Granular first-hand accounts, covering the entire cotton chain in Turkmenistan—from field to export—have exposed both labour violations and economic coercion—a state-run, vertically integrated system of coercion, wrapped in the false veneer of reform.
- The state's monopoly control over inputs, prices, and quotas ensures a cycle of state-enforced servitude. The issue is not just about cotton—it is about a government using agricultural production as a tool of control.
- The 2024 Harvest Report on Turkmenistan Cotton, produced by the Cotton Campaign and its partner organisations, is a damning exposé of state-imposed forced labour deeply embedded in the country's cotton industry.
THE LANDSCAPE: The Turkmen cotton industry, says the report—Turkmenistan Cotton: State-Imposed Forced Labor In The 2024 Harvest And Links To Global Supply Chains— is a case study in how state power, economic desperation, and global complicity can intertwine to produce systematic exploitation. Brands, regulators, and consumers must now decide whether they are content to wear cotton picked under duress—or whether they will finally cut the thread.
- Evidence-Backed: The report draws from embedded monitors with direct access to state institutions and pickers, offering granular, first-hand accounts.
- Comprehensive Scope: Covers the entire chain—from field to export—and exposes both labour violations and economic coercion.
- Policy-Oriented: Strong on recommendations for governments, brands, and multilateral institutions. It doesn’t just diagnose the issue; it prescribes.
KEY FINDINGS: The findings of independent civil society monitoring of the 2024 cotton harvest monitoring include:
- Public sector employees were mobilised to pick cotton or extorted to pay for replacement cotton pickers.
- Doctors in regional hospitals and teachers in some schools were not subjected to forced labour, although doctors and teachers in other institutions were.
- Other groups of state employees—including technical staff of schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and clinics, and employees of utilities organisations and public agencies—were subjected to forced labour.
- Child labour was used in the 2024 harvest, despite the fact that the state no longer mobilises children and that in 2024, the government classified cotton picking as hazardous work and prohibited for children under 18.
- The government increased the rates for cotton picking. In some districts, this incentivised voluntary picking, including by children.
- The government increased procurement prices for cotton.
IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS: This report is not just a human rights document—it’s a compliance alarm bell:
- Legal Risk: Brands sourcing even indirectly from Turkmenistan are at risk of violating national and supranational laws.
- Reputational Risk: Any exposure to Turkmen cotton undermines ESG commitments.
- Traceability Challenge: Given that cotton blends easily enter third-country textiles, even brands with “ethical sourcing” labels could be unintentionally complicit.
THE HIGHLIGHTS: The study, conducted monitoring of the cotton harvest in the four cotton producing regions of Turkmenistan: Dashoguz, Balkan, Mary, and Lebap, raises issues.
- Farmers in a Chokehold: The exploitation doesn’t stop with labour. Farmers too are trapped in a state-engineered vice grip. Locked into tenancy agreements through state-controlled peasant associations, they must meet unrealistic cotton quotas under threat of losing their land. Inputs—fertilisers, seeds, fuel—are overpriced and often delivered late. When the cotton is finally harvested, deductions are made arbitrarily at state-owned gins, stripping farmers of their rightful payments. The outcome? Mounting debt and, in some districts, mass farmer migration.
- Child Labour: Banned but Back: In an ironic twist, the Turkmen government included cotton picking in its Hazardous Work List for the first time in 2024, theoretically banning anyone under 18 from participating. But this legal move did little to stop the rise in child labour. Driven by poverty and the pressure on adults to either pick cotton or pay bribes, children joined their parents in the fields, sometimes picking 40–50 kilograms a day to contribute to household income.
- A Compliance Time Bomb: Perhaps most worrying for global brands is the revelation that Turkmen cotton continues to enter international supply chains, particularly through Türkiye—a key textile hub and the number one importer of Turkmen yarn and fabric. Italian and German textile machinery makers are also complicit, equipping mills that process and export goods made with forced labour cotton.
- Toothless Reforms, Coached Testimonies: The report does credit the Turkmen government for incremental changes—such as excluding some teachers and doctors from forced labour and signing roadmaps with the International Labour Organization (ILO). But the façade quickly crumbles. Authorities have “coached” selected workers to lie to ILO monitors, claiming the harvest was mechanised and volunteer-based. Independent monitors were barred, and critics like Turkmen.News director Ruslan Myatiev were targeted with retaliatory travel bans.
- Rights Before Technology: There is no shortage of recommendations. The report rightly urges the Turkmen government to outlaw coercion, hold violators accountable, and allow independent monitoring. But it also offers a warning: technological fixes like mechanised harvesting will not solve what is fundamentally a rights crisis. Without civic space, free expression, independent unions, and rule of law, cotton reform will remain a farce.
THE CONTEXT: Turkmenistan, ranking 14th in global cotton production, uses widespread and systematic state-imposed forced labour in the annual cotton harvest. Every year between August–November, public authorities force state employees to pick cotton or pay for replacement pickers under threat of penalty, including loss of employment or reduction of work hours or pay.
Realpolitik Context
- ILO Involvement Is Superficial: The Turkmen state allowed selective access and “coached workers” to lie to ILO monitors—revealing bad faith and no real reform intent.
- Retaliatory Authoritarianism: The regime punished activists abroad, like Myatiev, using diplomatic channels. This weaponisation of foreign policy illustrates the regime's grip and its intent to suppress dissent globally.
