand ready to assist Turkmenistan in meeting its obligations and will continue to closely follow and analyse the situation in the country.

Worker member, France – The practice of forced labour is of particular concern in the public sector in Turkmenistan. Because of their dependence on the State for their livelihoods, public sector workers are among the most vulnerable to be sent to the fields at harvest time. An in-depth report by Solidarity Center explains that official instructions are issued requiring these workers to be sent to harvest cotton, even if it is not economically viable. This information was confirmed at an advocacy meeting by a representative of the authorities, which state that they have to produce daily reports on the number of people sent to the cotton fields and the tons harvested; and which force those who cannot go to the fields to pay for someone to go in their place.

In 2020, owing to low yields and the refusal of farmers to use this workforce, workers were paid derisory amounts and had to find fields to harvest of their own accord, work by night and without equipment. In the region of Dashoguz, one worker testified to earning barely 1.5 manats per day. For comparison, a bottle of vegetable oil costs 15. To those who are not happy, the farmer replied that he did not even have to give them that. Neither medical certificates nor family circumstances justifies an absence. In the region of Lebap, the decision brought on 28 August 2020 exempting cleaners from organizations and institutions, given the risks associated with the pandemic, was overturned two weeks later and these workers alternated between cleaning and cotton picking every other day.

The situation for women is even worse, as they are even more vulnerable. They represent the lowest paid section of the public sector workforce. They cannot, therefore, under any circumstances hire someone to do the work in their place and must go to the fields themselves, irrespective of their age or state of health.

Government member, Canada – I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and my own country, Canada. We thank the Government of Turkmenistan for the recent information provided on its implementation of the Convention. We note that the information highlights measures by the Government that aim to address the observations of the Committee of Experts, including measures under the 2021–25 National Action Plan on Human Rights. Nonetheless, we remain deeply concerned by reports of persistent use of forced labour in Turkmenistan, including state-sponsored mobilization of public and private sector employees, as well as students, under threat of penalties. In 2016, this Committee urged the Government to end that practice. However, the recent observations of the Committee of Experts note no meaningful progress on the part of the Government to effectively address these issues over the past five years.

We therefore urge the Government of Turkmenistan to take immediate and effective action to: first, use all legislative and investigative measures available to eliminate, in both law and practice, the mobilization and use of forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvest; second, to provide information to the ILO on the measures taken to end forced labour and the results achieved, including the number of violations detected and the penalties applied; and third, avail itself of ILO technical assistance towards eliminating forced labour and improving recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector.

We welcome the Government’s recent stated intention to cooperate with the ILO and other international organizations to prevent the use of forced labour in the country moving forward. To that end, we call on the Government to allow these organizations access to the cotton fields in order to observe the harvest.

Forced labour is a grave issue. State-sponsored forced labour in Turkmenistan is a clear violation of the Government’s obligations under the Convention and inconsistent with the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. We sincerely hope that the Government’s next report to the Committee of Experts will highlight positive developments towards the elimination of forced labour in Turkmenistan.

Worker member, United States of America – Unfortunately, independent monitors and news outlets continued to document systematic forced labour in all cotton-growing regions of Turkmenistan during the 2020 harvest, as they have in previous years.

The Committee of Experts’ report notes 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 this case by the Committee and the visit of an ILO technical advisory mission to the country in 2016. The State continues to set mandatory quotas for cotton production with severe penalties, including land confiscation, termination of employment and denial of social benefits, to force farmers and citizens to grow and harvest the crop. It is impossible to produce cotton in Turkmenistan outside of this system.

In May 2018, the US Government issued a sweeping order banning the importation of goods made in whole or in part with Turkmen cotton due to the overwhelming nature of the evidence that it is produced in a closed state-run system that relies on forced labour. Companies and importers who import products containing Turkmen cotton in violation of the ban may face steep fines and even criminal charges.

Forced labour is the antithesis of decent work and an egregious violation of labour and human rights. We ask the Committee to condemn this practice in the strongest possible terms and demand that the Government of Turkmenistan take concrete, verifiable measures to end forced labour during its annual cotton harvest.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – The Russian Federation fully aligns itself with the points made by the representative of Turkmenistan with regard to the application of the Convention. We consider the allegations of widespread use of forced labour in cotton farming against Turkmenistan to be completely unfounded. They fail to take account of the significant efforts by Ashgabat to mechanize the sector and fully eliminate forced labour.

We hope that the Committee will note with satisfaction the detailed report that has been provided today by the Minister from Turkmenistan and resolve the consideration of this issue. As a general remark, it is unacceptable that thematic country reports be tied to the internal events in any country. The Russian Federation calls upon the International Labour Conference – rather we call upon the ITUC and its committees – to forgo politically biased and confrontational agendas, in favour of a constructive and mutually respectful approach to promote decent work and improve instruments that protect the interests of workers and employers.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – The Committee of Experts has more than once noted that Turkmenistan does not comply with the Convention. Turkmenistan is one of the most closed countries in the world, and there is no freedom of expression. We know it also has severe problems with observing freedom of association and the right to organize. There are no free trade unions as such in the country. Therefore, it is very difficult to get information about the labour rights situation in the country. However, there does seem to be systematic and organized use of forced labour in agriculture by the Government, particularly in the cotton industry.

Forced child labour has been documented as well. Those who are conscripts also have to participate in the cotton harvest without pay, and that is the case for others too. In many regions, it seems that some people are forced to pay 20 manats, two or three times a week, for their keep while they are engaged in the cotton harvest.

Farmers are not allowed to use more profitable types of farming as the Government prevents them from doing so. The authorities have used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse for forcibly mobilizing workers in the course of last and this year. Many of the workers mobilized in this way did not receive any salary, protection, or transport for getting them to where they were working, as for those fighting against the virus. We urge that urgent measures be taken to protect the workers of Turkmenistan and their rights and to bring the situation in that country fully into line with the commitments under the Convention. That is what needs to be done.

Government member, Switzerland – Switzerland regrets having to discuss, yet again, compliance with Convention No. 105 – a fundamental Convention – by Turkmenistan. According to various sources, recourse to forced labour by mobilizing and using labour for cotton production is common practice in Turkmenistan. This practice constitutes a serious violation of the international standards that guarantee democracy and the rule of law, including the fundamental freedoms of expression and association, such as peaceful expression of political opinions. Furthermore, this practice is harmful to workers and farmers.

Despite certain measures taken in 2016, the Government of Turkmenistan continues, according to various sources, to practice forced labour in the cotton sector. Such a practice cannot be justified for reasons of economic development. May I recall that the Convention prohibits compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. It is in this context that Switzerland encourages the Government to establish specific measures to abolish, in law and in practice, forced labour in conformity with the Convention.

Lastly, Switzerland supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts to provide information on the measures taken and the concrete results achieved, and to continue to use ILO technical assistance to improve recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector.

Government member, Azerbaijan – My delegation thanks the delegation of Turkmenistan for providing the latest update on the application of the Convention to the Committee. Azerbaijan appreciates the efforts made by the Government to ensure the effective application of the Convention and to enforce prohibition and eradication of forced labour in the country. We note that the prohibition of the use of forced labour is enshrined in the new Constitution of Turkmenistan, adopted in 2016, which demonstrates its commitment to complying with all its obligations under the Convention and the relevant international instruments.

We understand the Government has continued to introduce policy frameworks such as the recently adopted National Plan of Action on Human Rights and Plan of Cooperation with International Organizations. The National Plan of Action on Human Rights particularly foresees a set of measures aimed at improving legislation on the prohibition of forced labour; developing cooperation with the ILO on the prevention of forced labour; and strengthening control over legislation enforcement. We also welcome the practical measures by the Government to reduce manual harvesting of cotton.

These actions by the Government demonstrate its commitment and willingness to address the concerns raised with the active engagement of the ILO. We encourage the Government to continue working closely with the ILO and increasing its efforts to implement ILO standards. At the same time, in fulfilling its labour-related obligations, we invite the ILO to fully support the Government of Turkmenistan and provide any technical and consultative assistance that it may seek in this regard.

Government member, Uzbekistan – The Government delegation of the Republic of Uzbekistan welcomes the openness and active interaction of the Government of Turkmenistan with the ILO on the application of fundamental international norms and standards, including Convention No. 105. This is illustrated by the implementation of the National Plan of Action on Human Rights in the country, which was developed taking into account previous successful practices and has been approved by the President of the country. We highly appreciate the efforts of the Government of Turkmenistan in improving national legislation on the eradication of forced labour, enhancing cooperation with the ILO to prevent forced labour and engaging in fruitful cooperation with other international organizations.

We are convinced that the steps taken by Turkmenistan represent the commitment of the Government to ensure the labour rights, and they deserve recognition from the Committee.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – All agricultural land in Turkmenistan belongs to the State. Farmers’ associations rent their land from the State, which has the monopoly right to purchase from tenant farmers at prices set by the State. If tenants fail to fulfil their obligations, they are fined and might have their land taken away from them. A system where farmers have no freedom to decide what they grow, where they have no opportunity to negotiate the selling price for their produce, and where workers have no opportunity to organize and bargain wages and working conditions, is a system which will inevitably depend on the use of forced labour.

We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this issue in Turkmenistan’s agriculture is indeed endemic. The independent monitors have been documenting this case in spite of the Government’s efforts to silence their voices, which was observed in the case of Gaspar Matalayev who was sentenced to three years imprisonment in October 2016 for his attempt to report the working conditions in cotton plantations. The warrant for his arrest was issued just a few months after this Committee examined the issue of forced labour in Turkmenistan for the first time, when the Government stated its readiness for constructive dialogue and cooperation.

Several times the Committee issued recommendations. All of them were but marginally accepted by the Government, as it persistently denied any use of forced labour in the country. This position was yet again reiterated in the Government’s communication to the Committee on 20 May 2021. The Government repeatedly maintains that it is open to cooperation with the ILO, yet we do not see any tangible proof of this openness. The ILO should continue taking all possible measures to secure the observance by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the Convention.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – On behalf of the delegation of Turkmenistan, I would like to express our gratitude to the Committee for the work that it has done and for the constructive dialogue we have had with delegates, particularly those who spoke in support of Turkmenistan. We are grateful to the spokesperson of the Employer members, as well, for his constructive approach to dialogue and for the material provided by Turkmenistan for this meeting. We have been doing, and continue to do, a great deal of work in order to comply with the Convention, not only in terms of enacting legislation, but also in the way we apply it.

