Revisiting Water Issues in Central Asia: Shifting from Regional Approach to National Solutions
135
ential interest rate of 3%, which is significantly lower
than the market interest rate.
The credit is automat-
ically deducted by the banks after the account of the
farmer has been credited with the payments for the
cotton/wheat sales.
45
Very frequently those who allo-
cate the money for agricultural inputs are not knowl-
edgeable enough in terms of the needed quantity and
prices, which creates another challenge for farmers.
Lack of incentives for non-cotton or non-wheat
production: The income of cotton/wheat produc-
ers is coming from growing other crops. However,
there are not many benefits to support the farmers
in this respect. They often face problems related to
export restrictions imposed by the government.
Export of agricultural
produce can be implemented
only by state institutions and joint-ventures such as
Uzulgurjisavdoinvest, and Matlubotsavdo.
46
The state
controls the prices to maintain the agricultural prod-
ucts affordable for national consumers. Situations
when supply exceeds domestic demand and export is
restricted leave farmers no choice but to dispose their
produce as they don’t have storage facilities.
In terms of decision-making, Water Users’
Associations in Uzbekistan are criticized for being
the pure extension of the existing government struc-
tures responsible for the
control of agricultural pro-
duction – district level agricultural authorities and
regional governors (
hokims). The WUA chairman is
indeed appointed by the
hokim. WUAs report to state
representatives on the activities of the previous week
and get new instructions for the next one. District
agricultural authorities and regional governments
monitor and control the fulfillment of state cotton/
wheat production and ensure the timely water deliv-
ery for these purposes through WUAs. Water users
meet rarely, and farmers in WUAs don’t
participate in
the water distribution debate even at the local level.
A More Complicated Picture: Financial
Constraints Are Key
The inefficiency of WUAs means that responsibil-
ity for water use lies with the practices of farmers.
Several field studies
47
reveal that some farmers inde-
pendently install pumps and water saving irrigation
technologies (drip irrigation); dehkans and farm-
ers negotiate their irrigation turns, collectively buy
pumps, block or clean canals,
and complain about
the lack of water to their water managers.
48
Although
one of the rationales of the WUAs is that water man-
agement is up to the state, farmers value water as an
important source for their lives (
suv – hayot, “water
is life”)
49
and welcome the idea of not wasting it. They
have also demonstrated the ability to manage water
when necessary.
Therefore, the major problem of water overcon-
sumption in agriculture is not the absence of agency
among water users and their water use irresponsibil-
ity, but rather financial constraints. Rehabilitation of
deteriorated infrastructure and introduction of water
saving technologies (drip irrigation)
are very costly,
and neither government nor water users can afford
to implement them countrywide. According to the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), rehabil-
itation and modernization costs of the old irrigated
areas are estimated at $4,500/ha. The cost of drip
irrigation development on existing irrigated areas
varies between $ 2,300 and 3,500/ha. Average annual
operation and maintenance costs for full recovery is
about $450/ha for standard systems, more than $640/
ha for drip irrigation systems and $680/ha for pump
systems.
50
The government’s willingness to transfer
financial responsibility for
infrastructure operations
and maintenance to farmers cannot succeed as many
farmers are not ready for that financially given the
above-mentioned conditions under which they op-
erate.
The lack of technical expertise in the government
support and insufficient knowledge by farmers them-
selves is another obstacle for water use efficiency in
agriculture. Moreover, the reproduction of the Soviet
water allocation system was designed for collective
farms, the number of which (in 1991 Uzbekistan
counted 971 kolkhozes and 1,137 sovkhozes
51
) was
far less than the current number of water users (more
45 Djanibekov et al., “Pros and cons of cotton production in Uzbekistan.”
46 “Uzbekistan ogranichil eksport sel’khozproduktsii v tselyakh nasyshcheniya sobstvennogo rynka,”
Kao-a.kz, October 1, 2009, .http://kao-a.kz/ru/
news/232-zbekistan_ogranichil_eksport_selkhozprodukcii_v_celah_nasyshhenija_sobstvennogo_rynka/.
47 L. Oberchirker and A. K. Hornidge, “‘Water Is Life’—Farmer Rationales
and Water Saving in Khorezm, Uzbekistan: A Lifeworld Analysis,”
Rural
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
