178
the Central Asian states were safeguarded by means of the 1992 “Agreement on
Cooperation in Joint Management, Use and Protection of Interstate Sources of
Water Resources” (Libert et al. 2008 , p. 11), the water situation changed dramatically because the Central Asian states acted independently, following their own
interests (Libert et al. 2008 ; Sehring 2009 ). The upstream users did not allocate
suffi cient water to the downstream users in the summertime, while the energy provision from downstream to upstream users in the wintertime was no longer guaranteed. The two principles contained in International Water Law that there should be
“equitable and reasonable utilisation of transboundary water resources [and that]
the obligation of one State should not cause signifi cant harm to another State
through its use of shared water resources” were violated (Libert et al. 2008 , p. 12).
However, this did not mean that Uzbekistan’s agricultural policy “really”
changed (Abdullaev and Atabaeva 2012 , p. 105). Its focus was and still is on cotton
production. The state response to the new political situation was to seek independence in the provisioning of food by import substitution. This had become a necessity since the import of wheat from other Soviet states ceased in the early 1990s.
Thus, Uzbekistan’s politicians were forced to focus their primary policy objective
on safeguarding people’s nutrition. As a consequence, wheat became the second
important crop that was imposed by the state. In addition to structural changes,
which focused on more individual freedom for farmers and reduced farm sizes
(Abdullaev et al. 2007 ), “the Uzbekistan government’s decision to promote wheat
self-suffi ciency is largely responsible for the recent decline in cotton production”
(Weinthal 2006 , p. 20).
Nevertheless, cotton production is still a key element of Uzbekistan’s agricultural policy (see Fig. 12.2 ). A large proportion of Uzbekistan’s export revenues
derive from cotton production, while the sector provides a high percentage of
employment (Weinthal 2006 , p. 19; Abdullaev et al. 2007 , p. 113). As the export of
cotton is organised predominantly by state authorities, state revenues are highly
dependent on this source. For this reason, the regulations stipulating which crops
farmers are to plant have not really changed. Instead of imposing a single “cash
crop”, as in the Soviet era, farmers are now required to plant two cash crops. Today,
nearly 85 % of state production is reserved for these two “cash crops”.
2 Nevertheless,
the production of cotton has decreased over time (see Fig. 12.2 ).
With respect to the recommendation to introduce water prices, the developments
described here have an important implication: In Uzbekistan, there has hardly been
any political will to introduce (effi cient) water prices in the agricultural sector.
Burdening the agricultural sector with additional state-imposed prices was – and
still is – a taboo. Political decision makers have an interest in protecting the agricultural sector from the imposition of water-related prices. This has been fully embedded in the tradition of Uzbekistan’s political decision makers, where all past
decisions were oriented towards prioritising – and not burdening – the agricultural
2 One should be aware that in Uzbekistan “cash crop” refers to certain crops that are exported and
therefore generate revenues; thus, primarily, cotton can be described as a “cash crop” in this sense.
Wheat is primarily required for meeting the population’s food needs – and not for acquiring “cash”.
B. Hansjürgens
the Central Asian states were safeguarded by means of the 1992 “Agreement on
Cooperation in Joint Management, Use and Protection of Interstate Sources of
Water Resources” (Libert et al. 2008 , p. 11), the water situation changed dramatically because the Central Asian states acted independently, following their own
interests (Libert et al. 2008 ; Sehring 2009 ). The upstream users did not allocate
suffi cient water to the downstream users in the summertime, while the energy provision from downstream to upstream users in the wintertime was no longer guaranteed. The two principles contained in International Water Law that there should be
“equitable and reasonable utilisation of transboundary water resources [and that]
the obligation of one State should not cause signifi cant harm to another State
through its use of shared water resources” were violated (Libert et al. 2008 , p. 12).
However, this did not mean that Uzbekistan’s agricultural policy “really”
changed (Abdullaev and Atabaeva 2012 , p. 105). Its focus was and still is on cotton
production. The state response to the new political situation was to seek independence in the provisioning of food by import substitution. This had become a necessity since the import of wheat from other Soviet states ceased in the early 1990s.
Thus, Uzbekistan’s politicians were forced to focus their primary policy objective
on safeguarding people’s nutrition. As a consequence, wheat became the second
important crop that was imposed by the state. In addition to structural changes,
which focused on more individual freedom for farmers and reduced farm sizes
(Abdullaev et al. 2007 ), “the Uzbekistan government’s decision to promote wheat
self-suffi ciency is largely responsible for the recent decline in cotton production”
(Weinthal 2006 , p. 20).
Nevertheless, cotton production is still a key element of Uzbekistan’s agricultural policy (see Fig. 12.2 ). A large proportion of Uzbekistan’s export revenues
derive from cotton production, while the sector provides a high percentage of
employment (Weinthal 2006 , p. 19; Abdullaev et al. 2007 , p. 113). As the export of
cotton is organised predominantly by state authorities, state revenues are highly
dependent on this source. For this reason, the regulations stipulating which crops
farmers are to plant have not really changed. Instead of imposing a single “cash
crop”, as in the Soviet era, farmers are now required to plant two cash crops. Today,
nearly 85 % of state production is reserved for these two “cash crops”.
2 Nevertheless,
the production of cotton has decreased over time (see Fig. 12.2 ).
With respect to the recommendation to introduce water prices, the developments
described here have an important implication: In Uzbekistan, there has hardly been
any political will to introduce (effi cient) water prices in the agricultural sector.
Burdening the agricultural sector with additional state-imposed prices was – and
still is – a taboo. Political decision makers have an interest in protecting the agricultural sector from the imposition of water-related prices. This has been fully embedded in the tradition of Uzbekistan’s political decision makers, where all past
decisions were oriented towards prioritising – and not burdening – the agricultural
2 One should be aware that in Uzbekistan “cash crop” refers to certain crops that are exported and
therefore generate revenues; thus, primarily, cotton can be described as a “cash crop” in this sense.
Wheat is primarily required for meeting the population’s food needs – and not for acquiring “cash”.
B. Hansjürgens