WP 97-12
July 1997
Working Paper
Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7801 USA
CROP BUDGETS FOR THE WESTERN
REGION OF UZBEKISTAN
Phillipe Chabot and Steven Kyle
~.
ABSTRACT
.This paper presents crop budgets for the most important
grain and cash crops grown in the Aral Sea region of
Uzbekistan. This region, comprised of the Autonomous Republic
of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast, are 100% dependent on
irrigation, and are still largely farmed via a command and
control system inherited from the USSR.
The crop budgets
presented here are a first attempt to assess the relative
profitability of the most important crops grown in the region,
and to try to estimate the effects of the severely distorted
prices faced by farmers.
."
©philippe Chabot and Steven Kyle
It is the Policy of Cornell University actively to support equality of
educational and employment opportunity.
No person shall be denied
admission to any educational program or activity or be denied employment
on the basis of any legally prohibited discrimination involving, but not
limited to, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic
origin, sex, age or handicap.
The University is committed to the
maintenance of affirmative action programs which will assure the
continuation of such equality of opportunity.
..
l
Crop Budgets for the Western Region of Uzbekistan
Introduction
This paper presents crop budgets for the most important grain
and cash crops grown in the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan.
This
region, comprised of the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan and
Khorezm Oblast, are 100% dependent on irrigation, and are still
largely farmed via a command and control system inherited from the
USSR.
The crop budgets presented here are a first attempt to
assess the relative profitability of the most important crops grown
in the region, and to try to estimate the effects of the severely
distorted prices faced by farmers.
Cotton is the dominant crop in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm, as
it is in the country as a whole, though production in the Aral Sea
region accounts for only around 10% of national cotton production.
Given the fact that agriculture accounted for 28.5% of GDP in 1995,
between 40 and 50% of total employment, while providing between 2/3
and 4/5 of export revenues, it is clear that the development of
agriculture in general has significant implications for the country
as a whole as well as being the dominant sector in the western
region. For this reason, successful reforms in the Aral Sea region
can be important in terms of demonstrating possibilities for the
whole country.
Other important crops in this area include rice, which has
long been grown in the delta of the Amu Darya, cattle and fodder
crops, and various horticultural products, most of which are
produced on private plots rather than larger units.
Wheat has
recently become more important as state orders have been imposed to
fulfill the central government desire for grain independence,
particularly from Kazakhstan.
Alfalfa is grown to feed cattle
along with some maize, and cattle are also fed byproducts from
cotton and rice production.
Aquaculture is also practiced in
Khorezm region in lakes in the east of the oblast.
In general, this paper shows that liberalization of the farm
sector in the study area would be likely to result in a radical
shift of incentives to grow the three main crops, cotton, rice, and
wheat. At present, the combination of the state order system and
controlled procurement prices severely depress and distort the
incentives for agricultural production, and together with the lack
of any charge for
irrigation water,
result
in financial
calculations of profitability that are very much at odds with
calcualtions based on economic prices. Even with the elimination
of
the
state order system,
there
are
several
important
technological and policy options which have the potential to
2
­
dramatically improve performance, but it must be recognized that
most technological interventions cannot be fully effective without
an overall context of policy reform.
Output Trends
Tables 1 and 2 show agricultural output in Karakalpakstan and
Khorezm for the past two years.
It can be seen that cotton and
grains are the dominant crops. Of grains, rice is the most widely
cultivated but wheat has become increasingly important over the
past few years. Tables 3 and 4 show the areas planted to the major
crops.
Cotton is still produced almost entirely by the collectives,
and its absence on private lands reflects the poor incentives
inherent in the state order and pricing system.
Table 5 shows
returns on cotton producing kolkhozes in Karakalpakstan, where it
can be seen that everyone lost money last year and only one rayon
had a positive result in 1995.
Private sector producers
concentrate on horticultural crops and livestock, together with
rice.
Tables 6 and 7 show figures for livestock breeding, where
the large share of the private sector in the total is evident.
Table 8 shows that livestock is the predominant activity of dekhan
farms in Khorezm.
Yields in Karakalpakstan are quite low compared to those in
other parts of Uzbekistan.
Table 9 shows figures for the five
regions, and it can be seen that the Aral Sea region lags behind
all others by a substantial margin.
The figures above indicate
that Karakalpakstan is in fact lower still than that for the Aral
Sea Region in general.
Declining yield is a particular problem in the cotton
subsector and one that is recognized by the authorities. There are
various reasons for this, including both economic and technical
problems. Foremost in economic terms are the low prices received
for seed cotton, as well as the difficulties and vagaries of state
supply of fertilizers.
One macronutrient, potassium, was not
supplied at all in 1996 while supplies of phosphorus were
negligible (see below).
Foremost among technical problems are
those associated with irrigation, with salinity, rising water
tables, and hard pans being the most important.
It should be noted that yield figures from the soviet era may
well be overstated and so cannot be regarded as a reliable
benchmark from which to measure trends. However, it does seem that
yields do have a downward trend in the cotton subsector.
3
­
Kyle and Chabot 1997 (~Agriculture in the Republic of
Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast of Uzbekistan',
Cornell
University Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial
Economics Working Paper 97-13) present a description of the
resource base and policy context of agriculture in this region.
Cotton Marketing
The basis for cotton production and marketing is the state
order.
The state has a monopoly on cotton marketing and in the
past set prices for the entire crop and required it all to be
processed in state ginneries. Since 1995, the state has instituted
a process whereby increasing shares of cotton target production
will be procured at "free market prices".
In fact, this program
has been rendered largely ineffective in terms of providing
adequate incentives at the farm level.
The general problem is one of excessive taxatation, both
implicit and explicit.
Cotton is sold on the world market for
prices which are already discounted 4% due to consistent problems
with timeliness of delivery and consistency of product.
These
exports are actually performed by state trading companies which
typically deal with international cotton traders rather than
directly with processors, since the latter have strict delivery
requirements which Uzbekistan has trouble meeting. As noted above,
Uzbek cotton is also subject to a further discount of 20% due to
lack of appropriate grading.
This revenue is then taxed by the state at a rate of 32%.
PaYment from the trading companies to domestic producers is
denominated in local currency.
Here, a major implicit tax is
imposed in the use of the official exchange rate. Currently, that
rate is 61 soum/$. Given parallel rates of between 140 and 145, it
may be estimated that this implies a substantial further tax of
somewhere between 30-60% depending on the assumed equilibrium
exchange rate.
This calculation is in fact quite conservative
considering that paYments are sometimes delayed as much as 6
months, during which time the official exchange rate may have
changed. It was impossible to verify, but if the previous official
exchange rate of 55 is used since that was the rate prevailing when
the cotton was contracted for export, the implied tax would be
proportionately larger.
A further problem is the fact that paYments are made in the
form of bank transfers and not in cash. Currently, there is a 40%
premium on cash transactions, so this constitutes a further
implicit tax on farmers.
If we put all of these factors together farmers are receiving
4
­
less than 30% and possibly less than 20% of the true value of their
cotton even when they are receiving the supposedly free market
prices for part of their crop.
However, this is not the end of the story.
It was widely
reported that in those cases where producers failed to meet their
target amounts, all of their crop was subject to state procurement
at the state price.
It was reported in Karakalpakstan that most
producers in fact failed to achieve their targets and so were
subjected to this problem.
All in all, it is apparent that the
supposed liberalization of the cotton market has had virtually no
real effect on many farms and that in spite of any policy
initiatives to the contrary, cotton farmers are still subject to
state control to much the same extent as they have always been.
There is one caveat to this conclusion - Normally, cotton
under state order is processed by the gin but no credit is given to
the producing unit for byproducts such as seed and lint, nor are
they returned to the producer. Since the value of these products
is apparently included in the procurement price for "free" cotton,
there will be some additional benefit at the farm level.
However, the overall picture is clear: there is substantial
taxation of cotton, and the benefits of this taxation accrue almost
exclusively to the central government and not to the Republic or
oblast. At the farm level, cotton is a losing proposition, while
gins do not appear to be making excess profits, and are in terms of
the revenue flow only a collection point from which exports are
made, with the revenue going to the central government.
Though state orders are slated to be phased out in 1998, it
remains uncertain whether this means that farmers will be permitted
to grow any crop they choose, or that only state order prices will
be phased out but producers will still be required to produce
planned quantities.
Marketing and Pricing of Other Crops
Horticultural and meat products are both free of state
planning and can be grown and marketed at uncontrolled prices.
Horticultural products in particular and livestock to some extent
are therefore produced largely on private plots. Local markets had
ample supplies of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, as well
as meat, and many of these were reported to originate in other
parts of Uzbekistan, such as Samarkand, making it clear that
interregional trade in these commodities is not a problem.
of
Rice and wheat are treated differently. As noted above, each
these commodities is produced according to state planning
5
­
directives.
While other sources have maintained that rice has
been liberalized, (See, e.g. the Uzbekistan Agricultural Baseline
Survey), the state grain milling enterprise was unequivocal in
stating that farmers were required to produce planned amounts. The
plan target for each producing unit is divided in two parts. The
first part is sold to the state at a fixed price, while the second
part is provided at an "agreed" price negotiated between the seller
and the state enterprise which mills the grain (Uzklebprodukt).
Any farm which satisfies both the fixed price plan and the agreed
price plan may then keep any excess to dispose of as they see fit ­
i.e. it may be used for own consumption, shipped to other regions,
or exported from the country.
No wheat has ever been sold at the "agreed" price in
Karakalpakstan, implying that achievement of planned amounts has
never exceeded 50% since wheat was first planted by state order in
1993. (See Table 10 for these prices for the current year.
The
various grades of wheat are distinguished by gluten content.) Last
year, only 5% of republic requirements were satisfied with local
production, with the remainder imported from abroad.
While a
substantial amount of this wheat came from Kazakhstan last year,
only a negligible amount came from this source in the current year,
having been replaced from a variety of sources.
The republic is almost self sufficient in flour milling
capacity, with a reported 500 tons/day produced out of a required
550 tons/day.
This production comes from 4 mills (one in
Takhitashi, two in Nukus, and one in Kungrad) with a theoretical
capacity of 730 tons/day.
The resulting flour deficit is filled
with imports from a variety of sources. Flour prices are also set
by the government
(See Table 10).
Bread prices are also
controlled, and the current price of 15 soum for a 600 gram loaf
(approximately SUS 0.10 at the current parallel exchange rate) is
quite low compared to world prices of flour and wheat.
In the case of rice, production plans are usually fulfilled
and some farms have on occasion exceeded both the amounts planned
at the fixed price and that at the agreed price, and so have
qualified for license to ship the rice out of the republic.
The
price paid to farmers in the last harvest for unmilled rice was
18.5 soums/kg, while the agreed price was typically about 2-3 soums
higher. Table 11 shows the structure of costs for rice processing.
Last year, 24,752 tons were processed, most of this, (23,243 tons,
rice classified as second grade.
Independent milling of both rice and wheat is permitted, with
farmers allowed both to operate mills if they choose, or to take
their crop to private companies to be processed if they choose.
However, exports from the republic are not permitted unless, as
noted above, the plan has been fulfilled.
It was reported that
independent milling of rice is commonplace, while that of wheat is
not, giving the state an effective monopoly on p~ocessing of wheat.
6
­
Animal feed is also produced by the grain processing company,
and is all sold at market prices. (Approximately 4-5 soum/kilo for
cattle feed).
There is some variation in this price both due to
market factors and due to the varying composition of the feed,
which is a mixture of milling residues and mineral and vitamin
additives.
It was reported that these additives were previously
purchased from other parts of the FSU but are now produced in
Uzbekistan.
Unfortunately, the plant which produces them in
Fergana, itself uses imported inputs and so has had output
shortfalls
which
have
affected
production
of
feed
in
Karakalpakstan.
Input Supplies
Seeds
Cotton seed is provided by retention of 25% of seeds produced
by gins while the remainder is crushed for oil.
As noted above,
there is an effort underway to improve seed production and
certification through production by independent companies.
This
effort should be strongly supported to enable the multiplication of
certified quality seed as needed by the producers.
Conversations with cotton breeders indicated that improved
varieties are available ( e.g. Chimbai 40 in Karakalpakstan, and
Khorezm 126 in Khorezm as noted above) but that multiplication and
distribution is a major bottleneck. However, plant varieties are
released to the Ministry of Agriculture and Water, which then
evaluates them according to a hierarchy of criteria.
It
wasreported in Khorezm that these, which amount to state ordered
plant breeding objectives were, (in order of importance) :
1. verticillium wilt resistance
2. fiber yield
3. early opening
4. fiber strength
It is notable that the only attribute related to quality ranks
fourth and last in importance.
General breeding targets in
Karakalpakstan are increased yield, drought resistance, salt
tolerance and disease resistance.
The current cotton improvement project (see above) will go far
toward addressing problems in cotton seed multiplication and
distribution.
Implementation has been somewhat delayed, but the
project is expected to be completed by the end of the year 2000.
7
­
For other crops a substantial share of requirements are
satisfied by retention of own production, with the balance provided
from state sources. This is particularly true in the case of wheat
and rice.
Horticultural crops rely to a significant extent on
private suppliers, in line with their predominance in household
plots.
For rice and wheat there is no apparent systematic seed supply
system. Most of the producers interviewed relied at least to some
extent on retaining a portion of their crop for seed.
Vegetable
and fruit seeds are freely available in the local markets, though
these were clearly not certified or regulated in any way.
Machinery
A state enterprize, Uzselkhoztekhnika, is responsible for
supplying and servicing tractors and other agricultural equipment.
The current state of affairs is quite poor in many cases, with
tractor fleets of 10 years of age or more.
(See Table 12)
In
addition, there are significant problems with adequate maintenance
and availability of spare parts.
Table 13 shows figures for the
current agricultural vehicle fleet in Khorezm, where it can be seen
that less than 25% of tractors were actually functional.
The move over the past two years toward provision of machine
services from centralized tractor parks is an unfortunate
recreation of a soviet style institutional structure that has
proven to be suboptimal in all other contexts where it has been
implemented.
If, as is the case in Uzbekistan, operators are
employees of the machinery company, they lack incentives and
knowledge to do the best possible job on any particular field.
In
addition there are inevitable coordination problems as the question
of who gets priority on use of the machines is decided by
administrators who are not familiar with individual farm level
conditions and who are employees of the state.
The recent purchase of large Case tractors with a capacity
four times greater than previously used machines is a move toward
large scale, expensive equipment that is not suited for smallholder
use.
However, if these machines do in fact prove able to
ameliorate the problem of a hard pan through deeper ploughing than
smaller machines can accomplish, then they may well be worthwhile
but it will be necessary for the government to achieve extremely
high levels of machine use to make the fleet a viable economic
proposition.