To the spokesperson of the Worker members, I would ask him to pay perhaps a little more attention to the comments made by the Government. Comments about institutionalized forced labour in Turkmenistan are groundless and inaccurate. They do not reflect the real situation on the ground. Once again, I would like to say that Turkmenistan’s Emergency Law, 1990, was replaced by a law in 2013, which does not contain any provision about the cotton harvest. Neither, as I said, do we use the concept of “for the purposes of economic development”. We are trying to further mechanize our cotton industry, and the statistics which we have provided illustrate that. In addition, the Government is clearly trying to make mechanization of agriculture a priority.

Some positive recommendations and comments have been made by the Committee of Experts and we will, of course, carefully study those in Ashgabat and carry out an analysis of them. On behalf of my Government, I would like to say – and I can say this with certainty – that we see cooperation with the ILO as something we would like to become more regular and systematic. We will be happy to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we are in full compliance with our obligations under ILO Conventions and we are sure we can bring that about. Further cooperation can be carried out through transposing the provisions of ILO Conventions into our legislation, providing training and awareness-building to our people, and monitoring the compliance with Conventions through tripartite cooperation. We are happy to do all of that.

Worker members – We thank the Government representative for the information that he has been able to provide during the discussion. And I can assure him that I have listened to him very carefully. We also thank the various speakers for their contribution to the discussion.

It cannot be denied that Turkmenistan is still making massive use of forced labour for the cotton harvest. These are not mere allegations, but information that has been verified with the different sources present on the ground. It is not reasonable to weigh this information against the Government’s repeated denials concerning the verified problem of forced labour in the country. We share the deep concern of the Committee of Experts at the persistence of forced labour practices and the bad working conditions of those who are forced to work in the cotton sector, in manifest violation of the Convention.

It is essential for the Government to take every measure, in both law and practice, to eliminate the use of the forced labour of workers in the public and private sectors, as well as students, particularly by ensuring that the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act and the Act on preparation for and carrying out mobilization in Turkmenistan, section 7 of the Act on the legal regime governing the State of Emergency of 1990 and section 19 of the Labour Code cannot be used as a legal basis for forced labour in cotton fields.

The Government must cease to make threats against those who do not manage to meet the quotas set by the authorities. This pressure exerted by the authorities at all levels for the fulfilment of the quotas leads to many abuses, of which workers are the first victims. The Government must take action that is in conformity with the Convention and the national legislation that prohibits recourse to forced labour, by issuing clear instructions on the prohibition of forced labour and by prosecuting and punishing, where necessary, officials who have recourse to it even so.

The Government must develop a national plan of action in collaboration with the social partners for the lasting elimination of forced labour in the context of the cotton harvest organized by the State.

The report of the Committee of Experts indicates that preliminary contacts have been made with the ILO to engage in cooperation with a view to bringing an end to these practices that are contrary to the Convention, but have not however led to specific commitments. We therefore invite the Government to intensify these contacts now and to involve the social partners and all civil society organizations that are following the situation in Turkmenistan. For this purpose, it will be essential to grant the social partners access to the cotton fields, as well as the press and all civil society organizations, with freedom to report their observations without fear of reprisals. It is clear that the involvement of the social partners in the development and implementation of such a national plan of action will involve the full and complete recognition of freedom of association in the country so that the workers and employers of the country can be represented.

In order to guarantee the achievement of all these objectives, we invite the Government to accept a visit by a high-level ILO mission before the next International Labour Conference and during the harvest period. Such a mission must be granted full capacities so that it can carry out its work effectively.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the Government for the useful information, especially on the willingness to cooperate with the ILO. We would like to thank also the trade unions and Government delegates for sharing their views on this case, and emphasizing their commitment towards the eradication of forced labour.

In the light of the debate, the Employer members invite the Government to truly commit to bring its practice in line with the Convention. The first priority is the ILO’s support and the Government should 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 Employer members conclude the discussion on this case by recommending the Government to: take effective measures in law and in practice to ensure that no one, either from the public or private sector amid threats of punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas, is forced to work in the cotton harvest; adopt any possible measure to ensure that local authorities, labour inspectorates and public officials are adequately informed of the applicable legislation on forced labour; prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton in contravention of the Convention; allow the social partners and civil society organizations to monitor and document any incidents of forced labour in the cotton harvest without fear of reprisals; and finally, provide the Committee of Experts with information on the number and nature of contraventions reported of forced labour in the cotton fields and the penalties applied.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with deep concern the persistence of the widespread use of forced labour in relation to the annual state-sponsored cotton harvest in Turkmenistan and its failure to make any meaningful progress on the matter since the Committee last discussed the case in 2016.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government of Turkmenistan to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• in compliance with Article 1(b) of the Convention, ensure in law and in practice that no one, including farmers, public and private sector workers and students, is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest, or threatened with punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas;
• ensure that, in line with the Convention, the State of Emergency Act, the Emergency Response Act, the Act on preparation for and carrying out of mobilization in Turkmenistan and article 19 of the Labour Code are not used as a legal basis or pretext for forced labour;
• report on the status of section 7 of the Law on the Legal Regime Governing Emergencies of 1990;
• eliminate the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton;
• prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton;
• develop, in consultation with the social partners and with ILO technical assistance, an action plan aimed at eliminating, in law and practice, forced labour in connection with state-sponsored cotton harvesting, and improving recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector in line with International Labour Standards; and
• allow independent social partners, press and civil society organizations, to monitor and document any incidences of forced labour in the cotton harvest without fear of reprisals.

In order to effectively implement all those recommendations, the Committee calls on the Government to accept a high-level mission of the ILO which will be granted all accommodations so as to carry out its duties before the next International Labour Conference and during the harvest season.

Another Government representative – First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all parties that were involved in the examination of the application by Turkmenistan of Convention No. 105. We take note of the conclusions of the Committee.

We consider the observations of widespread and systematic use of forced labour in cotton farming in Turkmenistan to be completely unfounded. The Committee has failed to take into account the significant efforts by Turkmenistan to mechanize the cotton sector and fully eliminate forced labour.

The statement of the Minister of Labour on 8 June 2021 highlighted concrete statistical data on the mechanization process in the sector. Unfortunately, the Committee’s conclusions once again illustrate that the Committee or its members adopted a prejudiced attitude and selective approach to the facts that were brought to light during the dialogue. In particular, point two of the third paragraph of the conclusions deals with the application of the Act on the Legal Regime governing the State of Emergency of 1990 and the State of Emergency Act of 2013. I would like to inform you that in the history of independence of Turkmenistan, a state of emergency has never been declared to use those provisions. So this point is not relevant at all.

Point 3 of the same paragraph contains a request to report under the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, which was replaced in 2013 by the State of Emergency Act. However, we have already reported that neither the Law of 1990 nor the Law of 2013 contain the expression “needs of economic development” at all. We are ready to provide the texts of these two laws for your examination.

In conclusion, as has been repeatedly stated by our head of delegation, Turkmenistan is committed and ready to cooperate with the ILO in fulfilling its obligations under the labour Conventions. We have already proposed various forms of cooperation with the ILO and are ready to consider other options acceptable for both parties.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)



A Government representative recalled the relevant legislative provisions, including section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offences and section 223 of the Criminal Code, and indicated that forced labour was not imposed in cases in violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. He explained that “corrective labour”, as a penal sanction, corresponded to the exception of Article 2(c) of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). As a matter of fact, under section 50 of the Criminal Code, corrective labour was served following a court judgment, with the payment of the corresponding salary. At the same time, legislation restricted the use of corrective labour for certain categories of citizens. With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts’ concerning the sanctions for insulting or defamation of the President of Turkmenistan, including through the publication of materials over the Internet (sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014), citizens of Turkmenistan enjoyed freedom of opinion and expression and the right to exchange information. The implementation of the provisions of national law should not be interpreted as a punishment and should thus not fall under the prohibition of Article 1(a) of the Convention. Moreover, the Constitution of Turkmenistan guaranteed freedom of assembly and the right to hold meetings and demonstrations. On 28 February 2015, the Parliament of Turkmenistan had adopted a special law aimed at the implementation of the constitutional rights of citizens of Turkmenistan concerning the organization of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations and other large-scale public events. Administrative penalties were imposed for the violation of procedures established by the legislation, and not for the expression of political views. However, administrative arrests could be applied in exceptional circumstances, only for certain types of administrative offences, and did not include the obligation to perform public work or any other form of forced labour. He emphasized that, at the present time, the Parliament of Turkmenistan was discussing a new Constitution, taking into account international experience in the area of the protection of human rights and freedoms. In the context of the legislative reforms, work was also under way on a draft law that created and appointed a human rights ombudsperson.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on forced labour during the cotton harvest, he said that the agricultural sector accounted for less than 4 per cent of GDP. At the same time, the country paid great attention to the development and improvement of the agricultural sector, the introduction of modern innovative technologies in order to create jobs, as well as measures to support farms and small and medium-sized businesses. State support and incentives provided to farmers included preferential loans for up to a ten-year period with a rate of interest of 1 per cent per annum. Procurement prices for cotton had also been increased. In accordance with section 8 of the Labour Code, forced labour was prohibited in Turkmenistan. Moreover, in the course of the constitutional reforms, the prohibition of forced labour would be included in the new Constitution. In accordance with the Law on education and the rights of the child, the Government was required to protect the child from all forms of exploitation at work, by measures of a legal, economic, social, medical and educational nature. Students were prohibited from working during the school year in the agricultural and other sectors which were not related to the educational process. He added that of the legislation referred to in the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Law on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, had been repealed. With regard to the comments on the imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using employment for purposes of economic development, the State of Emergency Act did not provide for this type of mobilization for those purposes. In accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences, sanctions, including administrative suspensions, were imposed on employers for up to three months for the failure to prohibit the use of forced labour and the employment of persons under 18 years of age. Official complaints and petitions by citizens concerning the use of forced labour could be reported. In this regard, no information or complaints had been received concerning the use of forced labour. The Government wished to continue cooperation with the ILO on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Government was committed to constructive dialogue and continued collaboration, as demonstrated by recent meetings and official ILO visits to Turkmenistan, as well as activities in Turkmenistan for the implementation of international labour standards.

