Subject: Article on the Aral Sea -focus on Agricultural sector
From: Acted - Bishkek (mayacted@elcat.kg)
Date: Wed Jun 23 1999 - 10:03:34 EDT
Dear colleges,
Please found enclosed a florilege of our idea on the privatisation of
the agricultural sector.
Johan GELY
ACTED
43, Erkindik, apt. 37
Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
Phone/Fax: 996 312 66 27 82
Email: mayacted@elcat.kg
>From TURKISTAN NEWSLETTER, Volume 3:127-2-June-1999
#1. Aral Sea Discussion: (Johan GELY)
Please found enclose my reaction to the W. Kaufman article.
My reaction focus on the agricultural policy to deal with the problems
of the subsidies large farms that "slurp up" the waters.
Johan GELY
ACTED
43, Erkindik, apt. 37
Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
Phone/Fax: 996 312 66 27 82
Email: mayacted@elcat.kg
M. Wallace Kaufman,
Reading your reaction (TURKISTAN NEWSLETTER Volume 3:125-31-May-1999) to
the independent article on Aral Sea, I would like to say that I am in
complete accordance with your arguments.
I am currently working for a French NGO named ACTED which provides
technical assistance and humanitarian aid in Central Asia (which encompass
in our opinion, the five traditional countries but include also north east
Afghanistan, north west Pakistan and Uighur Chinese province).
In our general strategy of intervention in Central Asia, the hydraulic
problematic is one of the main issue we are working on. Thus we try to
develop a potential guideline for global and regional action, with strong
emphasis on the bottom-up approach of local participation and integration
of land and water management with other relevant sector. Thus, we undertake
research work and to decide upon the existing options, to prepare projects,
furthermore to undertake the required amelioration's in order to restore
the original environmental landscape in the choose mentioned areas.
Why ACTED is interested by the Aral Sea?
As you know, we can described the division of the Aral Basin into three
zones: the mountains sources of water (Pamir Hindu Kush for the Amu Darya
and Tien Shenfor the Syr Darya), the water-using arid plains and valleys
(Kysyl Kum desert, Vahsch valley in Tajikistan) and the sea zone, which
depended on the other two zones for its health and cultivate survival.
ACTED is already present and implement project in the first two zones:
-yak breeding project in Murgab (Pamir, Tajikistan) on the spring of the
Amu Darya: Ka Su river (before Pjand and before Amu darya)
-water and sanitation, rural credit and reorganisation of the agricultural
structures in Khatlon oblast of Tajikistan
-water and sanitation project in Osh oblast (Kyrgyz republic)
-
ACTED is willing to implement small pilot project with high sensitivity for
the population in the last zone (we have just receive our accreditation for
Uzbekistan) so call sea zone.
Back to your article, you are right when you said that "the political
solution has included funding a new Central Asian bureaucracy to deal with
the problems. The problem was created by exactly this kind of bureaucracy"
and in your three propositions.
Let us add something to the third point, this is one of the main issue of
the agriculture sector in the Aral Sea region but also in all the Central
Asia: the reorganisation of the farms' structures.
The governments of Central Asia are facing many hard choice in carrying out
its promise of land reform. For those countries, the agriculture sector
during the collectivisation was a net capital generator. The capital was
the source of investments funds for other sectors of their economy. That
why the privatisation process of the agricultural sector in Central Asia
has to be carried out cautiously.
We, of course, can not applied in Central Asia the same strategy than in
central or eastern Europe because of the different historical background
and development of the Republics of Central Asia (that led to a different
Heritage). In difference with European countries, the people did not have
experience of living under the capitalist system which provide the private
ownership, after the feudal way of life they step into the social model
because of the creation of the Soviet Socialist Union.
The European countries after feudalism (16, 17 and 18 centuries) and before
behind under the grasp of the Soviet system, had a chance to experience the
capitalism way, private ownership for a long period of time. That mean it
was more easy for them to transfer from socialist way of management to the
capitalism one (see the political decision of Bulgaria to restore 2 million
agricultural holdings -in 1994- to their pre-Sovietisation owners. The best
way to shift to private farm ownership in those countries is of course to
restore the previous ownership of farmland).
The issue is completely different in Central Asia were the economy and
well-being have historically been dependent on agriculture in the oasis and
was composed of remnants of nomadic tribes (people used to be cattle
breeders, headers)(1). Thus, at the beginning of the century, and in order
to survive people had to travel to feed animals and have a very little idea
of the notion of ownership.