Given the fact that there is a justifiable agronomic rationale
for deep ploughing together with the fact that no single farmer or
collective could possible afford to buy one, it seems reasonable to
continue to allow them to operate, unsubsidized, as independent
8
­
•
service contractors.
(Currently, they operate on a contract basis
but receive both implicit and explicit subsidies.) However, there
is no economic rationale, and much negative experience, with
machine tractor stations for smaller tractors. Further purchases
of these by the central government do not seem justifiable and
those that are already owned by the state could be sold off to
private sector farmers as demanded.
It is interesting to note that virtually every independent
farmer interviewed in the course of this mission either had, or was
planning to get, his own tractor and other machinery. The desire
for independence from centralized supply of machine services was
near universal, underscoring the need for availability of tractors
on the appropriate scale for these smallholders. Liberalization of
imports of both new and used equipment could go far toward meeting
this demand.
Fertilizers and other Agrochemicals
Both Khorezm and Karakalpakstan are areas in which soil is
washed annually (or more than once annually) in order to leach out
salts.
This, together with frequent applications of irrigation
water, means that fertilizers are also leached out of the soil and
so must be applied at higher rates than would normally be the case.
Researchers in Khorezm reported that plants actually use only
around 45% of the amounts applied, thus justifying the high
application rates recommended in the region.
Fertilizers and agro-chemicals are supplied by a state
enterprise, Uzchemservis. This company exists primarily to service
the needs of the collective sector, but will also sell to
independent farmers if supplies are available.
While domestic
production capacity exists, there has been insufficient supply in
recent years.
Imports of a formula containing N=23 and P=23
produced in Kazakhstan have satisfied some of the demand, while
former potash imports from Russia have been reduced to nil or a
very low level until this year when 21,000 tons were delivered.
(It was reported that farmers are often reluctant to use potassium
since though it is a necessary nutrient, it is also a salt (KCI).)
Fertilizer availability has been a problem in recent years.
Table 14 shows planned and actual fertilizer use in Karakalpakstan
for 1996 and 1997, and also gives these figures for rice. While a
breakdown for other crops was not available, it can reasonably be
assumed that approximately 90% of the remainder was intended for
cotton. )
As can be seen, 1996 was an extremely bad year for
fertilizer availability, with 62% of requirements satisfied for
nitrogen, but only 6% for phosphorus, while no potassium was
available at all.
Prices are relatively high,
9
both because of withdrawal of
­
subsidies but also because of the need to transport supplies by
rail through Turkmenistan.
It was reported that Turkmenistan is
imposing transit charges amounting to 25-30% of the final price.
However, prices are still tied to the official exchange rate and so
contain an implicit subsidy depending on the extent to which this
diverges from the equilibrium rate.
Use of other chemicals is down by more than half over the past
two years, in part due to higher prices but also due to problems
with availability.
Pesticides are imported from Germany, while
domestically manufactured defoliants are unavailable because the
factory lacks required imports to make them.
It should be noted,
however, that some of these chemicals are used primarily in
conjunction with machine harvest. Growth regulators cause cotton
plants to switch from vegetative growth to boll production and so
result in fields where all plants are ready for harvest at the same
time. Defoliants strip plants of leaves prior to machine picking
so as to reduce the trash content of seed cotton. Neither of these
are necessary if labor intensive methods are used instead of
mechanical ones.
Uzchemservis is plagued by problems of non-payment by farmers
who in turn are plagued by problems of non-payment for their crops.
Thus there is a cascade effect of arrears, which in the end causes
the system to default to one of physical planning since supplies
are given to farmers without requiring a down payment.
It was reported that there exist deposits of bentonite within
Karakalpakstan, and that the ore contains 4-5% potassium along with
a variety of micronutrients.
It was reported that it is feasible
to mine up to 200,000 tons/year but that the necessary equipment is
not available. Field trials with fertilizer from this source have
been performed and it was possible to achieve a yield of 3.5
tons/ha. with cotton. A feasiblity study for the establishment of
a mine has been prepared and sent to Tashkent.
Given past problems with fertilizer supply and distribution,
there is a good case to be made for immediate withdrawal of the
state from fertilizer distribution and marketing, an end to
explicit or implicit subsidies, and encouragement of private sector
companies in this area.
The state company could continue to
operate as a wholesale supplier from depots in Nukus and Urgench,
open to all suppliers and in competition with any private sector
suppliers who wish to operate.
­
Far.m Budgets and Crop Choice
Farm budgets for the three most important crops, cotton, rice
10
and wheat, are presented in the appendix. Most of the information
used to construct these budgets was collected during field visits
in May and June of 1997 and was supplemented with various other
sources as identified in the notes contained in the appendix.
In
general,
it was not possible to differentiate between the
techniques used in Karakalpakstan and those used in Khorezm, but it
was nevertheless very clear that the general situation in the two
areas differed in terms of yields and so the crop budgets reflect
this fact.
Overall, Khorezm enjoys relatively better conditions, and
consequently has
higher yields
for
each crop
than does
Karakalpakstan.
It is for this reason that the profitability of
farming is substantially higher in Khorezm. This situation is even
more pronounced due to the operation of the state order system,
which imposes substantial financial penalties for non-fulfillment
of the state order amounts. For this reason, Karakalpakstan, which
failed to planned amounts for cotton, and which has remarkably low
yields for wheat, showed negative financial returns for these
crops.
Several different scenarios were computed.
Each crop was
first evaluated with respect to its current financial and economic
net income, where border prices and an assumed equilibrium exchange
rate of 100 soum/dollar were used. The shadow price of water was
taken to be $3.33, which is SANIIRI's estimate of the actual cost
of prividing 1000 cubic meters of water.
Next, a scenario was
computed using liberalized prices (with the exception of rice,
which is already free of state order prices). Next is a scenario
which assumes a 30% yield increase, to reflect the combined effects
of some of the improved management and agronomic techniques as
discussed above.
Next is a scenario which includes a water
payment, and finally, a scenario which combines liberalized prices,
a 30% yield improvement, and a payment for water. (Rice was not
assumed to enjoy the yield improvement in this scenario, since it
is already produced at yield levels comparable to those elsewhere
in the world and which cannot be expected to
increase
substantially. )
Tables 15 and 16 contain some summary results from the farm
budgets and are presented in terms of soum.
Given the fact that
the equilibrium exchange rate is estimated to be 100 soum/$, these
figures can be readily converted to current dollars by dividing by
100. The tables make it clear that cotton is always economically
viable in both regions and is the preferred crop under fully
liberalized conditions as depicted in scenario D. This result is
quite robust,
and comes through clearly in virtually any
manipulation of the figures in any of the crop budgets.
It is in
strong contrast to the current financial return, which is negative
in Karakalpakstan, and quite low in Khorezm.
In fact, the
financial return in Karakalpakstan was negative in all scenarios
except that which postulated a 30% yield increase.
11
­
Rice as currently grown is the most attractive crop in
financial terms, but generates much lower economic returns once the
value of water is included in costs. It should be noted that water
use here has been assumed to be 35, aaa m3/hectare, the average
usage reported by SANIIRI.
If it is instead assumed to be 50,000
m3, as has been reported in some instances, rice is no longer
financially viable under any circumstances which include paYments
for water.
Wheat
is
a
losing proposition for
farmers
in both
Karakalpakstan and in Khorezm. It remains the least preferred crop
under all conditions and is not capable of generating a profit for
farmers in Karakalpakstan even under the most optimistic of
assumptions.
It fares somewhat better in Khorezm, since yields
there are half again as large as the (somewhat optimistic)
assumption of 1.2 tons/hectare in Karakalpakstan.
In summary, it is clear that cotton is an economically
attractive crop in the Aral Sea region, and that under liberalized
conditions would be chosen by farmers facing realistic input and
output prices.
The current widespread enthusiasm for rice
cultivation is apparently largely due to the fact that water is
free. Rice would be likely to be grown in the Amu Darya delta and
in Khorezm under liberalized conditions, but to a lesser extent
than is currently the case.
Wheat would not be grown at all by
profit motivated farmers.
It can be imported from Kazakhstan much
more cheaply than it can be grown under current conditions in the
Aral Sea region.
A final note is in order regarding water pricing, since this
is perhaps the most contentious issue regarding liberalization of
the agricultural sector in Uzbekistan.
In order to allow a
reasonable evaluation of the importance of water pricing in each of
the cases presented, a final item was included labelled 'Return to
Water'.
This item shows what price would have to be charged for
water in order for the crop concerned to just break even.
It can
be seen that the returns to water are quite high in many cases, but
that its value in production of wheat is in fact negative under
many conditions.
12
Appendix
Farm Budgets
-
Notes to Far.m Budgets
1. Estimated equilibrium exchange rate used throughout of 100
soumiS based on estimates by World Bank staff.
Current official
exchange rate is 61 soumiS.
2. Cotton financial price from interviews at cotton gins,
farmers, and at oblast Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
with
3. Cotton economic price based on assumption of 30% fiber content
in seed cotton with a $1500/ton price for cotton fiber; 60% seed
content of seed cotton at a price of $100/ton. This yields a gross
revenue of $510/ton of seed cotton.
Ginning, transport and
handling are estimated at $122 (based on 12,200 soum cost for
ginning and transport according to field notes from interviews,
converted at equilibrium exchange rate of 100 soum/dollar). This
yields a net economic price per ton of seed cotton of $378.
4. World prices for rice from World Bank Commodity Markets and the
Developing Countries.
Wheat from current import price of Kazakh
wheat adjusted for transport costs.
5. Yields per hectare taken from Goscomprognostat data.
For
Karakalpakstan, all yields taken as average of 1991-1996, with the
exception of wheat, where 1996 was excluded as atypically low. For
Khorezm, cotton was taken from 1996 figures, wheat from 1995 since
1996 was atypical, and rice taken as average of 1995 and 1996.
6. Seed financial costs taken from field notes in Khorezm and
Karakalpakstan. Economic costs taken as price of improved cotton
seed in USA without adjusting for transport cost on the assumption
that the Cotton Improvement Project will soon be producing
equivalent seeds domestically. Seed application rates taken from
field interviews.
7. Manure application rates and prices taken from field notes.
8. Pesticide and fertilizer application rates taken from field
notes.
Financial prices from Agrochemservis.
Economic prices
taken from World Bank Commodity Markets and the Developing
Countries, with the exception of price of potash imported from
Kazakhstan which was taken at actual import price in dollars.
9. Machinery prices and usage taken from field notes at state
machinery company and on farm interviews.
Economic costs taken
from USDA farm budgets for irrigated cotton.
It was assumed that
transport costs on a per hectare basis and amortized over the life
of the machinery were negligible.
10. Fuel usage from field interviews.
Prices· taken from W. Van
Harreveld's estimates based on information collected in May and
­
June of 1997.
11. Water application rates from SANIIRI except for wheat, which
was taken from World Bank Farm Restructuring Study. Water price of
$3.33/1000 m3 taken from SANIIRI estimate of shadow price of
providing water.
12. Labor rates taken as average of field interview numbers and
those from TACIS survey, which exclude all but on-field labor use.
13. Labor cost taken from current wage rates from field interviews.
14. Overhead and administration taken from field interviews.
15. Other costs taken from field interviews.
Though these costs
may be assumed to include pumping costs and miscellaneous expenses
related to water management, further investigation will focus on
disaggregating these figures.
-
Appendix
Farm Budgets
-
--.+-_.- --­ _ j ..--J- .--._--._.-.--'--'.
--.f----j.--
----.­ -.. - .' -~. - - - ­ --.------.---.-.---1-.--.-.-- -_.. --..
Total
R~yenue
._-L-.
.
qty
II
=-~f;}~_~~~;;~~·a;~ i::~ ~~~~= ~I ...~~_~
Tota~l--­ ~. __ ~ .~=-~~ ~ --~ --~~±.=_~~J_--1_+­
_
Costs
. -..--. +.--- ..... - . -..­ .. ­ .. _.­ --....--. - - Seed
... - - ­
-
-­
. ..._____ _ _ __~<;! __ ...
II
Cost
(sam)
I I . . 'T()~~~
(USD)
Total.
(sam)
Cost
(USD)
~'1,J~~~~~r~n!%rL~ ~~.
._.... _...
-­
t- -
._ •..
'--~I---
- ~ - - - - ~ - - ._--~-
,F.RM=BUIE;iOnT:TO~~~,;:lj_-&~n 1:F~;~~1!rX![00TF-uEnC~=:
---.------+-....j --------1---1---­
Units
Initial Scenario:
----­
----.----..L--I---- ... ----+~ 1-·
----j
60
227
529
756
378
378
---+-+
- - - - - - - ->
---_._-~-~--
._.
Cost
(sam)
.
- -_ ..
Total
(sam)
Total
(USD)
----.---­
37800
22680
52920
·--------··1 ­
75600
-~.-.-
3~.~~C1-=
- -
-_._ ....._._-_.j_._.. --- .
_..
5.4
~l
• __ .
--i-r-·-.--­---­
_.?
324____
---1- ­ -.. ­ ---­ .
540
9
7980
190 L ..
79_. 8
7560
210 ...­
7_5.. 6
2060
103 __+ __ _.20.6
------­
--+- -_.
8000
80
4
1100
11
11
.. - .- - ---------­
26700
-1-.
267
19000
0.091
..
_.
5.4
-
-·-·--------1-­
___
PPRt-icides
Total Agrochem.
~=r~-----_·-
. - - - - ­ --~-__I.-~.... -~.-.-- -I
__.M~chinery~&M
+_+__------+--1 ... -­ 1-1---.---­
Machinery Dep.
18
-_. ~ FueX_~-Lu-b=_~-=:~=!-~_i
t eI"
_1-_....3 70
Total Machinery
..- .r--·-------i-l------·--·....j - 1 - - - - .
10551
+--12855· -=~~=·
111
i
I
I
I
23900
53281
114
25
207
5
15
127
,
3
I
1750
29
18
42775
701
-17775
-291
-1,111
-18
i,
I
I
\-----_ ....
3.33
.­
__
_·_·_.!.~~~~I
1500
12654
333
II
I
..
-.
0
I
'r
--­
-
-
0
lU~P's~rn.
Total Costs
. :~?Tlt~---------'-'--0.3
53
I
I
I
I
I
1500
12654
333
1750
72705
..
10300
400
1~001_
2100
10700
.. - - - - ­
_ _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ •• _ .
o
... - -1­
per day
------=-1--j----I
84
..----­
21
.._----. .­
107
-_.­
111
-_.-­
239
-
JOq
J
I
17
I
- ... --­
- .....
514011
6660
-1-+-­
16
. .... r· -
Insurance
Labor
Overhead/Admin.