The Worker members said that Turkmenistan was the ninth largest producer and the seventh largest cotton exporter in the world and that it maintained that status through a system of forced labour under the auspices of the State. The Government had complete control over cotton production and obliged cotton farmers to respect annual quotas. During the harvest season, the authorities obliged public sector workers, under threat of dismissal, to either pick cotton, pay bribes or hire someone to replace them. The authorities also forced private sector enterprises to contribute to the task in cash, in labour or in kind, by quite simply threatening them with the closure of their establishments. Forced labour in the cotton industry took place in the context of widespread human rights violations in the country. The Government was accused of being responsible for hundreds of enforced disappearances and of ordering prison sentences as measures of political retaliation. The Government also denied workers’ rights to freedom of association, assembly and expression, which facilitated recourse to forced labour. Those who tried to gather evidence of forced labour in the cotton industry did so at their own risk and peril, and therefore had to act anonymously to avoid harassment and reprisals. They added that, although the Government had adopted laws against forced labour, it had repeatedly ignored the deep concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the application of Conventions Nos 29 and 105. In 2016, the Committee of Experts had once again strongly urged the Government to take specific and effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers in cotton farming. The United Nations Human Rights Council and the Committee on the Rights of the Child had also noted that children were still engaged in cotton picking. Reliable information from NGO reports concerning the 2015 harvest clearly showed that the Government continued to use widespread forced labour, with complete disregard for the demands of the ILO and other United Nations agencies. These various factors demonstrated that the Committee of Experts had good reason to bring this case to the attention of the Conference Committee and to assign it a double footnote.

The Worker members emphasized that the Government used various forms of coercion to ensure implementation of the cotton production plans. The President of Turkmenistan threatened regional governors with dismissal if they did not fulfil their regional cotton production target. Regional and district officials in turn threatened to dismiss the leaders of agricultural associations if they did not meet their quotas. The associations then threatened to seize the land of cotton farmers if they failed to meet their targets. And workers risked dismissal if they refused to participate in the harvest, pay a bribe or hire someone to replace them. During the 2015 harvest, which had arrived late and had a low production output, the President had criticized the regional governors on several occasions for the slow production, and forced them to send more workers to the fields to speed up the process. School directors had sent teachers to pick cotton several days a week throughout the harvesting season in the Dashoguz, Lebap and Mary regions and, across the country, teachers indicated that they had the choice to either work in the harvest, pay a bribe or see the end of their careers. They referred the testimony of a public service employee forced to participate in the harvest as well as a worker hired by a teacher to do the work in their place, highlighting both the bad working conditions and the corrupt practices that accompanied the forced compliance with the targets fixed by the State.

The Worker members also emphasized that the Turkmènes Agricultural University and the Dashoguz Agricultural Institute had forced around 2,000 students to pick cotton, under threat of exclusion from the establishment, and that the school directors in the Akhal and Dashoguz regions did the same with regard to their pupils. They added that the forced labour of parents organized by the Government to ensure compliance with the quotas had led to, at least in the Boldumasaz district (Dashoguz region), recourse to child labour, as the parents feared losing their jobs if they did not fulfil their designated cotton quota. The Government considered any refusal to contribute to the cotton harvest as insubordination, sabotage or contempt for the nation, which entailed the application of administrative sanctions, including dismissal. The high unemployment rate in Turkmenistan heightened the impact of the threats of dismissal in response to refusals to participate in the cotton harvest. They finally indicated that the Government should draw on examples from the Committee’s conclusions relating to similar cases. The Government should, with ILO technical assistance, immediately adopt and implement an exhaustive action plan for the full abolition of forced labour in the country.

The Employer members welcomed the indication by the Government that it was prepared to cooperate with the ILO to address issues of compliance with international labour standards. They noted that the provisions of the Convention on the prohibition of the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, as well as a method for mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development, appeared to be relevant in this case. They recalled that, in the first part of its observation, the Committee of Experts focused on Article 1(a) of the Convention, noting that, under both section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984 and section 223 of the Criminal Code, any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations constituted both an administrative and a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, administrative arrest or corrective action. The Government had not provided information on the application of these provisions in practice, and the Committee of Experts had noted that changes had been made to section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984, while section 223 of the Criminal Code remained unchanged, and sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code established penalties for offences that were punishable by a fine, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for up to five years. The Employer members urged the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offence, sections 176, 192 and 223 of the Criminal Code and to take the necessary measures in both law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

In relation to Article 1(b) of the Convention, they recalled that the Committee of Experts observed that the “needs of economic development”, pursuant to section 7 of the Law on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, did not satisfy the definition of emergency in relation to Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee of Experts noted with deep concern the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production. In particular, individuals were forced to pick cotton, in fulfilment of state-established cotton production quotas, under threat of penalty. The Government forced farmers to deliver established annual cotton production quotas and thousands of workers to pick cotton under threat of loss of land, loss of employment and loss of wages. Businesses were forced to send employees to pick cotton under threat of extraordinary audit, tax inspections and fire inspections, while transport companies were forced to contribute by transporting workers to the cotton fields, without compensation, and under threat of confiscation of their licence by the police. They recalled that the Convention, by providing for the abolition of any form of forced labour in five specific cases, was intended to supplement Convention No. 29, and they emphasized that they had long opposed the use of forced labour for economic development. They strongly urged the Government to take effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of forced labour in relation to the cotton harvest and further requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this connection and the concrete results achieved. In this regard, they encouraged the Government to request the technical assistance of the ILO. They expressed concern with regard to the direct request, in which the Committee of Experts, noting that section 16 of the Civil Service Act prohibited strikes by civil servants, directly requested the Government to provide information on sanctions that may be imposed on workers participating in strikes in the civil service. Acknowledging that participation in peaceful strikes, where such industrial action was recognized at the national level, should not result in the imposition of forced labour, they stated that this provision of the Convention did not recognize a general right to strike and that, as a result, sanctions for workers who went on strike, which did not impose forced labour, did not fall under the scope of the Convention. In conclusion, they highlighted the seriousness of the case and expected the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions opposed to the established system and to take effective measures without delay to ensure the elimination of the use of forced labour of workers in relation to the cotton harvest.

The Worker member of Turkmenistan referred to a tripartite agreement signed between the Government and the social partners to actively promote social dialogue and move away from unfortunate situations that still existed in the country. Recently adopted laws and regulations were discussed in a tripartite setting, and national workers’ organizations were actively participating in the process of amending the legislation, including the Constitution. The new Constitution would include a specific provision banning forced labour, which they supported. He also welcomed the fact that a human rights ombudsperson position would be created. Labour inspection was effective in all regions of the country and workers’ organizations also carried out monitoring with labour inspectors and discussed existing practices. Cotton was an important industry which generated employment. A campaign has been launched by trade unions and the labour inspectorate which had resulted in more than 100 inspections being carried out in 2015, and some 50 complaints had been examined. However, trade unions had received no complaints with regard to forced labour. Trade unions were becoming more effective in their work and had a greater influence in the labour sphere. Trade unions were working towards guaranteeing the rights of workers, in collaboration with the labour inspection services, with the aim of improving the quality of work and ensuring that workers were paid decent wages. Collective agreements were also being signed in this regard.

The Employer member of Turkmenistan stated that farmers and producers in agriculture engaged voluntarily in cotton cultivation under preferential conditions and incentives, such as the reduction of the cost for fertilizers, the availability of loans and the exemption from the payment of taxes and other fees. Although the Committee of Experts had noted that private companies were forced to participate in the production of cotton, she was not aware of complaints of such practices and encouraged the Committee of Experts to consider each case individually. She concluded by hoping that the Committee would take her views into consideration.

The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway and Republic of Moldova, said that the EU was engaged in the promotion of the universal ratification and implementation of the core labour standards, including the Convention, as part of the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, adopted in July 2015. The EU was concerned about the serious human rights situation in Turkmenistan, characterized by the lack of freedom of expression, including on the Internet, freedom of association and freedom of movement, as well as restrictions imposed on civil society organizations and arbitrary detentions. In this context, the EU policy concerning Turkmenistan, which was intended to promote respect for human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles in that country, was maintained. In this regard, he welcomed the recent adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan and encouraged the Government to step up its efforts for implementation. The EU was concerned about the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the application in practice of section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offences, sections 176, 192 and 233 of the Criminal Code and the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014. It was also deeply concerned by the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production in Turkmenistan, which not only affected farmers, but also the public and private sectors at large. Workers were under threat of losing their jobs, salary cuts, loss of land and extraordinary investigations and, despite being illegal, child labour continued in cotton production. In this context, the Government was called upon to amend its legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to ensure in practice that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established system. The Government was encouraged to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts, to intensify its efforts to completely eliminate compulsory labour in cotton farming and to ensure a stronger enforcement of the law regarding child labour in cotton production. Finally, he indicated that the EU was willing to assist Turkmenistan to meet its obligations in this regard and would continue to monitor the situation in the country closely.

The Government member of Belarus congratulated the Government on strengthening its legislation to apply the provisions of the Convention. Reforms carried out by the Government were facilitating progressive change, particularly in the agricultural sector. In this regard, he referred to the preferential loans granted to farmers, which were exempt from taxes and fees. He also referred to the adoption of legislation guaranteeing the constitutional right to peaceful assembly. A new draft Constitution, reflecting international experience in the protection of human rights and freedoms, was before Parliament, and there were plans to appoint a human rights ombudsperson. He therefore suggested that the Committee should no longer consider the application of the Convention by Turkmenistan, although the ILO should continue to work with the Government.

