New Report Shifts Spotlight From Harvesters to Farm Owners Over Labor Risks

Uzbek Rights Groups Say Conditions Facing Cotton and Wheat Growers Signal Systemic Vulnerabilities

A joint study by a local rights organization and an international watchdog has redirected scrutiny in Uzbekistan’s agricultural sector from seasonal harvest workers to the smallholders and farm operators who cultivate cotton and wheat, warning that many work under conditions that leave them exposed to coercion. The authors used established labor-risk criteria to assess the sector and concluded that, while they cannot prove individual cases of forced labor, the environment for producers contains multiple red flags that warrant urgent attention.

Researchers applied a set of eleven risk markers endorsed by an international labor body to judge whether people might be susceptible to coercive work situations. Those markers include factors such as economic fragility, threats or intimidation, delayed or withheld pay, and harsh workplace practices. The lead researcher told The Times of Central Asia that, based on those signals, the pattern across farm households suggests a broad vulnerability even if the evidence falls short of proving forced labor in named incidents.

Public debate in recent years largely targeted the plight of seasonal cotton pickers, and officials point to reforms since 2019 as having reduced large-scale coercion in the fields. Authorities have promoted mechanization, encouraged private cluster operators, and increased oversight. The government recommended a hand-picking rate of 2,000 som per kilogram for 2025 — about $0.16 — and says payment arrangements can also be set by local agreements among cluster managers, farms and workers. By last year, machines accounted for more than one-half of the cotton harvest, and a presidential directive set a goal of roughly seven out of ten kilos being gathered mechanically by 2026.

Rights advocates say those changes helped curb the mass mobilization of manual pickers, and that public information campaigns plus stronger labor inspections have held some local officials to account. Still, the new report argues that structural pressures on producers — such as tight credit, production targets and market arrangements — create conditions in which farmers may be forced into unfair labor practices themselves. The researcher described meetings with several ministries in March as constructive, though she noted persistent disagreement over whether aspects of the system amount to a centrally driven order or simply to planning tools that function like one in practice.

Local analysts warn the issue has wider implications for rural communities and consumers. An agricultural economist interviewed for this article said that if growers remain financially squeezed or subject to coercive obligations, farm productivity and crop quality could suffer, driving instability in local food supplies and prices. “When producers lack bargaining power or face opaque quotas, the shocks travel fast from field to market,” the expert said, arguing that clearer contracts, improved access to finance, and stronger rural legal aid would help reduce risk.

The report calls for continued monitoring, deeper reforms to the terms under which crops are contracted and harvested, and ongoing talks between government agencies, rights groups and farming associations. Observers say progress since 2019 is real, but they add that the next step is shifting attention toward the incentives and structures surrounding producers so Uzbek agriculture can move further away from any legacy of coercion.