Credit Costs
Other
...
.
i!S0~L-
~.
I~~ig~t·i~;;- Water I 1000m3
-+-~---
·-­ +--f----- .-----+-+----.-.-.----1--1-------. ~ .. -I--. -.-----­
-·1--­
___
•
I
+
------_._._
"
.. --­
30
.. --.- -1--­
____
I
...
-4-
333
._-­
•
__.
+
---+----------_._----+
Units
. __. .
----
-
-
-
--
~
-
__qty_
(70% 'agreed price' ton
------·--1 -- -- --
- - - - - - -1 -
-
Cost
Fin.
Total
(sam)
(sam)
~:;1 -I ~~~6~
- ­
-- --­
1_
____--+_L_y~ 61
-<----------­
Total Revenue
.--,---.---.
--' -J ton
--­
Main. -(30%---state---- ord
_1
-- --­
L _
_I.
t_
FARM BUDGET: COTTON
----t-+-----------j
- ----------1 --.--­
----------------4--+-------
1__ 1
------- -------- --~--- --
. --------------+---1------1--1------
- - . - - - <- - -
-+-+
L_.1
Fin.
Total
(USD)
184
630
11250
38400
49650
Total
Econ
Unit
Cost
(sam)
_Xf_R 100
S14l .-­
Econ
Cost
Econ
Total
(USD)
(USD)
Econ
Total
(sam)
--
37800
37800
1,096
34020
75600
109620
5.4
540
9
79.8
75.6
_...-._-­
20.6
80--11
267
7980
-7560
--_._-----­
2060
-_._--_ .. ­
8000
---_.
1100
- ----_. -­
26700
--- .. _--- .
340
756
378
378
~=[~I_c:?sts
Seed
+­
__ l-e~~t:.!-Li-ZeE..-------si1tra
----1 ..---.
__.._ ._-_.. _-_.-
I­
ton
._----­
~
--_.~_.-.
-_..
ton
--- Amophos
-- ------------- ._-- ------+­
Kali/Potassium
---+---
ton
--------------- .--- -
--­
324
5.4
60
kg
_.
... --.--
0.42
0.36
0.2
•
6720
••
2822
• __•
-------l-- _ _ ...... _
10500
------6283
-_.----- -250
500
.. _- _
24253
-
M~nure
__ _____~on
1_~-~
liter
Pesticides
. _.-.----_._--­
Total Agrochem.
-.-- - .--------l-.j-------­
.'-
-
-
-
- --
1055 _._-_._---- 5140
-------- 6660
------+~----12855
--<----------------------j -j--- -----­
Irrigation Water
000m3
-1--1--
- I
370
18
-__ r ------- ------­
-
I
--.
per day
Labor
loverhead/Admin.
-- .
_.
­
01
16
1
-
III
lJ41:
1
I
,
:
:I
I
,
.
!
Net Trame
Re1:r rn to Water:
I
1
53 [
3.33
2100
10700
-_ ...­
11100
_. -­
23900
--
30
333
5328
25
15
1500
12654
333
207
13
12654
5
3
333
000m3
i
42775,
,,
1
----.-l1
29
18
1750i
701
f>J4
77705 II.
113
483
36915
I
I
I'
6875
33:
7
430
I
.
111
239
0.3
___._.__ L_
1
1
1
1
----­
. _.
1500
1750
i
I
r
­
84
109
211
-
1
I
I
. .. . .
21
107
I
Other
Total Costs
-
-_----&­
17
01
0
~
19000
21000
10300
400
1100
._- - ._--
I
Ilumpsum
Credit Costs
-------
-----. -­
Insurance
1
u
­
DeJ2..-____ +---­
liter
~--~
3780
--- ------I--~---1257
._--­
5000
._-_ ... _.. _. --_._._­
500
_--,--._-.-- -­
13359
------.-- ._.. r---I----­
Fuel & Lub
Total Machinery
-~~-~LI--
46 I- _
210
62
-- ------=-t--\ ----_. -_. __.----­
103
21
-------j---"--­
4
82
11
8
219
__
... _
-_.-
=~::-Machinery
_:~]-==-==--=O&M
~~~!:J_~~e_9'.
0.09
5
- -I - . ­
2,307
-.
+- ---++----- --++-
I
I---l------J.-
I
Initial
Scenario
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _._- ­
Liberalized
prices
--- -"---- .__.. _._-- ···----'·--r--- .-... -- ._­
---1
1
FARM BUDGET:
COTTON
i
-r-----·------­
_---I--_.~
Khorezm
-I ­
Fin.
___
_
1--------1
I __~
Un its
qty
--~-----'-- --------
----- _. --------1----J--------­
Total Revenue
--1--------- --- --------------
---~----
j~o~ijj _1'(<:>~~~\
o
___ M~iJ'l l~~_.!3.~a!'=_ ordeF°J')
(100~ 'agreed price ton
X/R 61
--f-I- ----------Fin.
12500
19200
2.9
~~f~~l-----:~=~-~-:~~~-===r~::~=~=:-:-.
(USD)
55680
55680
- ------ ---
'
_ _ 0 _ _- -
_
----.--
•
913
913
---- ---­
•
--_._---~
-
-~
•...
~
Cost
- (~oml. __
(sam)
(USD)
Unit
_ ..
- - - - - ~-Ij-----:-~--~-~I
-~-
Econ
Total
Econ
Cost
(USD)
Econ
X/R 100
Econ
Total
.-._--.­
--­
i:~*lib~:i~1 +.~::6b
378
378
---""- _ _ •
--0
Costs
---T----­
Seed
Fertilizer
"_".
_.
~
~iltra
-----------------------
----
____
______ ._1
'
k<L
_
.
=JMa~ur_~__ -~~=
ton
ton
I-
Pesticides
~ __.
ton
liter
=~~
0.42
0.36
0.2
20
-
__ ....
__ I
1
'3'r<:>!ICll.3 ...9 roc he:.lTl,,:__~
I
. __
6720
10500
6283
250
500
24253
-- ------------------- -'~k--------- - ­
Machinery O&M
--------------------- - - !1!-~_~iner}'_ E.~J'..:__
_
__
F.\l~~__ ~L.~!?___
_
370
18
Total Machinery
Irrigation Water
-r
1000m3
16
1
!
o
2822
3780
500
13359
8
11
17
--'._ .. _-84
- ---_.. -------­
109
.. ­
211
1055
----- --5140
- - - .6660
._--.-----_.
12855
---+-~-
4
-I
-.---------"-_.
0.3
"
per day
lumpsum
111 '
i
114
3.33
0
0
25
i
79.8
75.6
.. _ - 20.6
--80
-11
----267
-
~_
-­
_. --
2100
10700
11100
23900
21
._-­
107
-- 111
239
_ .. -
__._ .·1-
20:1
333
1750
I
I
29
Net Income
12905
J -,
5328
1500
15
12654
333 i
3,
!
,
18i
i
I
I
701
727:
212
369
I
I
!
1750
72705 !
I
­
-.
I
..
~_._
_I_~
__
_ __ . _ _ _ _ _ J. __
!
53
1
Return to Water:
9
7980_.- .. - . __.19000
-­
7560
21000
---_ .. _ - - - .
_._.- -_ ... _.--­
2060
10300
. __ ._- .. _--- _. . ._- ..... -_.-._--­
8000
400
.__ .
--_._--­
1100
1100
... .._._---- .
26700
-_.- -----
127
12654
42775'
1
190
210
103
219
Total Costs
--I
46
62
21
82
___________1_
1500
Insurance
I
r-
5401
30
,I
1-­
Labor
overhead/Admin.
Credit Costs
Other
5.411
0.09
5
.
----~--
_
___U_t:.~:-
r -----
324
. • •J _
-- ton
---------------
Amophos
Kali/Potassium
5.4
60
000m3
I
I
1
I
\
,
36915
333
--I-- - .--n--­
Scenario B:
Improved Tech.:
FARM BUDGET: COTTON
I
I
­
. +-t-·-.~J. - - -. - =j-
--t--1-.--.---------jj
--------
1---- ­
----.---
Un~ ts
q y
-'-'--' ---
------ .
Total Revenue
_.
X/R 61
Fin.
--f- ---­
.
C--as t
E;;~
.
(sam)
(sam)
_
(\jSD)
~.·1--------1· 1------+-+-------1
10000
12500
Main (30% state ord t o n - . - t
0.8 1
34560
19200
70:!.._'
ton .__. __ .
1. 8
I3ili
(
._____
.. Econ ._.
ag:r:~~~_!?ri~_~
r­
I
1641
'!'. <?!.~.!- -.. -+-.c;o-~!- t­
~_<:.<?~._
.....
.. . ··.··_
- - - .
(USD)
(sam)
.
._.
0
__
••
_.
1J_~~t:._
(sam)
,
.'0"
.______
•
302
378
~~_._~2.~".
680
983
730
44560
Total
.
(USD)
Econ---+-­
X/R 100_
T~tal- --·--T~t~i-c--··--c~;t-- -­ -T.~ta.-l
Fin.
--I-­
30% yield _~~<::_':__----1----j
KarakalPakstan------===[~
1 t----t-t
1 I
1
. -------1---­
-+-1·--·--·--+-+--·-·---1
. . --. -----:-I-!--------.
32
4-l-J
3600
36.0
._~--- 0.6 _
. ­ .. --.-- ·-1·---·--··----1
.~.~?~
. ­ --,---, -.-.----- -1--'-/--'---" --0-- ..• _ ~
fI
I
----11--+-1-1-1--------+-1--------1 .. ---11---I
I
I
I
1 nc;c;
~2
---- -----j.. -..j--.-----J.....j-.-~ - - -1-+
84
1 1
c; 111n
1 1
___ .I._~
1
1
-­
"=-+-1.
II
I
IMachinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
_-lFuel & Lub
liteJ:"
._._.]'o~ Machinery
-!~l~ti; w~t~_~
DOOm],
~_7011
~1_
6_6..?~
1 11.­ --.. -Il-l~-~·~tr-
16
-
-
109
211
-----tl----. --.- ­
.ofl- O~, -=i~-+
-·'~~:~~.~~<ilA~~.i~~_·_-~.t~l~:_:y~~~
Credit Costs
--------1-~-_.
111
11411_ .. _1.2 654
333
•
•
•
~_07-1-_+
111
----239
3.33
1750
...._
..--.-.------=t---.
3QL
11100
23900
I
53
5328
15
1500
.. ------J---­
3_3&=
127
12654
5
3
333
29
18
1750
207
-1-
•
----.
-_._-------1--0
10700
-_._-­
1·-------­
I
25
1500
Insurance
Other
~_.~"':'] .
1
2100
21
-~-
­
i;
i
42775
Total Costs
=--=I--T­
•
'"l'~~,.
701
758'
75765'I
I
---1-
I
__ .
Net Income
=~~~~;!~~n- to
- ---I- __ •
I
----1~----·
-1­
water:
1785
29
225
.225151
112
2
17
1,407;
I
. - .__._-1­
000m3
-------...--­
_
::':. t~~rl ~.
",t:-r.,I!.
,,~n}'j
~:;' LF,,~,
~ ~' ~'
;
, ,',: t (1~e-::J
•14'
r,,"
I
I
I 1
I
',;~T :!: !:!
ij~r :~
.
,
units
'I ,~:, ~
';i
,::t:j
: ' ,:i\
!:'I-",;!!""tt,
\;: 1~Jn\·.·
I
I Ikg
!
l:J
,;'
---4-4
5 0 0 b 500
24253
13359
I
,"\;i ~
r,', iLJ
I:! ~jlf~
:: ;i~i
1
1: ~:t~l :
I' ','ii
I~.
I
-~=]-------=-~::::=~--~-~--+-------+Insurance
_._
_;~
~,~ ;i~r
..
;):.
:;'i:­
:"d '''~I
: j'. !~li "r
":r~l~ l;liF,'
~J); .
--------·--l-----,,-~
------i-- per~,:,:¥.
_~~
__' ~~:~::a~~~::~~~-"-
- -----------------
_
~lJmEsu~
!fl!~~~rr;f
-I--~r~=
~i~, ~'t~(
H
~';It
:t J
~;'1 .~tf; I,
'!
':
i .'
, ild~F;:
__
Net Income
_-.___ __~--+------~--
~I~trrn t-~ --w~ter:
-~"1'?Y.~~'~'~'
I
~
(som)
,-----
---,---,---,----+---------
-~------
5
16
.
~L
I
o
,..
21
107
111
239
0.3
10700
11100
23900
o
3.33
53
5328
-- - ~
15
1500
------~
1500
i-i~lJ_ 126~~
111..Ii
I
-
---
..
- - 30
-
333
-- --,--.---~-- .. ------
I
.
25
207
127!
5
3'
I
-"
-
_._-_ - - ....
333
12654
333
---
-
-, . . _'-
1750
29
42775
701
18
1750
758
75765
667
66741
45
4,171
~--_.
i-t
-- - -------- ----l--
000m3
46
62
21
82
8
219
.-
----"---
I~Total
~~==~---=~-_._-----++-_
. _--~
Costs
;~l
)__
t ~;: ut~i:~~I:j-~ffii:H~·~-~~ :~~
17
1055
84
5140
109
6660
- - I-- f - - - - - - 211
12855
18
Other
1'1 :'!ifi ': ·,;
:\
!
. --'"
!:'~~?-~----
;< ::'i! .
:i;-
---~----
__ J~SD )_-!-_L_~.som
(USD)
-,------
I I
22Q
=-- --~l
--=:=-~-t---~-000m3
Irrigation water
,",'
I
_
Fue 1 & Lub
Total Machinery
I
I
:; ::',~
\
----,-+-
Machinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
2822
3780
1257
5000
~--
I
-------LJ\r:;,:
(USD) II
- - I--
,·[!lr
" '
j
1 I
67201
10500
6283
250
2UI
'II
H- ;~;~l t± ~::~
_24
~21
!"f};·,
th
X/R 61
184
11250
903
55104
- - - - - --- ---,.- - - - 1,088
66354
60
:f:tl:;;
I
Khorezm
-----r----'-
I I ----f-+------f---l-----
--1---,
+------ ---
, ji~ l~~'
I
(som)
19200
2.87
-~-----I---+-
Seed
Fertilizer
!';'!H'
1-- ,,',I,
F;:~
12500
-Q.:.~I--f-­ -
,_]J70~ree~pric~'lton
~~}.
,
~----+
Total Revenue
Main (30% state ordlton
.l:~.
:~
I I
I
j!_~j?ro~_ed_!~~_?~~_~~l~_~':~
--
:l~~" ~: '~ t
i~,ii,tH
'
,n' "~('("
~"r, ~':rr~
tj
H FARM BUD~E~: COTTONI-i
I I
,',',
Scenar io 8:
23579
387
24
,-
,
-._-
i
I
I
I
j
..