The Worker member of France emphasized that the observations of the Committee of Experts highlighted the violation in Turkmenistan of the fundamental freedoms of expression and association, which guaranteed democracy, peace and the rule of law. Cotton production generated considerable revenue for the State and for an elite few who were closely connected to the political authorities. The use of forced labour was unfortunately very common in this context. Cotton production contributed to political repression and the absence of the rule of law made any opposition futile and dangerous. All media in Turkmenistan were state-controlled and used for propaganda. Access to social networks and foreign media was prohibited and any form of opposition on the Internet or in the media was punishable by forced labour. In the regard, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) had raised concerns that the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014 imposed too many restrictions on access to the Internet and the repression that could result from this Law. In addition, a United Nations document submitted to the Human Rights Council during the Universal Periodic Review of Turkmenistan indicated that all attempts to organize independent trade unions had met with resistance from the authorities. The absence of independent trade unions, as denounced by the International Trade Union Confederation, led to numerous violations of workers’ rights, with forced labour being an extreme example.

However, the country was not closed to all foreign presence, as foreign, European and French multinationals, particularly in the construction and communication sectors, were concluding more local contracts. At a time when the International Labour Conference was discussing decent work in supply chains, it should be recalled that, while States were responsible for the ratification and implementation of international labour standards, enterprises could not ignore existing international standards on human and labour rights. In particular, they were obliged to take into account the United Nations Ruggie principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, revised in 2011, which encompassed the concepts of the exercise of influence and business relationships. It was therefore essential for the representatives of foreign public authorities present in the country to ensure that international principles were respected and for enterprises to ensure that their activities did not directly or indirectly support the violation of human rights and forced labour. France, which was about to inform the ILO Director-General officially of its ratification of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, needed to be particularly vigilant in that regard. The Bill on the extraterritorial responsibility of parent companies currently being debated by the French Parliament should be adopted as quickly as possible, in accordance with the recommendations of the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights in France. She supported the requests by the Committee of Experts for the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour could be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established system.

The Government member of Switzerland said that her Government supported the statement made by the EU. The use of forced labour for the cotton harvest could not be justified on grounds of economic development and, as the Committee of Experts had emphasized, there were no situations of emergency or force majeure within the meaning of ILO Conventions that could, in this context, justify recourse to forced labour. She encouraged the Government to promote the free and informed consent of workers to enter at any time into an employment relationship, and to ensure their right to leave their employment at any time without fear of reprisals or loss of benefits. Lastly, she expressed the hope that the Government would put in place concrete measures in both law and practice to eliminate forced labour.

The Employer member of the United States condemned the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production in the country. This situation affected broad categories of society, including business and private and public sector workers, farmers, teachers, doctors and nurses, who were forced to work in cotton production under threat of losing their jobs, experiencing salary cuts, loss of land and enduring extraordinary investigations, in violation of the Convention. He said that, consistent with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, many multinational companies were partnering in their supply chains with groups dedicated to eradicating forced labour in the cotton industry. As these efforts were proving insufficient, he appealed to the Committee to add its unique institutional voice to the collective effort to hold the country accountable to its international obligations and called for the initiation of a tripartite monitoring programme to ensure compliance by the Government with its international obligations. Without a free press and a robust civil society, the ability of companies to identify and monitor potential violations of human rights in their supply chains was hampered. Despite the fact that articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan guaranteed the right to hold and express opinions, as well as the right to hold meetings and demonstrations in the manner established by the law, the Committee of Experts had noted that penal sanctions were routinely imposed, including through compulsory labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, he also referred to the observation of the OSCE on the Internet Development and Services Law of December 2014 and the concerns at the severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the country expressed in the framework of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review. Echoing the call for action made by the Committee of Experts, he strongly urged the Government to take measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour by public and private sector workers in cotton farming and requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to this end in both law and practice, as well as the concrete results achieved.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic workers, said that according to Human Rights Watch, Turkmenistan was one of the most closed and repressive countries in the world. The Government had arrested and imprisoned people based on politically motivated grounds and used “corrective labour” as punishment for violations of legal procedures, restricting the organization of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, and thus denying freedom of association and expression. There were few, if any, signs of free, democratic and independent trade unions in Turkmenistan. She emphasized that well-functioning social dialogue was not only an important tool for eliminating labour rights abuses, such as forced labour, but also the best mechanism to promote better living and working conditions and peace and social justice. Moreover, democracy was among the enabling conditions for a well-functioning social dialogue. An appropriate institutional framework to allow tripartite discussion on important issues, such as the abolition of forced labour, was also required. She expressed the view that there was practically nothing of the above in Turkmenistan. She asserted that more information and cooperation from the Government was needed and she urged the Government to change its laws and legal practice. She emphasized that forced labour should be abolished urgently and the need to engage in social dialogue with free and independent social partners.

The Government member of the Russian Federation welcomed the detailed information provided by the Government. Important socio-political reforms were being undertaken leading to a more effective implementation of the Convention. He noted with satisfaction the constructive cooperation between the Government and the ILO, including joint seminars and other activities contributing to the implementation of international labour standards at the national level. He was of the view that this level of cooperation with the ILO confirmed the readiness of the Government to comply with its obligations under international law. In this regard, he urged the Office to continue to provide technical assistance to the Government in relation to the implementation of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States said that for years the Government had been using social control as one of its methods to repress the workers in the country, particularly through cotton production and picking. The Government forced farmers and individuals to fulfil cotton production and picking quotas. Tens of thousands of workers from sectors, including education, health care and culture and sporting institutions, as well as manufacturing, construction and transport companies, were pulled out of their normal work day and forced to pick cotton, or to pay a bribe or hire a replacement worker to pick cotton instead. Farmers who fell short of the production quota faced the penalty of losing their lease to farm the land. The cotton pickers in the fields worked under the threat of loss of pay or termination from their employment. As a result of the mass mobilization of public sector workers to pick cotton, many services were disrupted, including education and health-care services. As a consequence, many teachers and technical school staff quit their jobs. It particular, it was deplorable that workers from the very critical industries of education and health care were ripped out of schools and hospitals to pick cotton in the fields for the sole purpose of garnering profits for the government elite. She emphasized that the practice was even more unacceptable of officials forcibly mobilizing students to the cotton fields under the guise of internships. In addition, pressure to fulfil cotton picking quotas resulted in children not attending school, but instead picking cotton alongside their parents, who feared losing their jobs if quotas were not met. Finally, she emphasized that these shocking human rights violations could not persist any longer and urged the Government to undertake serious reform in order to ensure the abolition of forced labour, as required by the Convention.

The Government member of Kazakhstan highlighted the positive measures taken by the Government. In this regard, he welcomed the efforts made to formulate a new Constitution, taking into account international experience in the areas of human rights and freedoms, and which would include a provision banning forced labour. He also welcomed the current work to establish a position of human rights ombudsperson. He referred to the measures to promote and support the agricultural sector, including preferential loans, as well as the promotion of new and innovative technologies in the sector. The active participation of the Government in regional and international organizations was also to be welcomed.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran commended the Government of Turkmenistan for its commitment to fully complying with its international obligations, including the elimination of forced labour, through appropriate legislative and practical measures. The Government should be encouraged to pursue its efforts and the Office to provide assistance if needed.

The Government member of Azerbaijan recalled the difficulties faced by all countries of the former Soviet Union in their transition process, as well as their achievements in adopting new legislation expressly prohibiting forced labour, ensuring socio-economic development, the full development of the human potential of their peoples and the steady growth of wages. The growth of the textile industry in Turkmenistan, which allowed the increased participation of women in the labour market, bore witness to the achievements of the country. Economic development would further support the full application of international labour standards in the country.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude to the speakers who had taken part in the discussion and reaffirmed his confidence in such a constructive dialogue to ensure the full application of the rights enshrined in the Convention.

The Employer members welcomed the information provided by the Government regarding legal reforms, such as the repeal of section 7 of the 1990 Law on the legal regime governing emergencies, with the stated aim of banning forced labour in law. However, further information was required with regard to: the repeal of the above provision; the changes to section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984; and the status of section 223 of the Criminal Code; as well as how these stated changes were administered in practice. The Government’s stated intention of continuing to cooperate with the ILO in order to apply Convention No. 105 was duly noted. Moreover, the Employer members appreciated that, in view of the economic circumstances, it might be very helpful for the Government to continue to work with the ILO in order to fully understand the obligations under the Convention. The Government was requested to take effective measures in both law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour could be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions which were opposed to the established system in order to achieve compliance with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Employer members also requested the Government to take measures without any delay to ensure that no individuals, including farmers and/or public and private sector workers, were required to work for the state sponsored cotton harvest and that no threat of punishment or penalty was permitted for the failure to fulfil state production quotas under the pretext of economic development. The Government was also requested to confirm the repeal of section 7 of the 1990 Law on the legal regime governing emergencies and to request ILO technical assistance in order to develop a national action plan to eliminate any form of forced labour in relation to the cotton harvest and to continue its cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker members agreed with the Employer members. In Turkmenistan, forced labour occurred in a climate of generalized violation of human rights, including the denial of freedom of association and expression. Anyone who tried to combat the phenomenon had to do so clandestinely and risked intimidation, arrest and detention. The forced mobilization of farmers and other workers to produce and harvest cotton violated both the national legislation banning forced labour, including section 8 of the Labour Code and Convention No. 105. The Committee of Experts noted “with deep concern the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production which affects farmers, businesses and private and public sector workers, including teachers, doctors and nurses, under threat of losing their jobs, salary cuts, loss of land and extraordinary investigations”. The Committee strongly urged the Government “to take effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers in cotton farming”. The Worker members urged the Government to cooperate with the ILO and the social partners to devise a plan to eliminate the use of forced labour, including child labour. The Government was thus requested to bring an end to the practice of forcing farmers to grow cotton and mobilizing workers from the public and private sectors for harvesting. The Worker members also called upon the Government to: immediately cease threatening those who failed to meet production and harvest quotas, apply the national legislation banning forced labour, instruct government officials not to use force to oblige people to work in cotton fields and punish those who did so. The Government was also requested to seek ILO technical assistance in ending forced labour in the cotton industry and to allow independent journalists and human rights activists to go about their work freely and to express their concern at the use of forced labour in the cotton industry without fear of reprisals. They also called for the drafting and implementation of a national plan of action to guarantee respect for internationally recognized labour rights in the cotton industry, inter alia, by ending the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton and, where appropriate, to ensure the liberalization of the purchasing price of cotton and financial transparency in related expenditure and income. Moreover, they noted that, while the Employer members questioned the Committee’s direct request to the Government under Article 1(d) of Convention No. 105, it was the view of the Worker members, as well as eminent jurists and regional and national high courts, that the right to strike was protected by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). This had been recognized by both Employers’ and Workers’ groups in a joint statement: “the right to take industrial action in support of legitimate industrial interests is recognized by the Constituents of the ILO”. The international recognition of the right to take industrial action required the Worker and Employer representatives to address the mandate of the Committee as defined in its 2015 report. The Committee’s mandate to “determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the provisions of the Conventions” had been approved by the ILO Governing Body, and the Committee of Experts could thus request any information it deemed relevant through a direct request on the application by a State of its obligations under a ratified Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee welcomed the Government’s stated commitment to continuing to cooperate with the ILO in its efforts to apply Convention No. 105. The Committee noted with concern the allegations of the widespread use of forced labour in relation to the annual state-sponsored cotton harvest in Turkmenistan.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• - In compliance with Article 1(a) of Convention No. 105, take measures in law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions opposed to the established system.
• - In compliance with Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, 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”. In this regard, repeal section 7 of the Law on the Legal Regime Governing Emergencies of 1990.
• - Prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton in contravention to Convention No. 105.
• - Seek technical assistance from the ILO in order to comply with the Convention in law and practice and to develop a national action plan to eliminate forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvest.
• - Allow the social partners, and civil society organizations, to monitor and document any incidences of forced labour in the cotton harvest without fear of reprisals.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude on behalf of the delegation and reiterated the commitment of Turkmenistan to consistently fulfil its international obligations under the ratified ILO Convention. He indicated that concluding observations and recommendations are to be carefully examined. However, he mentioned that the Committee in its conclusions referred to the Law of 1990 that had already been abrogated in 2013. The Government representative reiterated the readiness to a constructive dialogue and further cooperation with the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to review the following sections of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour:

