Frequently Asked Questions

What is the extent of ‘forced child labour in Uzbekistan’?

Each autumn, all school children aged 10 to 15 in Uzbekistan (except those in schools in the capital and other major cities), are ordered by school administrators to harvest cotton. High-school (Lyceum), college, and university students, as well as local civil servants are also required to labour in cotton fields during the harvest period. Children in rural areas are also generally required weed the cotton fields in the Spring season. In total, compulsory work in agriculture requires school children to miss 3-4 months of study each year.

According to surveys and rough calculations, child labour accounts for approximately half of all cotton picked during harvest season in Uzbekistan.

Cotton pickers, including children, are forced to work seven days a week. Children and adults work up to 10 hours a day with only a short break for lunch. Children who do not live close to the harvest camp in the cotton fields in very poor living conditions without sanitation. Most suffer from malnutrition and lack access to basic medical treatment.
Each day, children are given a quota requiring them to pick between 30 and 50 kg of cotton. If their quota is not met, children are denounced by school administration, and sometimes physically abused. Back to top

Who is responsible for instituting child labour in Uzbekistan?

The exploitation of forced and child labour in Uzbekistan is a deliberate state policy. Compulsory orders sending children to the cotton fields are issued by school administrators who receive unwritten orders from local governments (hokimiyats). Given Uzbekistan’s strictly centralised system of governance and cotton industry management, one can deduce that the orders originate in the central government. Without instructions from Tashkent, it is inconceivable that schools across the country would be shut down for even a single day. Back to top

What is the mechanism of coercion?

Fear of administrative punishment compels children, as well as lyceum, college and university students, to work in the fields. The children and students are threatened with expulsion unless they fulfil their duties to pick cotton. Parents who do not send children to the cotton harvest risk losing State social and welfare benefits. School administrators and teachers can lose their jobs unless they comply with orders of local officials to fulfil recruitment and other quotas contained in the annual harvest plan.

During the cotton harvesting season, Uzbekistan is transformed into a virtual labour camp, with children and teachers organized into work brigades, living in barracks, and working in cotton fields patrolled by police. Back to top

Are existing legal protections sufficient to curb abuses?

Yes, but these legal provisions are not enforced, and the use of forced child labour is commonplace throughout Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan has adopted a number of laws, on Youth Policy, on Labour, and on Children’s Rights. These statutes set limits and restrictions on the use of child labour. Legally, children are only allowed to work after age of 15. Before this age they can be employed only in the context of school-related activity, and for no more than 15 days. In all cases, children are not allowed to work more than four hours per day.

Uzbekistan has signed and ratified ILO conventions: No 29, (the 1930 Forced Labour Convention) and No. 105 (The 1957 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention). These documents were ratified in 1992 and 1997 respectively. However, neither aforementioned national laws, nor Uzbekistan’s ILO commitments, have curbed widespread use of forced child labour.

Until 2008, two other important ILO conventions, No. 138 (Minimum Age Convention, 1973), and No.182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999) were unrecognized by the Uzbek government. Finally, in March 2008, the Parliament (Oliy Majlis) ratified these two conventions. In September 2008 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a resolution and the National Action Plan aimed for the implementation of C182 and C138. But these documents didn’t stipulate cooperation with ILO and any mechanism of independent monitoring of how the conventions are being implemented. A few weeks after the resolution schoolchildren were, as usually, taken for cotton harvest. That fact demonstrated that the rule of law is nonexistent in Uzbekistan, and none of ILO conventions ratified by Uzbekistan are considered seriously by its government. None of them have affected the real situation. Nor the ratification obviated the need for further pressure on the Uzbek government to end the use of forced child labour. Back to top

Who benefits from the institution of forced child labour?

The cotton sector in Uzbekistan is strictly managed by the central government in Tashkent. All procurement prices are determined by the central government. Cotton and grain planting is mandated on two-thirds of the best arable lands in Uzbekistan. Farmers have neither the right to choose which crops to plant, nor to whom they sell their harvest.

As in Soviet times, the Uzbek government imposes cotton production quotas on all farmers and local governments. The local hokims (governors) are personally responsible for fulfilling these quotas. Farmers cannot trade cotton in the free market at market prices and instead are required to deliver crops to local government cotton gins. Farmers attempting to export produce to neighbouring countries are charged with smuggling and face fines and jail.

Cotton is the Government of Uzbekistan’s primary export commodity and main source of revenue. While three trading companies created at the Ministry of Foreign Economic Affairs trade cotton on world markets, all export revenues remain under direct and strict control of officials appointed by President Karimov.

As the Government of Uzbekistan prevents any transparency in cotton exports, they remain completely unaccountable to the Uzbek public and international observers. No information is made available regarding export revenues or prices Uzbek cotton is sold for in international markets. Even less is known about how cotton revenues are distributed within Uzbekistan, though it is understood that sizable sums are funnelled directly to the bank accounts of the President and other high officials. Back to top

What are the underlying causes of this phenomenon?