---.- ------
8J----. 1J lL _
~
I
I
------t---+ - - - - ­
-----J---­
+
I--.....L..-.L----­
I I
I
_++
Total Revenue
--~----_._--
l t --UI
-:::l---.
-f----.-------_.--­­
..._~------+
Main (30% state ord ton
~ 'agreed p;ice' ton
0.61
- -
-I --­
______--.J_
_
_,__ c=__
I r
__ .__
.
r~gation
r--­ -­
I I
1neEL.
- ----­
000m3
Water
.-­ -
F~n.
1j
Econ
Econ
Cost
___
_
7500 ­~ 1_
17500
-­
____ ._
123_
- -­
601 I
0.42
0.36
-­
0.2
_...3.Q
1
-+
per day
lumpsum
I-~----
Unit
Econ
378
_ - - - -4
10-­
- - ­ --+-_._.. _ .. _---­
III
---+-­
37800
22680
52920
75600
227
529
756
37·S<?0 l - ­
.. ------+--­
-------l----­
5.4
324
6720
10500
6283
250
500
24253
2822
--­
3780
1257
-­
5000
----_ ..
500
---­
13359
540
5.4 1---1------------1
0.09
5
._----
-­
-_._--­
. __ .
--- ­
--­ ------­
--­ -_._-_.
9
__ .
-­ -----__l_____
19000
7980
79.8
190
_. - --_._-­
..-_. --_. ------­ I-- 1 - - - - - ­ ---­ .._.
7560
21000
75.6
210
- -----1--­
--­ -­
10300
20.6 - f - - - - - -2060
103
._.-- . . . _ - - ­
­ --­
400
8000
80
4
- -­ -­
---~- - - - - ­ -­ - - - - ­ 1--­ ------­
1100
1100
11
11
-----­
267
?6 7()()L __1.._ -------l----­
46
_.-­ ----­
62
-­
21
--­
82
._-­
8
219
_u
---~--_
-
-
-­
~~~;t-t-----~: 1-~---u--l--1--- l~N·-t- ----i-~j~~-,­
-­
11100_.
111
0.3
18 H··-. .~---­
I ~~~~t-I-----~~~
-­ -1-+----­ --- ..­
.
16
._--~--
__l~;~-Ljj~_-_I;~:J _~_ LL(C~~:~\---, --
~--~5000 - ­ --_ -­-- -~f:l.~Lj-=-i78
1
__
E~_~~_=t_
_____-+-__ -L X/R 100_
'
200
3200
114
1500
12654
.--­ --­
--- - - - _ . - ­
--­
239
..... _-._-----­
23900
53
5328
15
1500
12654­
3.33
52
-
3331
_.
-----­
1
Insurance
Labor
Overhead/Admin.
_.. - . ­ ._.- ._-- _.
Credit Costs
Other
.
-------1 --­ -
12500
I
If----=-=--=--­ I
I
17 snn
-11--=
l~t~I 370l---+
_
I
--­ >-----­ ---- --
ton
ton
ton
ton
liter
_==u __ l ~~:::fp:~;~~~~_~n 1-.
~~---.---j-l.E~~-j.-+----1
F~n.
---_.-­ -­ -.---+._-----­
c:
+-­
- -
n.
Machinery O&M
._JTotal
~::~i:e~~b".e.p·
Mach'
Ikg
"""liT' COTTONI1
-t-t------1scenario
_~-~~--j--+--T-otal
Total
+ ~ s o ~ _ _ ~SELI___+-~~-~-
Unit!3__J.J_q~L
_-+-_---1
Seed
Fertilizer ._--­
Siltra
Amophos
Kali/potassium
Manure
Pesticides
Total Agrochem.
FARM
I +---------~---l
I I
~___
1
-----------._~---
---­ -----1--­
30
__ ._­
---~.
333
....
25
207
5
127
3
29
18
~-
333
-~--
0­
17501 - -­
-~[~--
I
Total Costs
•.
.. -::;,-
I
45975
I
754
-20975
I
-344
-1,3111
I
~~~·1~- I.--~
I~~;r;to
1750
I
I
._-­
Water:
.
I
000m3
-211
I
I
1
727
72705
29
2895
51
1
181
1
I 1
---
~-I
..
Scenario C:
I
I
I I
I
I
+
+--+FARM
BUD~E7~~TTOE-=-jJ=~.~==1~;:~~~ ~._~a_~~~_~~-~--- __-.-__~-l
__ .!L~~} __.__.
I - - - - l - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - I - I - ­ ----_.- -------+--.-----------I-~-----·----I-
--- --~- 1-------­
I-~-----·---------
I_-----.L-..L
-
-
Cost
qty
units
~. __ J~(Jm1.. __
~--I------------
Fin.
Total I 1
Fin.
Total
LI_ Jsom)
(USD)
_
Econ
Unit
Cost
(sam)
______ L__ l_~L~
Econ
Cost
(USD)
100
Econ
Total
(sam)
Econ
Total
(USD)
Total Revenue
!~~~~:e::-:~~r:;== ~. _ . O~W~~~I~.~ii~~E~-:i~~~:~ ..•.•.iiill:,
=-­ ::~i~!:m
Costs
Seed________ _
Fertilizer
tj~--]iltr~__
Amophos
I
~- ~
,Kali/Potassium
Manure
Pesticides
Total Agrochem.
FMaC~O&M
1= ~;;i~~:~;~:;:;y-=:.~r
~-
-_
..
_...
Irrigation Water
_~.?_4LJ
.. --------'
.
0.42 I--­
-0.36
0.2
---20
1
---
-_._-----~----
j==-~
_ __
..
1
181
I
-1--
-- j
f
2001
[
1
-----
-------
_
~
---
--
1111
LIJ.e_r _.9 a y
114'I
1
- --
I
lumpsum
~_. j
u
__
-_._--~----
__ -
Total Costs
---1--1
INet Income
-I .
~-
I---1Return
126541
333
25
207
5
531
3.331
1750
29
- -I
• ___
~-
___
~
_ _ _.• _.' ••• _ _ _•__
to Water:
000m3
__
•
, .. _--
.,
1 - _ ._-
... 0- _ _ _ _. __ •••
-
.-
I
j
I
I
.
15
127
3
I
I
36751. I~
---­
i
.!
45975 i
.­
__ ._
-0_"­
---_._.- - -
1TIJ-=~=~~-lr:------?1_
521 I
32001 I
I
_
_~.,L_"
i
-"
---
... --..... -
754\
i
60
I
I
-- -
-
-.--
-
.. _----­
4
I
-
--
333
53281
1
1500
12654
333
i
1750
72 7 1 Ii
72705
369
36915
._.
30
:
I
I
I
'-0
2301- r
I
I
I
.
I
!
18
I II
I
1
___
••
26
.._--­
2100
----_._-_.-.-
,m~-I~fm~-·~::o·~I····--1;t .~~~~~
1500 1
-
9
---~
T=_j~55'[I_ -
I
161
..
:~=--:-I
~_.~
540
19000
7980
79.8 - ---- --------...
21000
7560
75.6
------_._-­ ---- ---_ ... _ - - ­
2060 - ..- - -10300
20.6 - _.---­
---400
8000 - .
80
._---­
- - - -1100
1100
11
- - - - -- ----------26700
267
---------_.- ......- ...... _---­
46 -- ._--- - -190
-­
210
62
_.
-103 -21 - ... _-----­
------4
82
-_.------_.­ .- .__. _ - - - ­
11
8
--219
2822
3780
f------­
1257
-- - ------------5000
---_._------ --­
500
------._-­
13359
6720
10500
6283
250
500
24253
1------­
3701
I 1000m3
Insurance
Labor
Overhead/Admin.
._­
Credit Costs
Other
--~-~r-----
._-. --­
5.4
0.09
~1
-----
~
ton
ton
---ton
---ton
liter
I
--
----
---------- ---11=-- ---~--60
5.4
LJkg --1--1--.----- -------
37800
37800
2,307
I
I
III
I
I~-_-_-~-~I~~I-F-A-M-B-U-D~ft-:L~-:-c-~[~~~~/ill~-
II
I
I I
--
-+~
+--I------+-f~------__+_+_-----~--+----
I I Unit~ _~_~t_.:T~~_I :
l--------j _------j _~__
I +-------1­
Total Revenue
Main (0% state orde ton
(­
Fin.
Total
Cost
+~-l--------+-+--y~~~g--tj_~_~~co_~
Unit
Econ
l
__lt~20_~~~_'!-9reed pri~e
=r~~~ ~
~
_._-_._-~-----
~
t~~
I±__;;;~~t~t ~40~
_~_
f---
_._ . - f - - - - - -
,.
liter-
000m3
_
-+_+
248
18
---- - - - - - - - - f-- - - - - - - - - - ,.- --.
___ -------- . -
I rr ~ga!-~on~_~~t~__
o
--~756o~I-I----·-- ~~:~~
1. __
756
756
._ .... __ - - - - - 1 . _
75600
~~_--r ~-_l~:_=__
_
i
E~t:" d~¥l
1umpsum[
I
11
74
I
_
Net Income
f-- -
=----:1 ~ -.~~---
Return to W
..
000m3
I
.- -------I--­
--------+--- ­
--='-.:':j--l.----
360
3.6
0.09
9
--.-=~-i--l----------=--=-=-~---I--------":::--:::"="'="'I-i----19000
21000
--- 1_?t
8_4
73
-------+--.
--­
175
0.3
36\
3.33
:~tt-:1i;~·J.- .~.~:I._-
e-- - - - - -_ ..
37
36631
25
138
15
I
84'
5
3'
1500
8436
333
200
2200
114
1500
8436
-333
. _.
1750
29
18
33897
556
5391I
1
!
--­
I
j,
_-_.~-_._---_.
Total Costs
:., .
1055
5_1-=4-=0-+_-+
4464
10659
---.---. --- - - .------- ---.__. ---
._~----
---~
---
----_ .. _----­
O&M
Machinery Dep.
Fuel & Lub
Total Machinery
__l_~__
-------~---
(s()~L_~ _
10300
400
- -----f--­
1100
tMa~h~nery
Insurance
Labor
Overhead/Admin.
--"--- -------­
Credit
Costs
..
Other
---~~: --]---~-------~
··--1-----
630
38400
~ _
_--1_ ___
378
378
_~OLJ--~~--1-=:==-2~§:tt====~4~~_
PF'!;t_ icides
Total Agrochem.
~~:
o
-+---+- -- 630
!":i1tra
I
Cost
-
-- ---- ------. --+-----~. ~-+-
rlkg -- ---.
_
Econ
- ------1-­
f-------t
I--+---_
cos~e-~d----
1 1
~~::~---t-l- ~~~:~
_ _L_-'--_
Total
~
Scenario D: Karaka1pakstan
I
~~~_~L
4091
L __
I
74
7
I
!
i
I
217
II
23
1750
I
II
53918
I
21682
I
1,971
I
333
-1----­
Uni~!3_~_j---9!¥--Lt- co~t:
-+----I
-1--1­
Fin.
Total
_~~
Total Revenue
Main (0% state orde ton
-- - - - - - ­
1- _.J_s_omLJ __ J __(som)
---~--- ---­
--~------
Fertilizer
1----+_ I Siltra
Amophos
I
-
~li/Potassium
Manure
Pesticides
Total
Agrochem.
......­
I
I
u_
Machinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
______
ton
ton -~-I=
liter
- ­ -­ -
1882
un
10500
6283
817
250
3250
500
24253
-13
31
--I-­
0.67
---~
+-1
2520
41
----­ - - - - - - - - ­
103
335
5-
11
-------­
8803.39
144
--f--­
37800
1,096
109620
1--­
-­
-­
210
-
•• _. _ _ ._•••
~n~
_n
- - - - - - - ­
-­
5040
---­
---­
1339
52
~: __~200
7
737
-­
176
----­
17636
-----­
9
-0 • _ _
- - - - - - - - - ­
50.4
13.4
360
.---------+__,_j--­
5320
----­
1-------53 _~ =­__=~:~~_~= =~:=:--
1-+----­
tt= ---­
- ----­
~
53.2
---­
13
-
37800
-----1­
3.6
190
- - - - - - - ­
0.13
o
109620
_. __ ._ .... ._.--­
1,096
0.09
-
0.24
- ..- - - - - ­
-­
19000
- - - - - - - - -
-
----­
21000
10300
_~:_:-_~
-
400
1100
--------­
.. -. - - - . - - - . - ­
------t--~------­ --+--1--- -------+--+---------~
-1---­ -------­
1055
--­
liter
Fuel & Lub
6720
---­
1-+--_---1__1
I
I
0.28
Cost
ts.?_IllL _
----­
~ ;::;-11---------+-+----­
-­ -~-I---------~~
---+-+---------­ 4
1-----_
216
------1­
~-
ton
ton
Unit
Total
J
__ j~~Il1.>-_J
o
-I ---­
I
Econ
-_.~---~-------
::~~!tt----::~1~1 +-;~~
Total
C~~:ed ~--~- Ft-~-
JJ_~__(USD )_0 __
Econ
Total
(USD)
Econ
Cost
(USD)
-----­ .---1------­ -------­
1-------2~~1--+ ~~~~~
_t~100-~-'a9E~~_d priI~ ~onn_
Total
0.3
18
248
- ­ ---+-­
200
11
.insurance
114
74
Labor
37
36631
1500
15
1500
8436
84
8436
333
3
333
<:>veJ:'~~acl/~dmin.
--_.-------- .­
0­
-1
_
1
I
Total Costs
n
Ner_-!..rcome
!
33897
----~-----I--I-
-­
i
I
..
.
!
1750
1
539
53918
557
55702
54
5,397
1
_
---IR~t-~~n t-;;--~i~~~-:---- 000[1;-3 - I j
. -'."l'··, ..•
181
1750
Other
=:1--] __
I
1
Credit Costs
--
3.331
2200
---------1--+--­
-­
-
-. ---j-­
3 1783
--_., --
2~
180
.....
.
- _..
-
I
333
I=f]
31-'=t~---1 -~~8tial"~~",,iO':::~k:'i~k;t~~C
C----------=-r-c---J-- FAR~~~!_=--__=r£
~~~E.~~j__
r
-- --- -----
_________1-1
I~--"--·­
I
Un it s -l__
+-+--
_L
J __ 3.t -L
+---j
Total Revenue
~---_--------------1---I------_-----
~~Iaddy-Ric::~______
to~_
~~-----=~~=__-- -~ ----------
-- --
---
Cost-
----
--
-- ~_:~
::
--
::::~:~::::hem.