• section 176(2): insult or defamation against the President;
• section 177: incitement of social, national or religious enmity;
• section 178: abuse of the State symbols;
• section 191: contempt of court;
• section 192: libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and
• section 212: insult of a representative of authority.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report concerning the 2022 amendments to the Criminal Code. In particular, the Committee takes due note that the Criminal Code, as amended in 2022, does not provide for a provision establishing criminal penalties for insulting a representative of the authorities. The Committee further observes that while sections 188(2) “insult or defamation against the President” and 189 “incitement of social, national, tribal, ethnic, racial, or religious enmity or discord” of the Criminal Code, as amended in 2022, do not establish the penalty of correctional labour, these sections provide for the penalty of deprivation of liberty which involves compulsory prison labour. The Government also indicates that for the period 2020–22, there were no convictions handed down under sections 188(2), 189, 193 “abuse of the State symbols”, 210 “contempt of court”, and 211 “libel against a judge, juror, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry” of the Criminal Code, as amended in 2022.

The Committee further notes that in its 2023 concluding observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed deep concern about reports of the widespread practice of persecution of civil society representatives and their relatives who peacefully exercise their freedom of expression both in Turkmenistan and abroad (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/3). The Committee also notes that in its 2023 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern about the repression of prominent human rights defenders working to protect ethnic minorities and recommended the Government to refrain from persecuting and intimidating human rights defenders (CERD/C/TKM/CO/12-13,).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting the imposition on them of sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee points out in this respect that while the protection provided by the Convention does not extend to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, penal sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention if they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system (see the Committee’s 2012 General Survey on the fundamental conventions, paragraphs 302–303). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take measures to review sections 188(2), 189, 193, and 210 of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and the types of penalties imposed under the above-mentioned sections of the Criminal Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the Government’s report received on 31 August 2023. It also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2023. Moreover, it notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 27 September 2023, and the Government’s reply to the ITUC’s observations, received on 27 October and 9 November 2023. The Committee further takes note of the report on the implementation of the 2023 road map for cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Turkmenistan (implementation report), produced following the visit of the independent ILO mission on the observance of the conditions of work and recruitment of cotton pickers during the 2023 harvest.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 111 th Session, June 2023)

The Committee notes the detailed discussion by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (Conference Committee), which took place in June 2023 during the 111th Session of the International Labour Conference.

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. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2023, the Conference Committee deplored the persistence of the widespread use of forced labour in relation to the annual state-sponsored cotton harvest in Turkmenistan and the Government’s failure to make any meaningful progress on the matter since the Conference Committee discussed the case in 2016 and 2021. The Conference Committee further urged the Government, in consultation and cooperation with the social partners, to: (i) ensure the full implementation of the road map for cooperation between the ILO and the Government; (ii) reinforce its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in state-sponsored cotton production; (iii) eliminate the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton; (iv) issue clear instructions on the prohibition of the use of forced labour and strengthen labour inspection and law enforcement; (v) prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton; and (vi) promote social dialogue in cotton production and continue engaging in cooperation with the ILO and relevant organizations of workers and employers to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s information in its report concerning the measures taken in the framework of the implementation of the road map for cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023 (road map), which was adopted in March 2023 following several ILO high-level technical assistance missions. This road map covers activities in the following six areas: (1) a review of the policy and administrative framework governing the cotton harvest; (2) improvement of labour inspection and law enforcement; (3) promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector; (4) improvement of cotton production and harvesting; (5) design and implementation of awareness-raising activities; and (6) promotion of social dialogue in cotton production. In particular, the Government indicates that: (1) an analysis has been carried out of the current legislative framework with regard to the application of the Convention and the resulting draft legislative acts were submitted to Parliament; (2) meetings were held with the participation of the relevant ministries and agencies, social partners and ILO representatives to discuss compliance of the legislation and law enforcement practices with the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and to proceed towards the ratification of these Conventions; (3) there are ongoing efforts to produce a qualitative study of recruitment practices for the cotton harvest and a quantitative study to assess cotton harvesting trends over the past five years; (4) a technical workshop was held during the ILO mission in July 2023 to discuss seasonal and casual employment in Turkmenistan’s agricultural sector; (5) in 2021–22, more than 200 awareness-raising meetings, workshops and round tables were held to address fair employment issues throughout the country; and (6) the social partners are actively involved in implementing all the measures set out in the road map.

The Committee further notes from the ITUC’s observations that despite the Government’s engagement with the ILO and the adoption of the road map, forced labour practices in cotton production are still prevalent on a massive scale in Turkmenistan. Moreover, the ITUC points out the increased pressure on the heads of state-owned enterprises to mobilize workers to the cotton fields in 2022. In particular, tens of thousands of public sector employees, including teachers, doctors, cultural workers, and civil servants, were mobilized to pick cotton to meet the State’s cotton harvest plan. Cotton pickers were forced to work under hazardous and unsanitary conditions, including in temperatures ranging from -10°C in December to +40°C in August with no shade and an inadequate supply of drinking water. While cotton pickers were exposed to chemicals, they received no warning or protective equipment, and no medical care. They had also to pay for food, water, transportation, and accommodation. The ITUC further indicates that persons were forced to pay for replacement pickers in order not to participate in cotton harvesting. In 2022, the replacement fee varied between 20 to 60 manats per day (about US$1–3), while the average teacher’s salary is between 1,300–1,400 manats per month (about US$65–70).

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the ITUC’s observations reiterating the measures taken to ensure the implementation of the road map and indicating its intention to discuss the prospects for long-term cooperation with the ILO in the event of the successful implementation of the road map. The Government further refers to the information prepared by the National Centre of Trade Unions of Turkmenistan (NCTU) which indicates that the NCTU did not receive any complaints about the use of forced labour from workers during the cotton harvest. The NCTU further indicates that in some regions of Turkmenistan, local authorities and farmers, in collaboration with employment services, organize the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers, who are provided with transport and food and receive wages depending on the amount of cotton harvested.

The Committee notes that the IOE, in its observations, expresses hope that progress will be made in the application of the Convention, in line with the Conference Committee’s conclusions and in close consultations with the most representative employers’ organization in Turkmenistan.

The Committee further notes that in its 2023 concluding observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed remaining concern about the widespread use of the forced labour of civil servants during the cotton harvest (mainly women) under threat of such penalties as the loss of wages or salary cuts and the termination of employment as well as other sanctions (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/3).

The Committee also notes that, with the acceptance of the Government, an independent ILO observance mission of the conditions of work and recruitment of cotton pickers, by ILO staff and independent consultants recruited by ILO, took place during the 2023 harvest in October 2023. The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the implementation report, initial findings from this observance mission indicate direct or indirect evidence of mobilization of public servants in all regions visited (Ahal, Lebap, Dashoguz and Mary provinces) except for Ashgabat City.

While taking due note of the Government’s collaboration with the ILO in the framework of the road map and during the observance of the cotton harvest in 2023, the Committee reiterates its deep concern about the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector. The Committee strongly urges the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of workers, particularly from the public sector, in cotton production. In this regard, the Committee urges the Government to continue to engage with the ILO and the social partners, within a cooperation framework, to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice. It requests the Government to continue to take measures to implement the various components of the road map and to continue to provide information on the concrete measures taken in this respect, including measures to further raise public awareness on this subject and to monitor the cotton harvest.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that several provisions of the Criminal Code which provide for sanctions of correctional work or deprivation of liberty (both involving compulsory labour) are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The provisions of the Criminal Code include:

• -section 176(2): insult or defamation against the President;
• -section 177: incitement of social, national or religious enmity;
• -section 178: abuse of the State symbols;
• -section 19: contempt of court;
• -section 192: libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and
• -section 212: insult of a representative of authority.

The Committee notes the Government’s information, in its report, that no criminal cases have been launched or investigated under sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code.

The Committee also notes that, in its joint communication of 17 February 2021 to the Government of Turkmenistan, the United Nations (UN) independent human rights experts expressed serious concern about the alleged arbitrary arrest and criminal prosecution of a journalist which appeared to have been made in retaliation for his independent journalistic and human rights work. The Committee further notes from the joint communication that the journalist was sentenced to four years of deprivation of liberty for fraud under section 228(2) of the Criminal Code. In addition, the UN independent human rights experts referred to other alleged cases of detention and prosecution of independent journalists and human rights defenders who had been reportedly sentenced for what appeared to be legitimate journalistic and human rights-related activities. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in its opinion No. 18/2022 of 18 May 2022, concluded that the arrest and detention of a lawyer for the criticism of the Government under sections 108 (intentional harm to health of moderate severity) and 279 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code resulted from the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (A/HRC/WGAD/2022/18, paragraph 67).

