Uzbekistan new indd

Development 25, no. 1 (March 2009): 47–63.
33 G. J. Veldwisch, “Dehkans, Diversification and Dependencies: Rural Transformation in post-Soviet Uzbekistan,” Journal of Agrarian Change 11, 
no. 4 (2011): 581–597.
34 S. MacDonald, “Economic Policy and Cotton in Uzbekistan,” United States Department of Agriculture, 2012.
35 Ibid.

---

Nariya Khasanova
134
In some cases dehkans may produce rice based on 
sharecropping: farmers provide agricultural inputs 
(seeds, fertilizers, tractors, combines, water) while 
dehkans do the work for a fixed percentage of the 
yield (30%-50%).
36
Subsequent Changes in Water Management
This ultimate stage of de-collectivization reforms 
was accompanied by a water sector transformation 
in 2003. In order to address two main issues, rational 
water use and lack of funds for operation and mainte-
nance, the government initiated the establishment of 
Water Users’ Associations (WUA). WUAs are mem-
bership-based, nongovernmental, and noncommer-
cial organizations aimed at maintaining irrigation, 
ensuring fair, effective, and timely distribution of 
water between water users, collecting payments for 
the water supply, and settling minor disputes relat-
ed to the distribution and use of water.
37
 The general 
belief of the government was that transfer of finan-
cial responsibilities for maintenance and operation 
(O&M) of irrigation systems would address the 
problem of state under-financing. However, Water 
Users Associations did not prove to be effective and 
their work is constrained by the lack of funds and the 
opacity of a decision-making processes. 
In terms of lack of funds, many WUAs experi-
ence problems in water fee collection that makes it 
difficult to cover the costs of water supply services. 
The material and technical infrastructure is outdated 
and not in good condition. There are different reasons 
why water users do not always pay for the services of 
WUAs. Many farmers cannot pay due to inefficiency 
in their agricultural production. This inefficiency can 
be explained by several reasons, including, but not 
limited to: 
The level of agricultural extension: The collective 
farms were abandoned and individual farms were in-
troduced. Former members of the collective farms, 
as well as citizens with no agricultural experience, 
became individual farmers. Many did not have the 
technical expertise for crop cultivation and irriga-
tion. Many farmers complain about the lack of sup-
port they receive in terms of technical knowledge 
from agronomists, fertilizer specialists, and crop dis-
ease experts.
38
The system of state production quota for cot-
ton and wheat: Farmers cultivate about 60%-70%
39
 
of their farmlands with cotton or wheat; 30%-40% 
being left for growing other crops. Farmers have to 
sell crops to the state at a procurement price that 
often does not cover the production costs. Cotton-
producing farmers, for example, received only about 
66% of the world market price in 2004-5 for their raw 
cotton.
40
Land ownership and land use: The land rights are 
not secure.
41
 The land is leased to farmers for a pe-
riod of up to 50 years with the reserved right of the 
state to terminate the lease contract with a farmer at 
any time. It happens very frequently when farmers 
change their cotton cultivation area.
42
 The cotton cul-
tivation area allocated by the state frequently is not 
appropriate for growing the crop. Therefore, farmers 
are always under stress of losing their land. 
The land rights of farmers can also be canceled if 
they do not fulfill production agreements three years 
in a row.
43
 Land subleasing is prohibited, which de-
prives farmers of the opportunity to sublease their 
inactive lands to other farmers for a certain period 
of time. For example, current livestock farmers fac-
ing shortage of arable land are not allowed to lease 
land from a neighbor to cultivate necessary crops.
44
 
Informal subleasing practices exist, but they are not 
always safe for the farmers as there are no contracts 
stipulating conditions.