If Central Asia people had already experience of a new system of management
of their social, economical and political life, it was at the time when
Soviet system and the social ideology has been spread by use of force over
the population.
Historically, there have been three types of land ownership in Central
Asia: 1) zamini soltani or padshahi, i.e. imperial land belonging to the
ruler (and government), the users of which would normally owe a third of
the harvest as tax; 2) melki khos being private or feudal ownership of
lands, having been in existence at least since the Samanids; and 3) melki
vaghfi being ownership of lands in special Islamic of lands in special
Islamic trusts or endowments. Normally, uncultivated desert lands, plains
and mountains belonged to the Khan or emir and much of the plains were in
communal use by the nomads.
And on grounds of Islamic law, anyone who permanently irrigated or
cultivated a plot of land could become the owner, upon which a land tax was
due to the ruler. Overall, most land were privately owned and from the 16th
to the early 20th centuries " state land formed the least significant
proportion of the production land in Central Asia".
The process of transmitting from feudal system to the social one was very
hard and it required a great mean of force and social education and
entailed the almost total dismantling of private farming and land
ownership. As part of the perceived gradual road to communism, instead of
the private, endowment and imperial lands, the Soviets formed state farms
or sovkhozy and collective farms or kolkhozy (2) (singular: sovkhoz and
kolkhoz).
We are nowadays involved with the same problems in the implementation of
new ways of life in the privatisation process, link to new way of mentality
which opposite the existing ones which were prevailing till know.
Moreover, those changes should be made on a democratic basis, means it will
take more time, skills and energy to success than its took the soviet. On
the other hand, Central Asian societies are still mainly rural, the
consequence is that the process of democratisation could not bypass that
milieu.
About the privatisation process:
"The reshaping of farmers organisation should not bypass the collective
farm which are not only a legacy of a centralised and statistic system but
acquire a social and economic autonomy (at least for some of them), and
retain a kind of social personality which makes it an actor of the
emergence of a civil society"(3).
The aim of economic and agronomic experts acting in that field is to
analyse the resilience and ambivalence of the former/previous farmers
structures (collective, state), the emerge ones (private farms, joint stock
venture,), and work on the possibility to create new forms of organisation.
If the privatisation process is of course inevitable in the long run, it
should be done carefully, the different social groups (managers, elite,
ordinary members) within production co-operative or collective farms has
unequal opportunities in the process of transferring the farm collective
into private property.
"A rush on privatisation may produce a new kind of slavery and put poor
people into the hand of few local chiefs"(4), or a re-creation of new
"Begs" than the birth of independent private farmers: it is clear to note
that the first beneficiaries of the privatisation (in 1995,1996) of the
land were the former Chairman of Kolkhoz/Sovhkoz. An example is the
practice of leasing the land to the same person who were the collective
farm managers before reunification. The rubber stamp procedures of the
government agriculture officials often support the farming of the old
cadres: the old management class has no difficulties in obtaining the
support of the officials.
A few more remarks to help, or try to, to the idea behind the
re-organisation of the farm's structures:
LIMITED LAND SIZE:
Small-scale production is an obstacle to the development of highly
efficient farming, and most often economically less-viable(5).
o Logical trend, as ex-soviet farms are being split into smaller units.
Lead to non profitable land because of limited economic size, once
beneficiaries will be unable to cover the costs themselves.
o Over-dimensioned equipment, the smallest farms are not able to operate
heavy machinery on individual basis.
o The impossibility to achieve, through the sole farming activity,
household self reliance.
o Small-scale farms cannot invest in research and development project
Solutions proposed:
1. Considering the limited size of land presently owned/leased by the vast
majority of farmers, ACTED will pay attention towards the diversification
of agricultural activities (to identify the needs of the community at
large), including:
Development of animal husbandry, promotion of alternative agricultural
products which may result in more income for the farmers. Examples:
possibly milking-cows and goat keeping.
Diversification of agricultural crop production: green-houses, horticulture,
Promote activities off-farm.
Rotations, associations should be promoted.
Increased productivity trough improved access to inputs and improved
cultivation techniques.
Five or six main activities will be defined as having priority, examined in
a detailed report, and a strategy will have been defined to support them.
For each of these activities, a training program and/or a supply of inputs
will have been put in place.