The Committee recalls once again that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting the imposition on them of sanctions involving compulsory labour. The range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence, or prepare acts of violence. (paragraphs 302 and 303 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions).

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed. The Committee also requests the Government to take measures to review sections 176(2), 177, 178, 191, 192 and 212 of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned sections of the Criminal Code, specifying the number of prosecutions, convictions and the types of penalties imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2022. It requests the Government to provide its reply to these observations.

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 with deep concern the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector. The Committee also noted that, in its 2021 conclusions on the application of the Convention by Turkmenistan, the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to ensure that no one, including farmers, public and private sector workers and students, is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest. To effectively implement its conclusions, the Conference Committee called on the Government to accept a high-level mission of the ILO which would be granted all accommodations so as to carry out its duties, including during the harvest season.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that no allegation of the use of forced labour in the cotton sector has been reported to state bodies, judicial authorities, representative organizations of employers and workers, or the Ombudsman’s Office. The Government also indicates that the Ombudsman’s Office has made recommendations to the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Education, and the heads of the provinces and Ashgabat to strengthen monitoring with a view to preventing forced and child labour, including in cotton harvesting and other agricultural works. In addition, measures are being taken to improve the procedure for concluding employment contracts between farmers and cotton pickers.

The Committee further notes that a high-level mission of the ILO was carried out in Turkmenistan in two phases in 2022: the first phase was undertaken virtually due to the COVID-19-related restrictions in February 2022. A preparatory ILO mission to Turkmenistan took place from 14 to 16 September 2022 to prepare for the second phase of the high-level mission. The objective of this preparatory visit was to (1) further ILO understanding of how the cotton harvest in Turkmenistan was organized from an institutional and practical point of view; (2) discuss the parameters for the second phase of the high-level mission; and (3) discuss the development of a possible development cooperation project. Consequently, the second phase of the high-level mission was undertaken from 14 to 18 November 2022. The main objective of the second phase was to reach agreement on the parameters of a development cooperation project and immediate activities for cooperation between the ILO and the Turkmen constituents.

The Committee notes that as an outcome of the high-level mission, an agreement was reached on a draft road map for cooperation between the ILO and the Government for 2023. In particular, the road map provides for the elaboration of activities in the following six areas: (1) a review of the policy and administrative framework governing the cotton harvest; (2) improvement of labour inspection and law enforcement; (3) promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector; (4) improvement of cotton production and harvesting; (5) design and implementation of awareness-raising activities; and (6) promotion of social dialogue in cotton production. In addition, the road map includes activities on the improvement of the legislative framework for the prevention and prohibition of forced labour; the undertaking of a situation analysis on recruitment for cotton picking; improvement of the regulation of seasonal work in agriculture and contractual arrangements; improvement of labour inspection to strengthen oversight; the undertaking of field visits during the 2023 cotton harvest; as well as further enhancement of dialogue between the ILO and the Government. The Committee also notes that the high-level mission undertook visits to Mary and Lebap provinces, during which it met with the regional authorities and visited the cotton fields.

The Committee further notes that the ITUC, in its 2022 observations, reiterates once again the continued recourse to the use by the State of forced labour in picking cotton. According to the ITUC, during the 2021 cotton harvest, mobilized persons were forced to work excessively long hours in poor sanitary conditions without access to medical care and compensation for their work. As in the previous years, in order not to participate in cotton harvesting, persons had to pay the amounts representing a substantial part of their income for replacement pickers. The ITUC also points out that the most vulnerable persons to forced labour in the cotton harvest are public sector workers who constitute the main workforce to pick cotton, internal migrant workers, persons receiving treatment for addiction, persons accused of prostitution or alimony delinquency, as well as students at State educational institutions.

While taking due note of the Government’s collaboration with the ILO to address the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting, the Committee once again notes with concern the reports of the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector. The Committee strongly urges the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in cotton production. In this regard, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to engage in cooperation with the ILO and the social partners to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice, including within the framework of the road map for cooperation between the ILO and the Government. It requests the Government to provide information on concrete measures taken in this respect, including on: (1) a review of the policy and administrative framework governing the cotton harvest; (2) improvement of labour inspection and law enforcement; (3) promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment in the cotton sector; (4) improvement of cotton production and harvesting; (5) design and implementation of awareness-raising activities; and (6) promotion of social dialogue in the cotton production.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee reiterates the content of its direct request adopted in 2019 which is reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted sections 176(2) and 192 of the Criminal Code which establish penalties of fines, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for a period of up to five years, for offences related to any insult or defamation against the President, and libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 (IDIS Law of 2014), concerning the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President. The Committee noted from the report of the Technical Advisory Mission of September 2016 that it was clear from the meetings held with some of the stakeholders, including various United Nations (UN) agencies that the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views exists. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. It also requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC that the Government continues to prosecute, intimidate or harass those who attempt to report on the working conditions in the cotton industry. In October 2016, the Government arrested and charged Gasper Matalaev, a reporter who contributed to an article documenting the use of forced labour in the annual cotton harvest, with fraud. He was sentenced to three years in a labour camp.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that no criminal cases have been launched or investigated under sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code. It also notes the information provided by the Government on the increase in the internet availability pursuant to the IDIS Law of 2014. The Committee notes that there are certain provisions in the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences of correctional labour, involving an obligation to perform labour for a period from two months to two years (as per section 50 of the Criminal Code) in circumstances which may be covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 177: which provides for penalties of imprisonment for a term of three to eight years for the incitement of social, national, ethnic, racial or religious enmity or discord;
• -section 178: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour or imprisonment for up to two years for the offences related to abuse of the State flag or national anthem;
• -section 191: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to one year for contempt of court; and
• -section 212: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to two years for insulting a representative of authority.

The Committee notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of April 2017, expressed its concern at: (i) the undue restrictions on access to the internet and disproportionate limitations on online content for vaguely and broadly defined activities provided for in the IDIS Law of 2014; and (ii) the continuous use of harassment, intimidation, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention and conviction of journalists, human rights activists or members of religious groups on reportedly politically motivated charges (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paragraph 42). Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions (paragraphs 302 and 303), the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour, under Article 1(a), comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence or prepare acts of violence.  The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are imposed, in law and in practice, on persons who peacefully express views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 176(2), 177, 178, 191, 192 and 212 of the Criminal Code as well as section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provision and the types of penalties imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021, which refer to issues examined by the Committee in the present comment. It requests the Government to provide a reply to the ITUC observations.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

The Committee notes the detailed discussion, which took place at the 109th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2021.

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. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2021, the Conference Committee urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to: (i) ensure, in law and in practice that no one, including farmers, public and private sector workers and students, is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest, or threatened with punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas; (ii) report on the status of section 7 on the recruitment of citizens to work in enterprises, institutions and organizations in cases of emergencies of the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990; (iii) eliminate the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton; (iv) prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton; (v) develop, in consultation with the social partners and with ILO technical assistance, an action plan aimed at eliminating, in law and practice, forced labour in connection with state-sponsored cotton harvesting, and improving recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector in line with International Labour Standards; and (vi) allow independent social partners, press and civil society organizations, to monitor and document any incidences of forced labour in the cotton harvest without fear of reprisals.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted with deep concern the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector. It also observed that there had 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 in June 2016 and the following visit of an ILO technical advisory mission to the country.

The Committee also noted that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its concluding observations of 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 noted from the Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions of 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 noted the ITUC’s observations of 2020 alleging the widespread use by the State of forced labour in cotton harvesting. The ITUC indicated in particular that, during the 2019 cotton harvest, 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. For the second time in 15 years, teachers were forced to spend their nine-day autumn break picking cotton. 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.

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in the written information provided to the Conference Committee that, for the period 2015-2020, the percentage of manually harvested cotton dropped from 71 per cent to 28 per cent due to the mechanization of cotton harvesting. The Government points out that the prevalent use of harvesting machines in the process of picking cotton demonstrates the absence of the need to massively involve human resources in this process.

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement, in its communication dated 25 October 2021, that it has accepted a high-level mission of the ILO, as requested by the Conference Committee.

The Committee also notes the indication by the Government, in its report, that the policy of the Government is aimed at the maximum automation of manual labour in the agricultural sector and that the use of public sector employees’ labour in picking cotton is not economically viable. The Government further indicates an absence of a system of mandatory quotas for the production of cotton in Turkmenistan and that the conditions of cotton production, including its volume and the purchase price, are regulated by a contract concluded between the State and a tenant. The Government also indicates that no cases of forcing citizens to pick cotton or the coercion of payments by citizens of funds intended for cotton harvesting have been registered by the law enforcement bodies.

The Committee takes note of the indication by the Government that the Act on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990 was repealed by the State of Emergency Act of 2013 (section 31(2)) and that a state of emergency has never been introduced in Turkmenistan. The Committee also takes note of the National Human Rights Action Plan (NAP) 2021-2025 elaborated with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders. The Government indicates that the NAP 2021-2025 has a section on freedom of labour which foresees various measures particularly aimed at preventing the use of forced labour by ensuring compliance with legislation and strengthening control over its observance. In this respect, the Government points out that the NAP 2021-2025 can serve as a basis for addressing the issues raised by the Conference Committee.

The Committee however notes that, in its 2021 observations, the ITUC reiterates once again the systemic recourse to the use by the State of forced labour in picking cotton. In particular, during the 2020 cotton harvest, public sector employees and students continued to be mobilized to work in cotton fields. The ITUC indicates that mobilized persons are forced to work excessively long hours in poor sanitary conditions without protective equipment. As previously highlighted by the ITUC, in order not to participate in the cotton harvesting, persons had to pay the amounts representing a substantial part of their income for replacement pickers. The ITUC points out that the mechanization of the cotton harvesting process does not seem to offer the necessary guarantees in order to put a lasting end to the systematic practice of forced labour in Turkmenistan.