I
1~20_~ __ ~::~66
_ __:
m
20_~~ 4~,:~~0
__
6720
923_
5,226
1------5, 79§.
11,945
18
per day
-. - 1 - ----- - -­
1141
68
1 u_IllPSlJm
Credit Costs
-------------­
Other
I --- ------
I
I
--~
_.~
I
32
190
125
12,540
19000
•.
l~ =~_~!~:-: -_===2=U~ ~=::::l~:~FI
\R~turn
I-
to Water
I
I
j
I
I
2, 7 q~--~_---­
14875
14,700
------­
30
9,660
27,060
1-------- --- --- . ­
26. 25
??
148.75 ~----------­
147
o. 3 ~_1~2
271
15
86
95
196
,---------
~-=::i3i-'>l~J=J=:::-". 65:.LI __ 333,
=::: _:
~ - -
-
_ _...
..
_-_.~­
26
127
-- --­
10
,,---._--­
..
-_.. -­
._-_._--­
-
---
".--
-
1,585
16
78
6
---
"
1. 75.
--_.- .. __ ..
5.12
--~
- 7,
~i~11
175
512
_._-­
....
..
_--_.­
49,790
816
- _.­
4,210
69
120
2
9,500
95
156
-­
--
-
---
-
-
---
-- - --
_.
948
I
11
I
7,040
73
-~
Net Income
*
- --_. -­
1,585
7,752
628
9,500
Total Costs
1
--
._­
_
70
--~:~- -- --~-:-~~ -~~~_ :~:~ -~~:~-~--~~ ~-- ~~~---~~ __ ~_~_--_;~ -~- -_-_---_--~~~l_~~~ ~-:-_~---_-~~-~~~I=
!_l1s~r~nc:::_e
J
..
_
l~~:r ---'i- ~~~ ,::H~ -2~~
O':~:-head/Admin
97,500
97,500
- - _ _---­
0.32
--:-:-=-~:~l~.----- __
4,435
.
1---
_
-----1-----
=-nl~3Y:gat~i~w~~-;,__""O~=~,-=~ ~ ~=:;::=~=i
Labor
-~~~tl---~H~-~---~~~
=====:::-:- -~----~-~:--- ---~-~~j--f--------­
~~_= ~
1=_-+M__a_c_h_i_n_e..-'--r:..y'--O_&_M
l---+1-----__
Machinery Dep.
_ _ --------------I----f------~---- - - 1 - - 1--Fu_e_l_ & LUb___
liter
~?3__ _
Total Machinery
___ j
-
_
Fertilizer
--------f-+------+--l----- Siltra
ton
0.66
,------I- --;:~~~;::a:~-m--
(sc:>~)
- ~----- ----- ----------,-­
---------- -- ---------- - - ---- - - - ­
J __
==~~~j~_=~=~:_~=~==== =_k~_= ~__ __~_2~
-----1-
Total
+_,-.1~omLLLj_El?mLI_LJ~S~J_LJ_.l':J_~~LJ_LJ':Js_[»J_LCEl~L
_
~os_t~~_
Econ Unit
Cost
Econ
Total
-----_._._.
-----I----~­
I
_.X.lI3:. __!02
--- ----------l-­
27
l
4.11
I
j
9:::::,
I
446
I
I
I
I
+
FARM BUDGET:
1----1-----+-·· -. -- ..
._
n.···
-f---4.------.---1--f-~~~t s _l_!-9!:x- .j.·--l~~~?~-t--·
Total Revenue
~a-i~~~=~_~J-l-'t';~
Total
Total
j. ···1- ..---­
.< ~()~t .
. _.. +-.
_.-1 -
-~.
--.----.
=r=-+-----.--.--!
(som)
(USD)
113,750
113,750
1,138
----­
1,138
------_.
--"-- ----_._-"
--------·--I~·--~-.~
_kSL_.J .. _J_.._3_?()~.
1-3i~~~i~i:~r'~~-=~ u_______
--~.~
0.66
_._- ---------
---_.,~----
__ tc~n
Kali/Pota~ium __ !()~
Manure
.
to~_.__
Pesticides ___ .
liter .
Total Agrochem.
Amopho.s
i
-
~--.L.--.--._..
__ .. _.'
, ......
. , __
,
4,435
- - - - - - - - - - --
-
~.L08~_
~,.Q1-.!.
::-1 ~ :;:: ::::
01
1
114.1--1 ...
68
I
0
1,585
2,?5_~
628
49,79010
Total Costs
I
--------r
Net Income
..
.
.
1.s_._ _~25
75
--
~E)_~~.~.
:::l~i~::::":~
.......... _-
.------­
-=-~-~=
..
27[3--- 2 ' 7gQ
!~?. _ _lj-,_?C>.0
_..
01
3.33
1171
26;
I
127
10
1. 75
16
78
6
156
5.1:2
1
I
I
I
951
9481
816
217
190
1
I
I
--r
I
I
..
I
.
i
377
6
9
1
I
0­
--~"._"-.---
__..
148
30.__
I
333
" 585
7,752
628 1
,
175
512
9,5001
I
94, 766 1
27,527
I
i
1,119
I
._
1__
7_5
r­
1'-li~6-55
I
i
•
- .::::.~l-:j~::~ii 11
I
13,210
19000
21000
10300
400
1200
_:3.~~?6
E.C>
-----.­
---~~-[
12,540
----_._._.,-,­
!()~_. __ . _.J~
._~!
_
..•
~!
.
~_.
.
§g.
?'--C>~()
11 ._._-.-._.---.-_.12
1,200
"---.---' 12 -- ·---··-·---·_·1-··-­
229
295
29,546
91 3 .
5~26
32
__.__ §,~.!~.,
-.--
.... _.~_~
3,750
700
13,980
9,5uO
=]~ ]~----_.
_
. -­
7,040
125
- -?~
~._--
••
--- -
-]R~turn to Waterl
32500
_
. .-.-l-­
--
.---- - ..­ _on. -.--------..--.
73
190 _ _.
=-==.-- ~~=---':"--=.~~ ==~~-- =-~-
.._.
.__ .
__'8
35
iper d~¥
[lumpsum,
()~~r:_~eiic! / Adllli n
Credit
Costs
-_._-- - ------­
Other
.
2
=3 2:
.
._..
-'
nO·
'=~=~19a~i~~-.~a~erl 000m3
!_~~l..I~~nce
I i
Labor
6720
_._ _ _-
~.~==~~-
=-
1 i_t:r
.-..
9950
...2..~~_ .. _.?283 _ _
__1~ _
250
1
700 .
.
Machinery O & M _ _ _
__.__
_
MachinerY...E..e~~_.
.-
---
-\-+ ...- - -.. --I-- .. ~-.-~--
nO - -------.­
0.31
I I----c===- --~=~
~~ ~ M~~~ ne~L
__..
n
ton
.. _-~. ---
-------~~._-
/
t-
-,
70
0.32
72
4,400
20
-····_-----j---I-------~·_-
siltra
Econ Unit
Cost
(som)
.-------~ ---·---~-1-·-----·~--1
Costs
Seed
I
.~l~_}g?
Econ
__'!'?t~.~ ..... t .~ '!'()!:~~.
(USD)
~;~~~_~L+-_~~ij~H'-1-- ----- ~~ ~
18000
3.5
.J us)))
_CS?~.t.~
--·1
~
n
~~ia~1 I--·l -~~:~-_.
-----..- -- --. ------1--- -.. -.-.----­
Econ
'.
.FARM BUDGET:
RICE
- r - ......- - - - -------y­
_
_ _.,
_.+
---+--4---,-~
-
--~.--...- . - -
1---
---···-----+··-1·------·······1··-1
.•. _ .• - -------1.~---.-
-- . .-
-+- I--~·-·--·+
Total Revenue
~i11n~~~~----~_.~~n=
--.--. -. . . _. - . . ----.
3
Costs
Seed
--
~_~[ - ~
_ . . l
-------1--.
kg
-1--- e·····
-~
-----­
.... -
.-·~I-----~-l·~l···-----
. _.
32500
.-.. 1--.1--- .. - ... - ..•..
43
9,460
95
0.43
94
5,720
26
220
_
s()m).
+-+~-----+--+~ -}~t~ll~[-~--· ;lnJ~~~~!i~~lEJ~Jlti;;
~=-~---------
-
Total
---_.... _-­
-<
_
Econ
Unit
-. ------ ----".­
Cost
(som)
---_.--. -_. --_._-­
Total
(USD)
. f~o?~)--l +.Tf;~:\
Units
-.. ---1
X/R 100
. . Econ
_..-. --.. ,.. ··t--··--­
Econ
+---.....-1-+-...-- ·--··I--l··--··­
..---+-+---- +-+----.-.f­ Y~_.§.!+_L~~()ETotal
J._C.<J:'lt~l.
.qt;Y_
JUSD)
.. JY_S~'-
·1--
.----J.
..+-._ .. -.
--.---._- ------..
Fertilizer
..
._...
. _ _._._.
.
....
.. __ .
...
.
. ._._. _ ._.
._. __._ ...._ ... _..
.-.--- . . . ·1·
Siltra
ton
0.66
6720
4,435
73
190
125
12,540
19000
1--4 --.f
-- ---- - - - - - I - - f - - - - - - - - - . - - - - .-- - - - . - -..- - . -_. - - - - - - - ..- - - - - . - - - . _ -..
Amophos
t()~_.
0.31
9950
3,085
51
__ ~10
.__ ~~
~2.!<:>_~!~~<:> _
Kali/potasium
. _~C>I'1._ _ _.~: 32
6283
2,011
33 _._.__ ~~~ _..... ~.:3
:3.!._296 __ .. _}.O~g<:>
Manure
ton
15
250
3,750
61
60 - ----.. -.--.6,000 - --.-.--- 400
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1--._-. · - - - - - 1 - -- ----e-. - - - - -.. - - -..-.- ..- -- -4 -- .-_ .. ---.Pesticides
liter .. - . - - - - -1 . - - - -700
700
11
12
12
1,200
1200
- f - - - - - - I - - - . - - - - - -- .. ---.- ...- .
- ._.-- - - . - - - - -...- - -... --.. -.- _.- ---.
Total
Agrochem.
13,980
229
295
29,546
I
I
,
- -.. .-.----.-..
. . - -..------.-.
-..---.-.--.------.--.-.. - ..
I
I
I -+------1---1--I I
--l-~---_I_~---.-I-+----+-j--- --1-1--------+- ·I------~-·-I-~.-.-
4
18jj::~ ~: ~~: ~._ -ii' i~~~ilJ -:m +~ :n~+--·--_==-' I. _._ _Itt,,,,
--'-;~:~~b~::·~i!~JJ::'3::
:::::~ T~J,,-=~aChinerL_::
945
Irrigation
...... -:-" . . . Water
---
1··
I
I
Insurance
--- ._-- -_._-_ ..
Labor
Over~~acl/?\cl.min
Credit Costs
Other
--_._-_._~._-
---~--_._-----
j
,
pe~dayl
68
. t
1,585
7,752
628
114
lumpsum
_._ .'_ I
Total Costs
I I
I
Net Income
I
Return to Water
·;---r
T
I
I
i
I
I
I
---
-
oj
26
--- 127
10
I
--
3.33[
I
7~1
1.
I
5.121
I
11,655
333
78
6
1,585
7,752
628
175
512
117
l~L
9,500
156
95
9,500
51,110
838
972
97,186
19,090
313
296
42,868
545
14875
._-_.-.-.
30
196
~l--l.
o
35
000m3
_-----------­
.I
~
91#
Ii
11.78_1
1, 558 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
+-
I
I
I I
I
I I
FARM BUDGET:
I--+---I---------l-----t--- --+--1------+
I I
I
I.
LL
+_+
Khor~~~~_~
•
Scenar~o
-~~-~-----------L-~--------~ Imp.£?~E.:-?_~~~~ __ ~5J~.Y.~~;0-~~nc~~~~~-=-C
---- --+---
-.-- -. ------- ---------,--- ---1------ -----
----1---------+--- ------ - .--.- -- ---+ -+------------1­
.t
_=_==_ -=~~_~_~
Total Revenue
__
Tota1~_
Fertilizer
----~iltr~- _-=~=~:-t~~- -Amophos
Kali/potasium
1-­
I
I:::~~:ides
~_~grochem'f--
ton
ton
0.311-0.32
l~~:r
1~
1--_
73
190
1_??
9950
3,085
2,011 _
51
210
1!J3
.....§.~+
62~1
000m3
-- ----- .-
-- ... ------ ..
I
0
0
114
1,585
7,752
628
_._-~---
---
~
6r-I---- 3. 3j-'--'--­
._-­
1
--
21000
---------­
-~-~~~~~~-=~-~ -l~~~r=
---_...-
10300
--­
29,546
2,700
14,700
_..
9,660
27,060
_-----_.~
117
11,655
1. 75
16
78
5.12
6
1,585
7,752
628
---~~-----
43
~~-!..-~ ~Ql---l----} ~()()-()
- _6,510
._-_.
--
_?~.?J
--- -- --- - .-­
I
3,296
.2~
~_~ _--_-- --=_--__-_-1-~ ~~ _-=--=--=--~~~ ~~J
229
---~----
-
-+--
.. - - _ . .
.- -~. -
" - , - _••. _ - _ . , ­
14875
--------j
30
--­
333
175[
512
1
I
I
9,500
95
9,500
-I
I
-1--­
Total Costs
51,110 01
838
Net Income
29,890
I
490
--1
.-
l~:~~i-JiH-1~:~~-~~~~
_.---------
68
per cl~y
_1 umps lIm.
~~~
1.3,980
lRI
35
..
3,
3~
} 2~ O() •__
-,--
9,4601
95
4,435
_ .....
--- - J --- - --1- -- ---- - ----=-:-:~--j-
Insurance
.--.------_.