2. The equipment must be adjusted to the size of the new farms (equipment
still in place are inherited from the Soviet structures and so commensurate
to these very large farms). The big machinery can continue to be used under
systems of rent or collective ownership/management (already experimented in
some co-operatives Dekhan farms), in parallel, smaller equipment, that can
be owned and operated by individuals or small groups of individuals can be
adopted (in order to add value to farm production:
Small agro-processing equipment (the use of oil presses and small mills, as
well as the conservation of fruit and vegetable) in order to lowered the
cost and to allowed the farmer to operate directly, individually or in
small groups.
3. The orthodox principles of the economic of scale will guide individual
farmers to look for different opportunities for co-operation and associations.
4. A solution of the problem of the agricultural research might be the
integration of the applied scientific units and the universities.
ORGANISATIONAL AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES:
o For the time being there seems to be no organisational nor institutional
structures which could respond to the needs of the farming communities,
particularly the small holders. All major decisions (concerning lease,
quality of land, utilisation, mode of cultivation and types of products)
are made with little involvement of the beneficiaries.
Under these difficulties, new forms of organisation and reshaping of
organisation are urgently needed:
1.Establishment of community-based organisational structures (6) and
institutions or reinforcement of the existing groups legally protect.
Criteria of selection: attention will be paid to association which does not
alter the traditional patterns of the collective identity, with social
cohesion (inside solidarity groups) and quality of the land at their
disposal.
2.Encourage the kolkhozes who are trying to modernize and diversify their
structures(7), helping them to become some kind of co-operatives of
autonomous farmers, with an elected leadership, like co-operatives in
western Europe.The reformism management of kolkhoz run counter two
oppositions: the political will of the state or some regional apparatchiks
to keep the kolkhoz under administrative control, and the international
donors politics which is based on individuals and not on solidarity groups.
3.Setting up of joint venture when agricultural forms decide that they can
achieve their profit or growth objective more effectively or more
economically by integrating all or part of their business and by working
together. Those kind of co-operation has to be considered as business
extensions of members farms, for joint performance of common activities of
farmers, who participate on the basis of a democratic decision process.
Co-operative could be specialised for small-scale operations, vertical
integration or large-scale operations.
SOCIAL ISSUE
The long term beneficial effect of privatisation is recognised, however,
it's also recognised that the process of transition has had many economic
and social consequences.
o The hidden unemployment that exited in the socialist enterprises has been
converted to open employment. Other serious social consequences include the
closure of kindergarten and the loss of cultural and social facilities.
o The different social groups (managers, elite, ordinary members) within
production co-operative or collective farms has unequal opportunities in
the process of transferring the farm collective into private property(8).
Thank you.
Notes:
(1) Raw and processed fibre's (cotton, silk, wool and flax), livestock
(horses, sheep, camels and cattle) and foodstuff (grain, fruits and
vegetable) were specially in high demand when the overland international
trade -the silk road- was at the acme of its powers in the middle of the
15th century. Soon after, the opening of the maritime route linking the
Indian and Atlantic Oceans reversed the prosperity which the Silk Road had
brought to Central Asia. (McChesnay)
(2) Co-operative organisation of voluntarily associated peasants for the
joint conduct of large-scale agricultural production on the basis of
communal means of production and collective labour. Land was given by the
state for an infinite amount of time.
(3) Olivier Roy, La nouvelle Asie Centrale, Fabriquation des Nations" pp
124 and following.
(4) Gerard Viguie, op. ci.
(5) For example the effective use of irrigation systems depends on the size
of the farms. Their maintenance is too expensive for individual owners and
their normal functioning will be destroyed if they are broken up into small
units. (example made by TACIS: desilting drainage canals in Leninsky
district, 400,000TR/KM
(6) Surveys could be done on the way people tend to recreate (or to revert
to) traditional extended families, bound with solidarity ties, sort of
process of reapropriation -through own decided way- by the existing
society of the transition process.
(7) Olivier Roy, op.ci., "What we see in many kolkhozes, but not in all, is
the emergence of a new kind of manager the apparatchik -farmer, who
endeavours to modernize his kolkhozes by diversifying the production,
giving more flexibility and autonomy to the peasants, and going to the
market as an autonomous economic actor. Such a kolkhoze tries to retain its
sociological basis, and to become an actor of free economy.
(8) An example is the practice of leasing the land to the same person who
were the collective farm managers before reunification. The rubber stamp
procedures of the government agriculture officials often support the
farming of the old cadres: the old management class has no difficulties in
obtaining the support of the officials.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Wed Jun 23 1999 - 10:08:57 EDT