The Committee further notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, in the communication dated 30 August 2021 to the Government of Turkmenistan, expressed his deep concern about the working and living conditions of cotton workers. The Special Rapporteur indicates that, according to the information received, tens of thousands of citizens, public sector workers and workers of private companies are subjected to forced labour, as they are coerced to work in the cotton fields under the threat of dismissal from their own jobs. Cotton workers reportedly have to pay for their own transport, accommodation and food and they do not receive their wages or have very low salaries. Furthermore, workers do not have access to medical assistance when needed and they cannot afford medical care themselves due to their low incomes. If the cotton production quotas imposed by the State are not met, agricultural associations, enterprises and organizations, schools, construction organizations, public utilities services and hospitals of the respective region can be obliged to supply cotton, by purchasing cotton elsewhere.

While noting certain measures taken by the Government to address the issue of forced labour in cotton harvesting, including measures aimed at the reduction of manual harvesting, the Committee once again expresses its deep concern at the continued practice of forced labour in the cotton sector. Taking due note of the Government’s stated commitment to collaborate with the ILO and implement this Convention, the Committee strongly urges the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers as well as students in cotton production. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to engage in cooperation with the ILO and the social partners to ensure the full application of the Convention in practice. In this regard, it encourages the Government to consider developing a National Action Plan, in close collaboration with the social partners and the ILO, to improve recruitment and working conditions in the cotton sector. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved. The Committee welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the high-level mission requested by the Conference Committee, which will visit the country in 2022, and trusts that the high-level mission will be able to note significant progress in this respect.

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

[The Government is requested to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

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

The Committee reiterates the content of its direct request adopted in 2019 which is reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted sections 176(2) and 192 of the Criminal Code which establish penalties of fines, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for a period of up to five years, for offences related to any insult or defamation against the President, and libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 (IDIS Law of 2014), concerning the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President. The Committee noted from the report of the Technical Advisory Mission of September 2016 that it was clear from the meetings held with some of the stakeholders, including various United Nations (UN) agencies that the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views exists. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. It also requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC that the Government continues to prosecute, intimidate or harass those who attempt to report on the working conditions in the cotton industry. In October 2016, the Government arrested and charged Gasper Matalaev, a reporter who contributed to an article documenting the use of forced labour in the annual cotton harvest, with fraud. He was sentenced to three years in a labour camp.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that no criminal cases have been launched or investigated under sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code. It also notes the information provided by the Government on the increase in the internet availability pursuant to the IDIS Law of 2014. The Committee notes that there are certain provisions in the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences of correctional labour, involving an obligation to perform labour for a period from two months to two years (as per section 50 of the Criminal Code) in circumstances which may be covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 177: which provides for penalties of imprisonment for a term of three to eight years for the incitement of social, national, ethnic, racial or religious enmity or discord;
• -section 178: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour or imprisonment for up to two years for the offences related to abuse of the State flag or national anthem;
• -section 191: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to one year for contempt of court; and
• -section 212: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to two years for insulting a representative of authority.

The Committee notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of April 2017, expressed its concern at: (i) the undue restrictions on access to the internet and disproportionate limitations on online content for vaguely and broadly defined activities provided for in the IDIS Law of 2014; and (ii) the continuous use of harassment, intimidation, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention and conviction of journalists, human rights activists or members of religious groups on reportedly politically motivated charges (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paragraph 42). Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions (paragraphs 302 and 303), the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour, under Article 1(a), comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence or prepare acts of violence.  The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are imposed, in law and in practice, on persons who peacefully express views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 176(2), 177, 178, 191, 192 and 212 of the Criminal Code as well as section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provision and the types of penalties imposed.

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

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

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.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted sections 176(2) and 192 of the Criminal Code which establish penalties of fines, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for a period of up to five years, for offences related to any insult or defamation against the President, and libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 (IDIS Law of 2014), concerning the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President. The Committee noted from the report of the Technical Advisory Mission of September 2016 that it was clear from the meetings held with some of the stakeholders, including various United Nations (UN) agencies that the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views exists. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. It also requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC that the Government continues to prosecute, intimidate or harass those who attempt to report on the working conditions in the cotton industry. In October 2016, the Government arrested and charged Gasper Matalaev, a reporter who contributed to an article documenting the use of forced labour in the annual cotton harvest, with fraud. He was sentenced to three years in a labour camp.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that no criminal cases have been launched or investigated under sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code. It also notes the information provided by the Government on the increase in the internet availability pursuant to the IDIS Law of 2014. The Committee notes that there are certain provisions in the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences of correctional labour, involving an obligation to perform labour for a period from two months to two years (as per section 50 of the Criminal Code) in circumstances which may be covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 177: which provides for penalties of imprisonment for a term of three to eight years for the incitement of social, national, ethnic, racial or religious enmity or discord;
• -section 178: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour or imprisonment for up to two years for the offences related to abuse of the State flag or national anthem;
• -section 191: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to one year for contempt of court; and
• -section 212: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to two years for insulting a representative of authority.

The Committee notes that the UN Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of April 2017, expressed its concern at: (i) the undue restrictions on access to the internet and disproportionate limitations on online content for vaguely and broadly defined activities provided for in the IDIS Law of 2014; and (ii) the continuous use of harassment, intimidation, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention and conviction of journalists, human rights activists or members of religious groups on reportedly politically motivated charges (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paragraph 42). Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions (paragraphs 302 and 303), the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour, under Article 1(a), comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence or prepare acts of violence. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are imposed, in law and in practice, on persons who peacefully express views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 176(2), 177, 178, 191, 192 and 212 of the Criminal Code as well as section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provision and the types of penalties imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (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 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, 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 Law 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 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 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 (2016–20); 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. 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 recent observations made by the ITUC 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 notes that the UN 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 UN 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). While taking due note of the measures taken by the Government, the Committee must express its 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 continue to take measures to ensure the complete 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 continue 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.

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

Penalties involving compulsory labour. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the clarifications provided by the Government in its report concerning administrative detention, administrative sanctions involving community service, and corrective labour. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 49 of the Administrative Offences Code, 2013, administrative detention can be applied in exceptional cases for specific administrative offences when, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the person committing the offence, other types of sanctions are considered to be insufficient. The Government indicates that administrative detention does not include an obligation to carry out community service or compulsory work.

The Government also indicates that section 576(1) of the Administrative Offences Code contains the conditions under which a court may impose an administrative sanction in the form of community service that may be carried out at locations determined by the governor of the provinces or cities. These community services may include: cleaning the streets and pavements of the district or town and upkeep of public amenities; working in rural areas (crop, livestock or poultry farming); and upkeep of grounds to prevent natural disasters (floods, landslides, earthquakes). The Committee further notes the Government’s clarification that “corrective labour”, according to section 50 of the Criminal Code, is used as a sentence by a court to be served by an offender at his/her place of work or other place in the offender’s area of residence, with the payment of an appropriate salary.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the allegations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that the Government denies freedom of association and expression and that human rights defenders act at great personal risk and anonymously to avoid harassment and reprisals. It also noted that the European Union, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, had expressed concern at the severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the country and the consistent allegations of reported arbitrary arrests on criminal charges of human rights defenders and journalists, apparently in retaliation for their work (European Union, Press release of 17 June 2015 on “EU–Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue”, CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, A/HRC/17/27/Add.1, A/HRC/WG.6/ 16/TKM/2, A/HRC/WG.6/16/TKM/3 and A/HRC/24/3).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that administrative sanctions established under section 63 of the Administrative Offences Code, 2013, are applicable for breaches of rules regulating the conduct of assemblies, marches, demonstrations or any other mass events. Similarly, criminal sanctions under section 223 of the Criminal Code are applicable to those citizens against whom administrative sanctions for the breach of rules on organizing or conducting assemblies, rallies, marches or demonstrations have already been incurred. The Government clarifies that none of the above provisions are applied for expressing one’s political views or opinions, but for violating the conditions of conducting such assemblies and mass events. The Government also indicates in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that administrative penalties under section 63 of the Code shall include a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine or administrative detention for a period of up to ten days. Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Turkmen Parliament adopted the Organization and Conduct of Assemblies, Public Rallies, Demonstrations and other Mass Events Act on 28 February 2015 which provides that citizens can exercise their constitutional right to gather peacefully, conduct assemblies, public rallies, demonstrations and other mass events.

The Committee notes however, that the Government’s report does not contain any information with regard to the legal provisions noted by the Committee, in its previous comments, such as: (i) sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code which establish penalties of fines, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for a period of up to five years, for offences related to any insult or defamation against the President, and libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and (ii) section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014, concerning the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President.

In this regard, the Committee notes the statement made by a Government representative at the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in June 2016 that the implementation of the provisions of the national law should not be interpreted as a punishment and should not thus fall under the prohibition of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee also notes from the report of the Technical Advisory Mission that took place in Ashgabat from 26 to 29 September 2016 that it was clear from the meetings held with some of the stakeholders, including various UN agencies, that the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views exists. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s information that pursuant to section IV of the Disciplinary Regulations, disciplinary sanctions for a breach of labour discipline by a crew member on board a vessel or on the premises or territory of marine transport undertakings shall include: service note; reprimand; serious reprimand; warning; transfer to another vessel with a lower salary for officers; work on shore appropriate to the offender’s profession for a maximum of one year; withdrawal, cancellation or suspension of licence for a period of one to three years; and dismissal. The Government also indicates that disciplinary sanctions for crew members on vessels do not involve compulsory labour.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that section 16 of the Civil Service Act prohibits strikes by civil servants. The Committee also referred to its comments made on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), where it noted further restrictions on the right to strike. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the sanctions that might be imposed on workers who participate in strikes, more particularly in the civil service.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report under Convention No. 87 that according to section 395 of the Labour Code, disputes between workers and their representatives and employers and their representatives arising at various levels of the social partnership are settled through two stages of reconciliation procedures: (i) the settlement of a collective labour dispute by a reconciliation committee; and (ii) the consideration of a collective labour dispute in the judicial bodies if no agreement is reached in the reconciliation committee. Representatives of the parties and the reconciliation committee shall make use of all opportunities provided for under the law to settle a collective labour dispute that has arisen. The Government further states that there are no registered cases of strikes in the country.