The primary factor bolstering the institution of forced child labour remains the absence of reform in cotton industry and oppressive State administrative control. The Uzbek government imposes unfairly low procurement prices on cotton, yet sells the cotton at market ones. Under such conditions, cotton farmers and other rural inhabitants employed in the cotton sector are increasingly poverty stricken and resort to economic migration, even to the cotton fields in neighbouring Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan where they can earn decent wages.

Given these economic conditions, the Uzbek government prefers employing forced labour to implementing reforms. It relies on administrative and other coercion, including the use of police and legal prosecutions against farmers who do not strictly follow government edicts and fulfil their expected cotton and grain quotas. Back to top

What must the government of Uzbekistan do to remedy the situation?

The government of Uzbekistan must abolish, on paper and in practice, the use of child and all forms of forced labour in the cotton industry. It must stop ordering and sanctioning the closure of schools for the purposes of sending students to the cotton fields and expressly prohibit local governments from ordering high schools (lyceums), colleges and universities to use students for illegal labour practices.

To support such prohibitions, the government of Uzbekistan should institute sweeping reforms in the cotton industry. It is insufficient to transform collective farms into private farms if the latter remain deprived of land and production rights. The government must free farmers from harsh administrative regulations and allow market incentives to replace the current system of administrative coercion. Rather than controlling every aspect of the cotton sector, the government of Uzbekistan should recast its involvement as a regulatory body protecting the interests of all stakeholders, including private farmers and entrepreneurs as well as ordinary farmers and citizens. Back to top

Child labour is used in many developing countries, so why is the situation in Uzbekistan different?

The practice of child labour in the cotton industry in Uzbekistan differs considerably from other developing countries. Child labour in Uzbekistan is not undertaken at the initiative of parents, but orchestrated and mandated by the state, which uses various means of coercion to force children to work in cotton fields. Furthermore, the practice stems from a totalitarian system of governance and economic exploitation which characterizes the Uzbek government. Back to top

Is it true, as the Uzbek government claims, that while child labour was used in its Soviet past, the practice has since ceased?

In Soviet times Uzbekistan achieved a comparatively high level of social and economic development, although these achievements coincided with a number of acute social and environmental factors. Almost half the cotton used to be harvested by machines. Today, as a result of mismanagement, lack of reforms, failed incentive systems and inequitable distribution of cotton revenues, the use of machinery has been reduced to zero.

Nowadays, despite some minor improvements (for instance, the introduction of quality control, packaging and stocking systems), the cotton industry as a whole is regressing. The scale of forced labour has correspondingly increased as mechanization has declined. Declining social and economic conditions related to the regression of the cotton sector have been especially devastating in rural areas. Back to top

How have Western governments responded to Uzbekistan’s use of forced child labour?

The response from West has been so far inadequate. The United States and European Union cover Uzbek cotton and textiles under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provides import tax exemptions to poor developing countries. In Europe, Uzbek cotton was granted GSP status in June 2005, just after the Andijan massacre in which Uzbek security forces fired upon unarmed protestors killing hundreds. Back to top

The GSP was intended to address imbalances in trade relationships between North and South, but in the case of Uzbekistan, it rather reinforces social injustices. GSP makes the kleptocratic Uzbek regime even more wealthy while the systemic abuse of child labour is perpetuated.

Which countries and companies currently import Uzbek cotton?

In recent years, Uzbekistan has diverted cotton exports from European to Asian countries, especially China and Bangladesh. However, after being processed in Asia into textile and garments, Uzbek cotton continues to find its way into Western markets.

Some Western countries continue to directly purchase Uzbek cotton fibre. For instance, Germany, via the Bremen Cotton Exchange, increased cotton fibre imports from Uzbekistan from 6,642.7 metric tonnes in 2004 to 11,742.8 metric tonnes in 2006. Bremer Baumwollbörse re-exports Uzbek cotton to other European countries, primarily the Czech Republic, Austria, Poland, Greece and Italy. Coincidentally or not, these very same countries recently opposed extension of EU sanctions against Uzbekistan adopted in response to the Andijan massacre in May 2005.

Companies most active in importing the Uzbek cotton reportedly include: Paul Reinhart AG (Switzerland), Cargill Cotton, Weil Brothers and Stern, Plexus Cotton (UK), Louis Dreyfus (Belgium), DEVCOT (France), Dunavant Enterprises (USA), Daewoo Textile Company (Korea), and Indutech S.P.A. (Italy). Banks including Citibank, ABN-AMRO, and others provide financial support to importers of Uzbek cotton. Back to top

Are all Western companies unresponsive to reports of forced child labour in Uzbekistan?

No. A growing number of retailers in Europe have expressed increasing concern about the sources of textile commodities sold to consumers. Companies such as Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Debenhams, Sainsbury’s (UK), Marimekko Corporation (Finland), Hennes and Mauritz (Sweden), Wal-Mart (USA) have announced intentions to exclude Uzbek cotton from their procurement chains. Back to top

Are International institutions and governments aware enough of the situation with child labour in Uzbekistan?