Labor
Overhead.fAdmin
Credit Costs
Other
--l------------ ------1 --
_
---
{so~)_
146,250
672-0
~~~ -
_
J:=:
Cost
~ ~_§ ~2~ () L_
1,463
1,463
----- ---- ----.-----l-------------
=_j~~;::::~~neJ~,~e~-= _3~2, +----~-~-tIrrigation Water
L_J.lJ~P)_
,-­
__lECO~--l!..~-~.!,-
Total
(som)
---- ----1---1---------1-+- --------1---1----
-_+­ __- _----4-­
-----·0--:66--- ----
Machinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
__
325
----325
l:r---=-=-~' k~_ :=~220:= ~ ~ -=2 6 jl:-~~' 72°li~_:_9tl~o' 4
--
-~~;-~-- -:_~J
Econ
Total
Econ
Cost
1,328
1,328
81,000
81,000
18000
5
~o J_~~_-t~~=_==_~-_~~~ _~-~=_= ~~~~:
,
------------~--._.---------------
_9_t X _
_
~_~n
---------1
X/R 100
___________.__._ -r~~)_-.J-L~os~:) J_J_..JUS~L.I __J_Jl!~~L.J
=-:=-4. ~~
I I Units
-- ----..--.----- --- .- _._- -- --------f----+-------~
_--,
---I­
l-_
B:
j
---,--- -1 -
705
I,
972
97,186
491,
71,143
17]
2,366
I
--lR~t~r~ -to water
- ---­ --- -- ---1--­
I
--+-- -­ --- --1
8541
II
i
14f
1-·'
I
*
Et
J_______3Ef-~f1
_
_
_________ _
--1-----1----------­
I
I
!_ARM~!!~~'!-:_
_}
+_-I
_
+- ~------- -­
I
I_~_L
-+­
~
t -\-­
__ ~ ----- ------­
---.-
-- ---------------------­-­
EE___ L -- ------­ -J------J­
-_ ..._. -.
( somtJ
---­
...
-_.-----_._._---­
-
Eg________
Total
(sam)
1:.9
0=-­
Manure
.-... -
:::
325
325
_ _ _ •__ L_.
tu~ J) ) L
975
975
2201
I
20
----­ -­
-­
15
250
------------­ - - f - - - - - 1 1--_
700
- < --
-----­ -
.
125.~
65
-­
--------­
15L1
--_.
1-­
l~mpsum
Credit
Costs
--_.
.._.--­
Other
-
12,540
6,510
__ ..
3,296
I
1
I
114
Net Income
[­
Return to Water
r
-~-~-- --r--­
-----1-­
56,7901
-
II
I
-2,790 I I
-­ I
I
[
I
_.
I
1201 '
--~.-
-
-------­
_ ....
117
_---.. -
.
-­
­
-
5.12
156
-
2,700
•
~_I-
••
-_.----_._-­
-----'­
14875
30
__-----1.
11,655
- .­
333
1,585
7,752
628
175
512
.---.---_.
---~--
-
78- . __ .
6
0
95
-­
.L~_._
29,546
~Jj
._16
..
1. 75
~_.
. - -•._--1------- --.,-.._-._­
..
I
=~~T-- r-~-
-*­ -
681
--­
-
26
127
10
1,585
7,752
628
.. _.•.
-----i~-- ---- --i~-~~6
-~
- - 0 ..•
19000
21000
10300
-----·--1·-­
400
1200
---~----~.
______ 2~?1
26.2U
3.33
. ---­
list"
9,5001
Total Costs
-_.
32
7,040
-._-"-----------_. --_.­
33
_
92frJ
--~
------­
----­ .__ ._-..
. _. . .
.<?-"E!EI1~a?/Admin
--"--
--+------ ----- ------1­
3,750
61
4
-1--------­ ---­ - - - - - ­ -----­ ----------­
700
11
12
------­ -- - - - - - - - ­
-----1
__13 L?_~~
~_~2..
_
200
35
=~r-,:
I'~.£~_ax,_ .
- ..........----­
32500
97,500
97,500
=~~1;~::~~ ~.li=:.=·.3~~jj~-IEil=13!Fr'48~~~L·-~mJ ~j:m
Insurance
----------­
Labor
-
._----_.-~_.-
(sam)
_
+-----+-1------+--+---­ --­
j±==ij
---­::_
_
_
- - .---,---- ---------1
'!:.~-A3r9~~-m-.__
CC
-----------------­ - - - ------­
--­
000m3
Irrigation Water
'_­
__.
----------­
J_
70 -.----1-­
0.32
72
4,400
- - - - I - - ­ ----------­
Machinery O&M
L(.:'l_~ITlL
--­ --­ 1
_
~
F.con
Total
Econ
Total
····t ~!,~ --:i-:-~,:- HH - - - - .~. . =-1H­
--- ------- -
ton
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - --­
Pesticides
liter
i-=------------+-I-------I---­
__ .__#~_~o_~
54,000.885
- -l------- --+-+-----+­
Fertilizer
I-r------Ir.~;;;:ta·:i-u---,;~
I
_
__ (~~I:lJ 1-1 jY~J)J _. _
-_.~------_._-.
Kara~a1R;::J;s!~~----
parx._m
_ --~~-t:~I_~~a/t~~ -___ ~
Econ
Cost
'ljR 6~_
5~;i:;e;~~~ ---~ ~:l==-ti~='----l-~- - :- ~1~1-~§~Qt--1~4-,oo~I--l----~~~1
==t=_=- ----------_~_- __ ~ ~ --==lL:JJ . - II
Costs
_ S~e:d
sc~~~rio
----1---1-----------1
--r----t-- -=-===--I--tuni!~=t~---t-9-tX~~l--+~-U-tT0t:~!.
----j--I-------­
~==1i~-]l---_-l-l-_--_---c:
=tL 11_
9,500
•
931
I
-46
21#
I­
!
948
94,766
27
3,964
4.11
446
I
I
I
I
I
•
I-l------l--- - - - - I - I - - - - l - - L - -
--J _J!j\~_M
RICE
BUDGET:
i
j
: : ~=_.·-=j-hniill~ty~l-jf:;ffiI~;f{I~~~i~~!~-.
--1----+------­
CUSptJ __ L _(~~J:) t
---_._------+--.-----------­ -­
l
Tot~~eve~~e:uu-:::b t~;;-tt- 33
Tota1~
=c­ -­
Cos t s -
-­
.
18000U~...QQQ
63,000
-~-----.---
-f-­
,-
~~
H--f----- i~H:---
---I
32500
113,750
- - - _ .. _._-­
__ ._~~~, 750
--------l­--- - -----­
72
0.32
---- -------·---1---------------­
-~~et---~=~=I-C==I~--~~~-=Hn.-­
1,033
1,033 -+-----­
+--------j---­ -
--l-- -------~ 1- --+ .­ ----- ----­ -
-,-------- ­
~~~~==~~~_=l-J_~~__==-~-
Econ
Total
Total
---+- ------ ---­
(s<?m)
jUSJ:») _
Econ
Cost
201
220
I
4,400
32
7,040
70
..
o.~
----­
­
6720
15
1
------­
.
.---a.
-- ~: ~~ -~ ____;l:~
_1
~r
250
700
I
---1-­
Machinery Dep. I
Fuel & Lub
~
322
liter
~==~_~j~ M_a_~-~i_:er§gy~
_
_=-~~_____ ~~Er i9~1:!:on _W~~er
_. J._____
J
_
Insurance
-----_ ..... _--'.
Labor
--------­
Overhead/Admin
-1-­ ------. - .
.....
Credit
Costs
--1­ ----­
Other
_q9_9~~
.___ ~__
_
18
35
200
681
114
__ J2_~.9_~ __ .__
26.25
15
148.75
86
------­
0.3
95
-------=-=-+----+­
196
923
5,226
5,796
11,945
"-­
l~l!T1_p:,:,u_m
115
-_1,585
.._--- --.
26
127
10
7,752
--1---- -­
-62Sr .----­
t
.. __..__
.1 . .
-I
L~~I
-­
,
!
J
56,790101
r- -r-­
6,2101
Net Income
r­ -­
--- -t--t-------­
I
-­
3771
I
6
I
I
9,500
948
I 94,766
190 1
i
I
i
!
27,527
1
I
1,119
156
95
931
102
6
.
1,585
7,752
628;
16
78
,
Return to Water
--._.­­-J--1-­ _._.- -r--'
----­ _.­
11,655
117
_I
9,500 '
I
,--­:m+~~~~i~~ti-~4~k
3.33
7,000
I
Total Costs
_
9
----3ill=­
0
175
512
--6-­ _ _
*
i
II
--I
-
=rt
l=t-t=t
r-t-i­
I--~-------t--~
__=t1==-1t=~---1
----- ------------~~
~c:~naE.~o
FARM BUDGET:
- - . - f - - - - - - -----1----+-------1
RICE
i-L
~_L
c-~2._I<_~E~~~~JZ~_~~~_!:a~
~-
­
]=-
----~-.-----
--
00
----~---
.-:.•
Total Revenue
::!]>RiC~~~~t~J~~:I·
(U~Dl._L_L<sO~)
jYSP) _
~l!{~~_=L==~;~ij-:J~==-_~_~ ~L 1- - - -- : H' -­
18000
=3
X/R 100
Econ
Total
Econ
Total
Econ
Cost
X
1:
--_._-" ----<_.-
-----~
_. __
~--------r---------
kg
=~~~~I~~~=~~
~r-=~~-=- ~.~-~ _~
Fertilizer
Pesticides
___
_-4_T_o_ta1 Agrochem.
I
I
--'~::~~~:~~b ~::.
liter
1
700
--
~:=~==
-_-=:__-~ii --:-':::~~2i'
Irrigation Water
[- -­
000m3
- - .. -
Insurance
Labor
ave r: head 1.1-\c1lll. in
Credit Costs
Other
I
Total Costs
97,500
-- --­
97,500
..__.-.....
I
-
- - - - - -12
-- --
- - - - -- - - - - - ---
--------------
_-
I
===~--
271
----­
!
__
I.
-
­
~
-_____ ----r---­_
----~--
lo~g~
- - - - - ------
14875
---1.--­
30
--1- - - - - - - - - ---
50
3.33
167
16,650
333
68
26
127
10
1. 75
16
78
5.12
6
1,585
7,752
628
175
512
95
9,500
998
99,761
~_~lT1J?sum
I
I
156
-
--
.
980
i
-951
1 I
-23
-3,278
I
Ret'urn to Water
19000
21000
._----_ .. _-.-
400
1200
--- ------ ----- --- ----1--­
- - -1,200
--­
29,546 --- 1- ----------- ----.--­
2,700
14,700
_. __ .------­
9,660
---- _...
... ­
27,060
----­
- --­
32
--------- - - -------­
295
==
I
Net Income
*
---- --
7,040
70
0.32
11 '--_ - - - -12
229
~__
~-===-
196
t
...... -....
~: H%.:. =H '1~: ~! t.::~-.::: i:},­
11,945
32500
-_.-
164
..
per day
------~
_c-­
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
~=:-=- --1---------- -
-
700 I_e-13,980
-, --18 - .:::
ter
_._=J-_-_-_=-==~_=- -
--
72
- ---1- f--
--f----f---------I--------
---------------f--
Total Machinery
4,400
20
220
Econ Unit
Cost
(s()rnt
_ ===_ -,-~~JEi~~:~as-iU~-m--~;~L~::~::~1L ~ .==E ~;: -llii
Seed
----f----­
-- -1-- ------ --------­
-------- -- ---t-­
1----1--1----I -~---------+----I---------------'---f---_------------_J-_--I-_------1-------1-­
_ ------f--J__ / R-_-_-_-6 1_
Units
-_~_9~i~j-~.9~t:--- ~- 2~~~~~~-~ ~~~!~-!_{s_om L __1 so~L __ _t!1_SD L
-- ,--- -------------------------1--- ,------ __ un. - ---,---­
I--~----
------.­
inc. estmate of use of water;
- - - - - - - , - - - r - - - - - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - r - -----~=.~-{-p~i~;~i:.
-------------+-t--- --
_
11#1
__ .1_ J
2.88
267
--1-­
_n_
FARM BUDGET:
--1---+-- ---------1-+------1­
---+--- --I
.--­ ------­
RICE
~-_. -·----r--l-----------~·t
-1-­
---­
----- - --­ -- .-----1---------­
-l-------- --1---1-------1
.-1--~---------
Units
-----­ ,..--- ­ 1--­ ----­
-'--_l
.__ ,,__ .
qtx
_
~
Total
(USD)
Total - I
Cost
(som)
___._...Ls_o_mL
_...
-_.­
---­
Econ
Total
(USD)
Econ
Cost
-}{/~-~~-
J':'~Dl_
Total Reve...!:1u_e__
TO~n --=-~ ~U_~ ::-t~~J-I--
--~
--=- ---costsl=-_
- - -­ - ­
-kg _ L
=-~-~F-~e--~rJti:~~~~----~
-- - - -
-
-­
---­
--'Siltra
-Amophos
-
--­ - ­
EOII
I
6720
4,435-1----­
~~?_l:)
6283
250
--_ ­
__
700
+_____
_~
,per day
I'lumpsuml
-- I
'
-o';erh~ad/Admin
---­
Credit Costs
Other
_ ...._---_.
~~=~==_L=_~-
190
210 _-1
103
73
-~---------~._--
_1
5,796
11,945
50
200
10,000
68
114
1,585
7,752
628
1
I
---"-I--~
-_..
--[
i
Net Income
__ ~~~J_____ -­
11­
__ ~13_r::~~-t.o__wCi_terl_
I
-
Il
70
7,040
32
125
12,540
19000
•. 0-_­ __..
.
_
--6~ ~ =:­__
~~
6,-sio --_-=_­
.2i()Q~J=
~~96__ __
_ J()_~l?()_._
oog
...!_,J().Q .__
~_l:)
~!
___ .J:.?
295
f­
3.33
26
127
10,
1. 75
--_... -._-­
167
5. 12 1
rn-r- 16,650 I
~: -IH:~I
6
6281
156
951
1
9,500
59,79010
980
9981
I
99,761
1401
I
20,284
61
I
739
53,
I
-/
333
175
512
I
.s,?_?O I
4
1?0CJ... __
29,546
- -­
164
I
264
__~()() . _
------1-----·--­ .-­
I
3,210
J
32500
._
-L l~:i~~l~- -:Fll:n~~tJ148~~t
15
86
95
. -­ - ---­
196
-­ ----- -1---­
Total Costs
-~~_L-
_
5.226
nn_._~~_
322
-._------­
-----­ !--=-------­ - ­
--­ - - ­
~~~ _ _
51
2,011
33
- - - - - - - 1 - - - - ­ .-----­
4
3,750 1-­ --------­ ---.­
61
--­
12
700 ---1----------­
11
13,980
229
-----­ ---- -------­ ---+-----1-- --------1
I
______ l___
Insurance
Labor
0.32
72
92~+-+
~r~t~.a-!-ion wateF : 000m3
113,750
113,750
1,138
1,138
<­
I
~_
L
-1_ ........0 0,_
____
ton
Machinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
liter
Fuel & Lub
Total M~chil1~EX~ _
Econ
Unit
..