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

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee refers to its comments made on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), where it noted the Government’s indication that, pursuant to section 76 of the Penal Enforcement Code, every convicted person has to work in the place and job specified by the administration of the penal institution. Noting that, according to the above referred provision, penal sanctions such as corrective labour and imprisonment involve compulsory labour, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether the imposition of an administrative arrest may involve the obligation to perform community work or any other form of compulsory work.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, pursuant to section 50 of the Merchant Shipping Code, the conditions of employment of seafarers are regulated by the above referred Code, the Service Aboard Vessels Regulations and the Disciplinary Regulations approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, according to which a captain may discipline members of the crew. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which sanctions are applicable to seafarers in cases of breach of labour discipline, specifying if such sanctions involve compulsory labour.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that, since the independence of Turkmenistan, the country has not experienced any strike actions. Noting the Government’s statement that section 16 of the Civil Service Act prohibits strikes from civil servants, the Committee refers to its comments made on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), where it noted further restrictions on the right to strike. While noting that the provisions of the Labour Code concerning collective labour disputes do not refer to the right to strike, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the sanctions that might be imposed on workers who participate in strikes, more particularly in the civil service.

Communication of texts. While noting that the Government ratified the Convention in 1997, the Committee notes with regret that the Government did not provide a copy of the national legislation previously requested by the Committee. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of providing a copy of its relevant national legislation, so as to enable the Committee to effectively assess the application of the present Convention in Turkmenistan. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the following legislation: the laws governing the press and other media; the provisions regulating the exercise of the right to strike and essential services, as well as the applicable sanctions for participation in strikes; and the Merchant Shipping Code of 23 October 2008 and the Disciplinary Regulations approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 105th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the report received from the Government. It also notes the communication from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2015, as well as the Government’s reply received in a communication dated 23 October 2015.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan guarantee the right to freely hold and express opinions, as well as the right to hold meetings and demonstrations in the manner established by law. The Committee however noted that any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations constitutes both an administrative and a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, administrative arrest or corrective labour (section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984), or by corrective labour for up to one year or imprisonment for up to six months (section 223 of the Criminal Code). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of both provisions, while clarifying whether the imposition of an administrative arrest may involve the obligation to perform community work or any other form of compulsory work.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not reply to these requests. Referring to its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee however notes that a new Code of Administrative Offences was adopted on 29 August 2013 and that section 178(2) referred to above has been replaced by section 63 of the Code, which provides for a fine or administrative arrest in the case of any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. The Committee notes that section 233 of the Criminal Code remains unchanged and establishes sanctions of corrective labour or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour. The Committee further notes that insult or defamation against the President is punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to five years and that libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry is punishable by a fine, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment of up to five years (sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code). The Committee notes the adoption of the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014, and the concerns expressed in this regard by the representative on freedom of the media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concerning imprecisely defined propaganda of violence or cruelty and the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President (section 30(3) of the Law).

The Committee notes the ITUC’s allegations that the Government denies freedom of association and expression and that human rights defenders act at great personal risk and anonymously to avoid harassment and reprisals.

The Committee further notes that the European Union, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, as well as several governments, in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review on Turkmenistan, have expressed concern at the severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the country and the consistent allegations of reported arbitrary arrests on criminal charges of human rights defenders and journalists, apparently in retaliation for their work (European Union, Press release of 17 June 2015 on “EU-Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue”, CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, A/HRC/17/27/Add.1, A/HRC/WG.6/ 16/TKM/2, A/HRC/WG.6/16/TKM/3 and A/HRC/24/3). In this regard, the Committee notes that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted opinions in which it concluded in a number of cases that imprisonment constituted an arbitrary deprivation of liberty for having peacefully exercised the right to freedom of expression (A/HRC/WGAD/2014/40, A/HRC/WGAD/2013/22 and A/HRC/WGAD/2013/5).

The Committee strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offences, sections 176, 192 and 233 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

Article 1(b). Imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. In its previous comments addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), 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 Convention No. 29 and is therefore incompatible with both Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report 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. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that 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.

However, the Committee notes the ITUC’s allegations in its observations, that in 2014 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 issues 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 alleges that state-owned companies also maintain monopolies over cotton production. According to the ITUC, farmers regularly report being charged by these state-owned companies for services never provided or that gin managers record less volume and lower grade cotton than that delivered by the farmer.

The Committee further notes the ITUC’s allegations that the Government forces 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. Administrators of state-owned banks, factories and government agencies allegedly force employees to sign a form indicating their awareness that they will “bear the responsibility” if they refuse to pick cotton, and some of them require payments from their staff so that they can hire people to pick cotton in their place. The Committee further notes 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. The ITUC further alleges that some medium and large businesses were also forced to send employees to pick cotton, under the threat of extraordinary audit, finance department, tax inspection and fire inspections. 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 further notes that, according to the information available from the State News Agency of Turkmenistan, the President of Turkmenistan held several workshops with the regional governors in 2015 in order to review the progress of the cotton harvest. The Committee notes in particular that, on 12 October 2015, the President expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace of the cotton harvest and gave specific “instructions” to several regional governors in order to respect the “established schedule”, recommending in one case to “mobilise all available reserves”. The Committee further notes that, on 27 October 2015, the President received the “report on labour victory of cotton growers” from the Cabinet of Ministers in charge of the agricultural sectors and the heads of Ahal, Dashoguz, Lebap and Mary Velayat regions on the “fulfilment of the contractual obligations for cotton production”.

The Committee notes with deep concern the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production which affects farmers, businesses and private and public sector workers, including teachers, doctors and nurses, under threat of losing their jobs, salary cuts, loss of land and extraordinary investigations. The Committee recalls that, for the purposes of Conventions Nos 29 and 105, the terms “forced or compulsory labour” are defined as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. In this context, voluntary offer refers to the freely given and informed consent of workers to enter into an employment relationship, as well as their freedom to leave their employment at any time, without fear of retaliation or loss of any privilege. Accordingly, while temporary transfers of employment might be inherent to certain professions and activities, the Committee considers that the application in practice of provisions, orders or regulations allowing for the systematic transfer of workers for the performance of activities which are unrelated to their ordinary occupations (for example, the transfer of a health-care professional to perform agricultural work) should be carefully examined in order to ensure that such practice would not result in a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties turning into work by compulsion of law. The Committee also recalls that, although certain forms of compulsory work or service (such as work that is part of the normal civic obligations of citizens and minor communal services) are explicitly excluded from the scope of the forced labour Conventions, these exceptions do not include work with a certain quantitative significance and used for the purposes of economic development. The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers in cotton farming, and requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to this end, in both law and practice, and the concrete results achieved.

The Committee further notes that the Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Country Team, as well as the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in its 2015 concluding observations, have observed that, while child labour is illegal, enforcement of the laws has to be improved taking into account the persistence of the involvement of children in cotton harvesting (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, A/HRC/WG.6/16/TKM/2, A/HRC/WG.6/16/TKM/3 and CRC/C/TKM/CO/2-4). In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to refer to its comments on the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).

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

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 105th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Communication of texts. Please provide a copy of the legislation in force in the following fields: the laws governing the press and other media; the laws governing political parties; the laws governing the conditions of employment of seafarers, and particularly the disciplinary sanctions that may be applied to them; the provisions regulating the exercise of the right to strike and essential services.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that, under article 28 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan, citizens have the right to freely hold and express opinions, and to receive information not governed by state secrecy or otherwise protected by law. It also notes that article 29 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and the right to hold meetings and demonstrations in the manner established by law. The Committee notes, however, that according to section 178(2) of the Code on Administrative Offences, of 17 December 1984, any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations is punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. In case of recidivism, penalties include a fine, administrative arrest or corrective labour from one to two months. The Committee further notes that section 223 of the Criminal Code (1997) provides for sanctions of corrective labour for up to one year, or deprivation of freedom for six months, in case of violation of the procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. Please indicate whether the new Criminal Code adopted in 2010 contains similar provisions and, in the affirmative, what sanctions are provided in case of violation of the prescribed procedures for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. Please also provide information on the application in practice of section 178(2) of the Code on Administrative Offences, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope and clarifying, in particular, whether the imposition of an administrative arrest may involve the obligation to perform community work or any other form of compulsory work.

Article 1(b). Imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee refers, in this connection, to its comments addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, since the independence of Turkmenistan, the country has not experienced any strike actions. While noting that the provisions of the Labour Code concerning collective labour disputes do not refer to the right to strike and that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on any restrictions placed by the legislation on the right to strike, including the right to strike in the civil service, and on the sanctions that might be imposed for violations of such restrictions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, additional information on the following points:

Communication of texts. Please provide a copy of the legislation in force in the following fields: the laws governing the press and other media; the laws governing political parties; the laws governing the conditions of employment of seafarers, and particularly the disciplinary sanctions that may be applied to them; the provisions regulating the exercise of the right to strike and essential services.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that, under article 28 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan, citizens have the right to freely hold and express opinions, and to receive information not governed by state secrecy or otherwise protected by law. It also notes that article 29 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and the right to hold meetings and demonstrations in the manner established by law. The Committee notes, however, that according to section 178(2) of the Code on Administrative Offences, of 17 December 1984, any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations is punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. In case of recidivism, penalties include a fine, administrative arrest or corrective labour from one to two months. The Committee further notes that section 223 of the Criminal Code (1997) provides for sanctions of corrective labour for up to one year, or deprivation of freedom for six months, in case of violation of the procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. Please indicate whether the new Criminal Code adopted in 2010 contains similar provisions and, in the affirmative, what sanctions are provided in case of violation of the prescribed procedures for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. Please also provide information on the application in practice of section 178(2) of the Code on Administrative Offences, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope and clarifying, in particular, whether the imposition of an administrative arrest may involve the obligation to perform community work or any other form of compulsory work.

Article 1(b). Imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee refers, in this connection, to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Turkmenistan.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, since the independence of Turkmenistan, the country has not experienced any strike actions. While noting that the provisions of the Labour Code concerning collective labour disputes do not refer to the right to strike and that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on any restrictions placed by the legislation on the right to strike, including the right to strike in the civil service, and on the sanctions that might be imposed for violations of such restrictions.