In spite the practice of forced child labour continues since the Soviet period it becoming known to the international community only since last 2-3 years when Uzbek human rights activists and journalists decided to break the conspiracy of silence. The lack of international awareness of the situation in Uzbekistan gave the reason for the academics from the School of Oriental and African Studies to qualify the issue as ‘invisible to the world’ (Invisible to the World? The Dynamics of Forced Child Labour in the Cotton Sector of Uzbekistan, London, SOAS, 2008). The International Cotton Advisory Committee was forced to change its position on the issue, from ignoring it to its acknowledgement, when its leaders met in April 2008 with Uzbek activists and experts. By the middle of 2008 only two governments expressed publicly their concerns over the problem. But already in December 2008 when the Human Rights Council considered Uzbekistan according to the Universal Periodic Review 11 states, Council members, commented on this issue. Yet, the European Union is still eschewing this question and restraining from making any critical statements, thus encouraging the Uzbek regime to keep exploiting schoolchildren. Back to top

What should western companies and governments do?

Companies and governments should urge the Uzbek government to immediately abolish the use of forced and child labour in the cotton industry. Until it is verified that this practice has ceased, western companies, cotton importers and retailers should refrain from purchasing Uzbek cotton and textile products it is used in.

Furthermore, Western governments should withhold GSP status from Uzbek cotton imports and textile products. This trade benefit could be restored when it is verified that forced child labour practices have ceased. To avoid further labour abuse of children in developing countries, the EU and other Western countries should introduce a certification and labelling system that would allow retailers and consumers monitor the origin of cotton products imported and sold.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF should, albeit belatedly, investigate and publicize the issue of forced child labour in Uzbekistan in order to bring much needed international attention to this injustice. Back to top

Would a boycott of Uzbek cotton harm Uzbek farmers and other ordinary citizens?

No. The actual producers and pickers of cotton in Uzbekistan receive a negligible share of overall cotton export revenue. The adult rural population of Uzbekistan is in effect already boycotting Uzbek cotton by abandoning the countryside in the search of fair prices and sustainable incomes. While child labourers receive some income for picking cotton, it comes at an unacceptable price, the diminished quality of their education.

A boycott of Uzbek cotton would force the Uzbek government to take real measures to reform its cotton industry, as a result of which Uzbek farmers would benefit a lot. They will receive income comparable to cotton farmers in neighbouring Kazakhstan where the government doesn’t much interfere in the sector so the cotton growing became profitable business. Back to top

Does recent ratification of ILO conventions 138 and 182 constitute real progress in tackling the issue of forced child labour?

Not yet. While this step warrants encouragement, the government of Uzbekistan has yet to demonstrate a real and sustained determination to eradicate forced child labour. Until it does so, these conventions will share the fate of other unfulfilled ILO conventions long-since ratified by the Uzbek government. The legal frameworks needed to immediately end the practice of forced child labour are not lacking, rather such laws and conventions remains hollow declarations and are used to obscure the harsh realities of the Uzbek cotton sector. A real indication of the government’s genuine intention to abolish forced and child labour would be initial steps to implement reforms in the cotton industry. The government’s determination to eradicate this shameful abuse can be further gauged in the forthcoming cotton crop cycle. Back to top

Don’t you have to change the Uzbek people’s attitudes and beliefs about child labor in order for this problem to be solved?

When parents have been asked their views on this question under conditions of relative anonymity, by independent journalists and human rights activists, they universally state that they would rather keep children in school than have them work in the fields. Pupils unequivocally state they would prefer to be continuing their studies. See the report by the International Labor Rights Forum, ‘We Live Subject to their Orders’: A Three-Province Survey of Forced Child Labor in Uzbekistan’s 2008 Cotton Harvest (June 4, 2009).

“Compared to other forms of child exploitation in the world, such as sex trafficking, etc., this is really not all that bad. After all, I worked on the farm (in a shop, in my family’s business) when I was a child…”

First of all, we reject comparative misery contests that serve to underplay the suffering of any individual child or group of children relative to others.

Secondly, forced child labor in Uzbekistan’s cotton fields meets the ILO’s definition of the worst forms of child labor, which Uzbekistan itself has committed to abolish. Work in the cotton fields causes debilitating injuries and even death. Children slave unprotected against these frequent tragedies, and when they occur, they and their families go uncompensated (and even encounter further persecution if they try to pursue any compensation).

Thirdly, the work comes at severe educational costs. Rural children miss as many as 3-4 months out of a school year in which they already experience a great disadvantage vis a vis their urban peers. If they or their families refuse participation, they risk expulsion from school and will experience at the very least harassment from teachers and school officials.

Finally, Uzbekistan’s children do not work for their own benefit or that of their families and communities, but are forced to in order to benefit state and quasi-state structures. Under Uzbekistan’s repressive authoritarian system, it is completely untransparent how profits earned from the billion-dollar cotton export industry are utilized; many have surmised that those profits do not actually reach the state budget. They certainly fail to benefit impoverished rural communities. Back to top