---"'-' .--­
Cost
(som)
--------------,------1-- ­
_K_a_l_i/Potasium __t_o_~n__ __0~2j
Manure
ton
15
--. - - - - ­
--­
Pesticides
_ liter
1--1
Total Agro.£~_e_m---l'- --l-­
=j
1,033
0. 66
~-------1
I ton 1-T<J:
I .Q..­31
_--.JL-_______
2"!-
__
325
----1­
325
____ ~,O~~. _
-
-1­
-----­ ----·-1- --------
63,000
63,000
18000
3.5
ton
_ .~(13!l?g
Econ
Total
Jsom)
I
1
1*
j
"FARM BUDGET:
RICE
\----~----
..__.. _-
~ --_.----+-._~-_
Econ
Cost
Econ
Total
... _-_ .. _- --
Jt!SD)
(t!SD L
X/~_~l
_ _ ------0
Units
•
tt-----
Total ~evenue
ITotMadi<i-LBi.Ce-_----­ . _. __ ton
i
-.
-~-------._._-_._-----
I
=.~~~[_. ._:__
Fertilizer
1---1-·---
<._-.~.--
I_ _ ..
.~__._..
---------..
\---__1 - _ ,Kali/Potasium
_
I-_-+=-=M:.::,a:.:.nure
Pesticides
_~__2 0i~i=~.-~~~~=1±----~8L~------.-
1_4:
.--_ ..
-
--r .r==----------. --=--~ -- --=--=---~
.
~=~,
2,957
1,990
1,319
2,500
- 469
~~.~~~_~~~~ .J_~~ --:~~:-
==__
'mm----,T---r]~~m
J~-:.~~~~~-----.
.-
I
216
24
200
~:,",ertt.ea.<il.~<irn_~.~_.__ ---.- l~mpsum
'1'
I
1141
46
1
,.--.:-. ... - - - -
1._ T ---
I
I
*
iI
1
Return to Water
1- . T---·--·_-·--·­
I
~_
i
I
I
32
._.i~
.. _~,?()().
. - - . - -22
-40
2,163
------.---- ..,
..
.
_
---
4,800
79
1,585
5,244
628
26
86
-- ·--1-1--­
... _ - -
43,969
721
I 10,031
164
195
147
65
239
_____ .
,.J __.
80
3.33
19,527
.
14,700
6,480
--_.- ._------­
23,880
7,9921 -
1. 75
5.12
6
1,585
5,244
I
628
95
9,500'
1
·1 1
- -..j '1­
618
--- ---
--------'
--..... -
731
73,060
244
35,438
1
101~1
!
i
I
I 13.51
I
1,810
-
---~-.l----_.
..
16
52
I
1
--.
19000
21000
10300
__.
._ - _-1--­
400
. ----1200
==-=-.-~. ~. -~=~~-=
~=-,.~----2,700
==~: .
27
1°1
156
4,000
-------8
--····------804
_------_. _.- __ _._----_.
1
I
Net Income
.-0- __
4,704
21_0
9,500
Other
Total Costs
I
- - . -103
. -..
4
8 - ------ 12
.
*ji~t1~~~ir,
-
'per day
I .... _I~reditc()sts
_______ •
I3L~~()
151
- ---- ----1­
000m3
~
325001--_
8_4
---=--------
-.--- 18
~~()
48
33
22
--41
- - - - _ . _ - - _...-
9,235
=.[-- - -
Irrigation Water
.----1.-­
--- - -
.­
Total Agrochemo
liter
.
471
0.32
- - - - -----_.
Machinery O&M
.__~chinery Depo
Fuel & Lub
2'0tal Machinery
(s~.'l')
··-·-1--1-­
__. __Oo~.i.
6_7_~Q
__0_o_2_.__9_95()._
0 021 --.
6283
- ..---..10
250
-- --O~67------700-
ton
ton
ton
ton
liter
~ophos
(_~()rnL
Cost
'1--'·- -­
_ . - - - - - - 0 _. • •
1-------...
.----.-------.~.
I--._~siltra
--
Econ .._--------­
unit
------_
~~H-j---~~~ ~~~.
325
325
~130~)()_1.--I ··~~··~·~~~Lt=~i:~t
3
...
..... - - - - - - - - - - -..-- .. - -
(-~~[)-)
.J~~.~_LL L.J~.()mL_.
- - - - - - - - - - -.. - ­
Costs
---r-'-'
Total
Total
Cost
.9 t )'.
Econ
Total
14875
30
·1-·----- ---­
"1---'-
333
175
512
I
I
I
--+----+----+----+-1
1-1
I
1
j--
I W-------tt=- -L-l==-- _r=jFARM-i~~~-_RIC~;1
1
-I---~.!!.!~J- .l __ .9_t y
----+-------. ----_.._-­
__
( SO
Total Revenue
-{
~---------
I_~_a i n
Total
-1-----1--1------·---'~:~_~er~_~_io_ip~_~~s _I j_:_-~_~_ __ ~ ~ ~
_~<.t
I
ton
ton
liter
.
Manure
Pesticides
Total A<;Jroch~
1--1
I I
I
Machinery O&M
Machi!1~ri'. Dep.
Fuel & Lub._._ -.------. -Total Machinery
I
I
---
j--------i
__
216
1,3)_9
2, !:l00
469
9,235
I
18
- - - - - --- 1 - - · - - - 1 - -------.--- -.-
22
4}1
8
000m3
24
200
Insurance
per day
---,-_
lump~um
Overhead/Admin
.. - . --.....
Credit Costs
._--_._._---_ ..
Other
46
32500
113,750
- -------_. . ­
113,750
4,704
47
--15:~__
-+
923
5,226
3,888
-------.
10,037
32
4,800
114
2,1~.~
~~g()_O _
804
!g.?..<:l?1
4?g
__
1200
!.i_'_~~~__:__~·~__=__= __ ~J=
t---------I-­
15 86
64
-....- ------- - .. -165
26.25 - - - - . - ------<--­
27
148. 75
1~_7. __
0.3
65
. - - - - - - - - - .--------.----­
239
- - - - --- - - - . - - - - - -
- --
---- -
------------~--+-- ~~------
79
3.33
801
~--I'
=:tr:CiI:>?~
~-
(~om)
--1--------·---- -f·
1,138
1,138
103
22
~ __ I__--4-q
12
8
_
~l~~.=-
1=1=r--=--- -~-- --= ~= =~---~=-~-=~- -----.---~~-~--- -- -~~==-----. - .--------.
Irrigation Water
---- - - - .- - . _ - - - <
__
:
- - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - ---- 1 - - - - - . - - --- -
liter
(~om)
Econ Unit
.
-.. - ..
Cost
.. _._._--
:;-~~--~-~ ::~_____ _~; ~~~=_- ~~~:-~=------- -~ }L=--~: ~ ~=.- _·-__­ 1r6~~
_~
250
700
I
_
(USD)
0.32
48
2,940
-1--+--- -------1-+-----+­
0.21
10
0.67
._
Econ
Total
---
20
0
1_---i_ _LK_a_l
__
i.'-./_P_o_tasium
---_--.. - 1 -
Econ
Total
1,,-,- ----.. -- -- .-.-­
147
_
~
325
325
1,033._.
1,033
- - _... _----_.
.------ -- ·_-_··---1-·_----_·_-------1·
----- 0- - ­
Econ
---- ..--0------- _ _
63,000
63,000
18000
3.5
=c-- .~.:-=-~~- . '.- .: .--·L--t--~--=--:-·
1
__ .i~_?I11) _.
+-+------+---f--- --------+--I---------f
ton
._. .... - ­
I11L
I~
,'ri~~~,-~1-~;i0'
Total
-----_._-­
Cost
-_._-­
..L....-_.~"
Costs
X/R 61
-------m-----l-I----+--~----··
Scenario 0: Khorezm
(~j=~ __~ !~~;;'~~~.~0~:~~:::~=·~=~--
-
--1--+.------1--1-------1
--1---1--- ..-----.. - --.-- --·--1- _+
+__-1---_ ..
1-----+---1------ - ---- --
1
~-~------.J-..!-------~-I
1
26
86
--j-­
1. 75
5.12
10j
161
521
6!
--
I
,
I
II
II
2,700
14,700
-_._._--­
6,480
-_ .. - ------ ._.
23,880
----j­
14875
30
333
7,992
1,585
5,244
175,
I
512
628,
1
­
156
95
9,500
Total Costs
721
731
73,060
Net Income
312
I
4071
i
59,001
16
.j
--j
201
I,
2,791
:J_
_ -~J
I
I
- . - - < - ' - -- ... -
I
'
I
,--.B~~rn to waterl
., r-,.-··
I
I
I
i
I
*
t±=--tt
tt==t=~ FARM BUDGET:
fj
=11
l=tt=
WHEAT
--t----+------I­ ----­ -----I-_+__- ---\----1---­ ----- ---1-­
X/R 1~~
I
--~i
~-+----------------f---t---------­
.---t
,--+-----/-----------------­
___
_ units±J qty
I L_L-_-=tJ--­
!
O.(5~--l
+----
I
Costs
See d
-------1- I
I
7,140
I-----~-I-------
kg
4,284
_ _ •.. _
::!
1 - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - ___1 __ 1·
5, 2~t 8U--+__o _
- - - - -24
-\--1-
220
_
J J Cost)
-j=__ J~.<?-I~;i~~_ [_r__l ~~~)--+-
70
-+--------/-1-----1
--­
~.
-_--t
3 9 I.
Kali/Potasium
Manure
Pesticides
~_~ot~l Agrochem.
I
I
o.
ton
ton
-
20
250
__j __
I
Machinery O&M
Machinery Dep.
Fuel & Lub
T0i:..a1 ~achiner:y____
I
I
1
I
I
I
-t--c-------== _-- r
__- ---rr--1~~=~=J_­
Irrigation Water
~ ~---~ _=-~~~ ~
Insurance --­
Labor
._.--­ - - .
Overhead/Admin
1--- -----/-------- ----------- ---­
Credit Costs
.---_.- -­ -----.
Other
l
000m3
... -----.
IpeE__dax -­
-
=--L~J ~_-_~~
+-__~.Q2....
10, 89~J
------1j
15
I
I
I
o
o
114
1,740
1,710
1,050
-
29
28
--­
17
I
..
21t_=t--22-:
09~--l------
1 --1--------+ -+
--,.
----I--~----
30
I
2,997
I
1,740
21
17
17
I
11
I
1,050
46
I
4,560
I!
54,924
I
-
-
-
~:
_ _
,_
I
I
1
-­ -
31,910
523
566:
-18,538
-304
-287.
-
-
-
-
-n
-2,060
,»
I
I
-----1-­
,
__
-341
j
-28,666
I
-T -­
-I- 1
333
175
I
rReturn to Water
I
30
_._.­
751
.
Net Income
___~-I-_:~ __ L
1 79_tt-==-=tt==--2
---­
~~6_0
- -1---·-­
T--' I
-
+-+
1
or-l- -3.331
._-------+-- ..
Total Costs
-
J
1
21 l ..Q°°-l_
10,300
400
~ ~ 4~ I----J-------:I--l--------~
27
__
1
8,000
-I
_
82 L---lI
I
19,000
8,550
4,620
-_._----~-
l_llrnl2.su ll1 _
~_
oJ
~, 5~~t=t~=~~~-)-R~
--~_.----. ~~ ~iL~j~'_ o~oj~--=,E+=xm~~-------f-
9
-~--~
"----­
O!L..J_
I--+-------l---l
157
liter
__
_____v
--- '
_
86-~-_;-=~I ---­_ -__
_-+­
I
~r~~!;:s·-- - , :::~-~::~O~ ·~"--:~1fr~- ~:;~;I:i_·-=%4sr-~m+=----~~_
:
_
I
1
~O_,
11--1­
Econ Unit
Econ
Total
Econ
Total
._._._ _
J---L C()~-~-t-l Tot;-'­
JJ._J~OITl) __U2om) I_LJUSDLI~__ (U~~)_I_l_LlJ_~[)L
,.
~ ,-~: ~~ •~.~~~+- ~~~-I
I~ilils~~o: Kara~a~~~_~_I--1
I
-291
I
-2,852
I
I
I---I---+­
~~
-l----l----I-----+---+--=::::IJ
FARM BUDGET:
,
L--+
WHEAT
,+-+---+J(~~~ti
T
t
s
t
o
~
)
~~~ti~:~jj;{¥f~~~r~~~~Jc~~t;
--
-­ -- ----­ -----+--+--------1
Units
I
I
_..9!=-y_
~J-----~-----------
l-]t~;;~~~~~"i~lj~:~~• ·I·.•l·:i~;I •. ~l·,; :ii~­..
-­
I
-----------1-+­
ott
I-l---------t
---+-­ +­
0
281
17,136
--'---l~ --­ ---i8-~'-
Total
-.­
----­
-----­ - ­
. __ ~_6-,-?~~. _
269
10
280
8
1,040
27,968
._.-----­
--11--1-----1-1 ----------­
-~
kg
2201
Costs
Seed
Fertilizer
o
o
224
224
----I
----.-­
I
--_._­
0.45
--1-+
I 0.22
, I O_.()~ --­
201 1
I
241
5,280 I
I
87
0.391
I
t------
86
-
3,024
2,310
565
5,000
6,720
10,500
6,283
250
-I-­
8,000
-~-_.----
179
_Mach'~nery O&M
1~
__ Total
- C­Ma c h'~ne!y_ __ !Er_ig~.tioOW;;t- ----­
I
L ----­ er
---'"-----­ .
-----­
---------+-~--
~::~i~e~~bDep-•
-­
-­
__ ()~_3 0
LJ._____
__
400
~~~Jr.J=~-.
-­ ----­
. 30
-<
!.r.212-_.
_
13,900
.. _---­
- - _ . _ ~ _ . _
--~
000m3
-
9
01
I
0
o
1,740
29
28
17
3,33
301
pE:!r_day
-­-
==~-----------
,~i1~~a::~~,n
15
__ .l~ml?sum
2
-­
----"
1,050
461
4,560
75
31,910
523
.... _=-}_~'-.? 5_4
I
-234
I
-2871
-I
-26
I
-291
175!
--­ ---­
54,924
566
=_-=C]--~-------
333
----.. _­
1,740
.­
--------.-­ -­
Total Costs
----_..
17
17
11
__4 L 560
__ .__--'
~-
2,997
I
--.
Net Income
w---
+------~--+---
14
78
_~_~
139
21,000
10,300
22,097
221
.-­
------­
Insuran~e --'
Labor
39
8-;580
----------- ---.-----. --E--­
8,550
19, goo
4,620
927
:~j-==_~899
Total Agrochem.
---­
-+--
-------------1- -I- ------l---·------­
Total. Revenue
f
I
In i t i_Cll __~cen_a!:.~o ~ ~ClE_Clk~!.I.:'akiEl!: a_r!.
liberalized prices
-------------.---'··--r--------.-,
1---1--+----------------1----1-- ----+-f--------l
J------..I------I.---- '.­
l
1
:___ __"
=-l--==r=~_~-~-:-~
--rReturn to Water
~
I
---+----:1;58 41
-28,666
I
-2,852
I
I
+-­
I
I
1
11
I
I
j------­ --..---­ --­
1=1 -r-----­
I
1-+----[--1-----j
--1
1
l---~-------­ __ 1 +!".A~_ BUD(;J?T: _ -----------11
WHEAT
----+-1------------+---'---------­ - -'
I
--==~-----ttunit-~]IqtL
Cost
------1---+-----1--1-------1-­
I
ITo~al
Revenue
Main (0% state
L.
orde~ ton
I
- ----~--< - - - - ­
--+--(som)
I
_±~
I
tj
_
.'_'
_1
I
---------j
-,
_~-~~~---_JJ~~Z~_~qo__
--- -.--- .--------- ----<-­
Econ Unit
-~~:a~_-~++-~~:i--+ ­ -_ T_-E~_Ct~ni --­ +_-I---T~Ct~i_ - .__ J~§;s.ti_t­
Total
(~om)±f(USDIJj (USD1-=t-_-~~(l}~S-~LtJ--(som~
( 100% 'agreed p! icT-.:.~--.!.?n--I--~--
--­
_3. . 7.
Tot_~_i_~f-r-o-d-~:~---~-~~~-~---~--l--t-o-n
_~~---J:.:2l
-1-------------1­
o
224
224
7,140
14,280
400
0
------_..0
606
60,588
... _. ---­ ----------­ --­
14
1,360
- --- --- - - - - - - - - ­ --~
619
61,948
_ ... --­ - ­
8
------ --------1--.
____. __J som.>. --1-­
­
-­ ----~-~~ ~~-. --­
22,440
800
--,
~--­
-~-------I,...._.­
Costs
i-=--.--.L---------­ Seed
1--1---­
-Fertilizer
_.
..•
......._
----- ­
.... _ _ •. __
-~.
0.39
87
24
220
- - - - ­ -- - - - ­ - ­
S~~;:tas:-m--:~-TIrl-lnE-- ~:E~r~~~~:L=L
--~~-_~~~= _~on..._+_:-~ ~--~~ --~ ~ ­
Manure
Pesticides
Total Agroche.rn..:._-+
--,-----­
IMachinery O&M
I
_
Machinerx._.p_~p~
Fuel & Lub
Total Machinery
,
• • __n_
250 I--=j,
~Q.9 ~ -==~~~t-
_
liter
­ 1-
_+
_
+_+
Insurance
Labor
-
~
:=r=I----­
-­
000m3
per day
-T-----­ - ­
~--------­
o
o
3.33
15
114
1,740
1,7101
29
28
17
2
-
-
I
1,050\
....
-
---
.. ­
391­
3()1=
ill
i I -I
301
I
17
17
11
t
2,997
I
1,740
I
1,050
333
175
1
_. 4,560 I
--31,-9J.01
Costs
==~~?u-rn-t; Water
. -
_____J~}~-+-..l-~.!-2~~j_
+_
o
.~-
-~
.Net Income
4
9
_.~ump~u_m
Credit
Costs
.. _._----­ ._-- -_. -­
Other
ITotal
-
157
------"._"­
OVeE.J:1~a_c1L.A9n~_~n
_._-_
8,580
..
....
+-n-I:J~ ~ iBftdm-F=~]~H~~O~¥n~<I-iLJm
--------1---·----­ --­
l=t=[~~~---=_:_-----·
+_
_ _ _ ~~J-~:jmJ-~i:1i~l=
190
210
103
-_-_.1--- ..
10, 89~_l--j---__..! 79\--J
86
.........4-. _ _
• _ _ •••
Irrigation Water
--- --­ _.'---.
- - - - - 1 1 --+1-­ -----­ -~.--j -~---­
I---__ ---+-_~
.. ­
--­
--------~
kg
·_---­
_-----~---------_._--­
.__ ., . .
_
I
1
-1
1__1
Initial
---------_.. Scenario: Khorezm
liberalized prices
I
I
7,}26!
I
-- ­-8141
75
I
46
4,560
523
j
566
54,924
I
120
13
J
531
I
91
i
5, 314 ,
I
I
9231
I
I
1*
tt----fE--}3
__ ___-~------Lt----=±l--=Ecenario
-.J_
-J------­
=t=
._____
I=t=
~
FARM BUDGET:
-+f-------- - --
f---+----l------.-..-- - .-- -.--­
.-_....
"._----------. ----- --- ---
.----.--.--.--.--- - ----.------. -.. --------.. ---1--------.-+
I
I
I
-I-
I
,
-
----,.--r----~.------'"---- ---------~_.­
_y~~go
W Units 1_---l-9ty_
~---­
I--~---__t-I--------.
Econ Unit
Cost) ---f-­
-.--._-(som)
Econ
Total
Econ
Total
Econ
------------- . ­ --------\ --1-=-=----­
Cost
Total
II "'.... t-,,1 --1---1- Co s t
(som) ­
(S~I I (USD)
_J...t!_SD)
-_._---­
-_.~ --+--_._-­
---I-­
X/R 61
1--1----1-----·------ ---.- -- --- -----.-.
B: Karakalpakstan
~~ - ---------T--T------ ---~
_Impro~~d __~;-~~_~-;- 30%-yi~ld---i~~r-~~-~~
WHEAT
_ (~?D.l
(so~J_
Total Revenue
~~::~~i::dt~~~~.~~~_,~~~i~j, :~: ~gl;fJ -f-J_~T~=~!~t .
---.-------1-- -
~~::--
--I---f--
kg
- - - - :-
-­
32
220
--:-:~--
7,040
I~
~
Irr'
..J __
Wate~ ~.'
... __ _
_._ ,. .
._ .... rga_tion
-- ----
--
__
10, 89_~
__
000m3
~~_r_ciay
OveEhea<lj~dmin
lurn£~~
Credit Costs
Other
57.5 -~
----1---1--- -
157
-l--J____
_-
.
,.,
9
_
-
15
..1
8
.... _.. _1
3,270
.. - ' - 2 826
6 671
_..- , - - '
• .1
...
L - L..Lv..L.-L
i~±_2~~-J
82
4
565
I
. . . __ ..... j .
Insurance
Labor
---+--_... - ._- ---
"'>°1
~
5,000
0.09
6,283
20 f--f--- 250
Total-.M.aCJ-1.i~e~Y---.­ l~ter
__ T
.1.._
-
----
~vl
-­
I~----------­
Total Costs
==r~-=T­
Net Income
=r=:--[-..
1
80
--
~,v_~1
~3.2._
8,000
f
----1­
----------­
39
19,000
- - - -----...::..+-­
~ __ 2!.~Ql:?Q
10,300
_. -- -t·---­
400
_.
­
J-2~
--L-------LJ---.l}}j.
9
-----s4--46
0-
--
--
J
---.!.~-:t---i~-3801---t---
---­
-
78
9
3.33
29
28
2
e-­
-----+-­
30
- ­ 7 810 -- --- . ---..----.-1­
-- '
4
109 .
.. •.30
_. -- _7
--. - -- _-4'-710
. . . . .13
13'; 900
o
-1--.
22,_0~2
333
o
o
114
1,740
1,710
1,050
17
11
4,560
75
46
33,670
552
566
-15,934
-261
-195
-19,530;
-1,770
-29
-18
-1,837 :
30
2,997
17
1,740
17
175
1,050 i
I
I
4,560
54,924
I
Return to Water
22,440
--22,440
800_
--f
--------lli---
~ - ~ - , ­
---t-----1-·
1,200
37,104
-­
1=- 1151=-t= o:_m:=t==-8_U-J==---~:5~~_~~­
--I....l..-
I=1Mac~inery
O&M- --iri----I--+---­
Machinery
o------t-- -+ - --~
- it--+-­
Fuel & Lub
e~..:..-_~__ _
.
.e--..
-"
---~:~~ -:=~~:~~- -----~-:m1-=r-n_----~-=l----~~~l~--- ~-1-----~~~~~1 -
,Kali/Potasium
. t""----_
Manure
ton
---Pesticides
1--1----------------I--+-T_O-,--t_c;!. Agrochem~
I__­
_
...
> __
__ 1 ?,_~ §?_ ._
t---------I---1--- --- ·1-­
-----II
I Costs
Seed
Fertilizer
__~ ?.r.2 ~?_
Scenario B: Khorezm
!mproved tech ~_~ 30% Y i~l?_ J-!1~~~~se_~__
--+-+
I--+-_+
I
I
I
I
!------------------­
I
---____
I
I
I
I
+-+­
+_-+ FARM BUDGET:
---------,--,----­ WHEAT
.~---I-----__l_--+----
Units
L-l-q.!.l...-L-L Cost _1 __ ~--!_ot~-L-L.!..9ta1---1
(~C?_~J
T:~~,;~ _. X/:cloorli~~n un-i~:
Econ
Cost
_X/R 61
----1--1-- ----+---1-------------1
------­
Total
-­ .- ­
.~-_._-
L_Lj~c::>~l_J _L_1Y~D)_
,-
(lJ.~I2.)
JY'?I:>L
.
-­
__
Total
( som)
_~os~ )
._-- ---- ­ -.----_.
_J35 o_m t_
Total Revenue
~~;;l;~~~~;~~*·-··~~~l+ ~ ~~~~l~-~j~1
_______H____
Costs,
I
I
--+-1
_==­ _-:~ 1=1
~~:~:s
- ::~
B::=;~li~~-~
-+-+-­
220
32~----I--- ------1--+-----4-1
7,040,_+-_ _-11-=-=-i-+­
" I -----+­
O. 3~ ~
Pesticides
Total Agrochem.
=
--I~~~-H
575j~
-------------"'-----=-----1-----11------------- - ­ - ­ - ­
Ma chi n.~r:X_ Dep. _ _ _
~
_
157
. ,__ .
000m3
----,-I ' ,-.
Irrigation Water
---­9
15
per day
-r ._. . - --..._­
---~-----
-J.------ _! 8
I
j
o
t~fi ­
01
1,710
1,050
114 1
1t1.Il1P~,!m.
----­
_~~~~-~r_
- --+--+-­
9
1
-­
I
1~:
J-'
0
~~~--j----4 :
- -
.
0- _ _
---.-­
39
____ J
_
-I-------~~ :~~ -­tH~~~~,---
'-4-'
41
80
1
14
78
- ._--­
47
-­
139
-
-­
0.30
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ••
....
l-_~
••
30,
3.33
----­
------~-
927
8,000
"0 _ _
_
_
_ _ .,
22,097
.•
"
_
-~--l--
~~-
~,7!~
.
._
----1­
__1, .3~ql __ +
?-'- 8!()
13,900
10,300
400
1
--­
_
2,9971
333
I
17 1
29
28
17
4,560
75
33,670
552
171
2
-
-------1--1----------­ ~
Total Costs
~~]--1
Net Income
-----=--:---t---t------­
I
3,270 -­ - - - - - -54
­
-----­
-I
1,740
Insurance
Labor
Overhead/Admin
_-~-I~E~ciit cost~ Other
-
8,580
86
' __~.':_'_..~_~_:'J
,
1n Qool ______lI _ _ _ ______=_..:.~_!-_1---____I_-_1
170
___L
_ _ -~?!
~~~==~~-~~-------~-=~-~="----== ~-------l-Machinery O&M
=,---~I---~----~--~~~-=----==-,----.----
-
---t-­ ------­
~nf_+-=l-~~ =- ~=--=86~-
-H~~~1-+- ~: ~1~--t
IJan'S;~==~_~~~~i~ lli:~-j=l=-~' ~~ tr=~-~;;~-~+-----~5;;-~-+---·---I--
I it e r
_.
22,440
- - __
22,440
800
39,270
39,270
1,520
.. _._­
-­
80,060
!--I--------I-,-----­
821
I-----+-F_u_e 1__ ~_.!_ ~IJ
Total Machinery
393
393
15
801
224
205
410
12
627
- ._._-._­
1, 740 1
175
11;
1,050:
46
4,560
- --­
566
54,924;
,
-I
-T T -
4,575
75
508
8
I
i
I
I
IReturn to Water
j
I
I
i
-­
j
234
23,426;
29
2,9361
I
I
*
l----t
----1-+---
I
I
I
---+--+------I-tF-A-RM-S-U-OGET:
I
1-----1---- +----------------1-1----1-­ ~- --
---­ ----­
---------.
I
Scenario C:
I
I
WHEAT
~
X/R 61
----I~nits 1-~--9-ry--~~-(c!3;~t)---fj~~:sto~a-=f~~;~;-·--
------------I-----1------J--­
I
I
I
- - -­
I
I
-----'---------------------1-+
Total Revenue
--1--­
Econ
Total
(lJSO) _
Econ
Cost
(USO)
---­
13,372
Total
--+--,-­
Costs
Seed
Fertilizer
----I
I I
kg
I~~;~:s--­
22 0 1
----I
+---. - -----­
-~---1-----
::~ ~ ~:~~ -~-1~:~~~
~:~ -~~~~~1~~~ _~~~~ _
t~~::li/potasium
I==EPest ic ides
__ Total
I---~---------~--Agrochem
---I-----l--­
I --1
-f­
219
39
~:~~~ ±-1-~ -----1¥J±-=::lj=:::~.llt1i:~~*L.
5,~~~ =-_t--=!3~~-----~~Lj-==----:8~-~J~="j,~~~=t l~'-~~:b __
-------I----+----.!.Q, 89 9
1 ~~
1
1 __ .
_
22,097
221
---­ ------. - +-----------f­
l
~aChinery
O&M
__J~_ach inery Dep
1
0
-1--­ - ­ ----"-­
--------1­
---1--I-----I---j -
_j~Tot~r
-­
___
157
liter
Fuel & Lub
J­
Machinery
------------------­ ---I --------1
000m3
~_~:r:..i9at.i3~_~~t_!':~
_
___________1_
_
Insurance
Labor
--­
Overhead/Admin
---.---_.---. -------- ­ ..
Credit
Costs
-------" .... ----------­
Other
per day
~_ll~;;;I>~uml
---1-~----
Total Costs
-I .
.
_
-1"-------1-­
__
--~_.
18
=····-~lH~-=l~~!~JJ=-
1]_ ~:~g -_I:=jftJ==O~iO
-1-------+--1---­
30
3.33
301
I
2,9971-1,740
2
17
17 1
i
1,710
1,050
29
28
17
I
4,560
75
461
1
33,710
553
5661
2001
9
I
1,800
_
~·~--"I----·
==:t-~I~_~-_-=
. . ...
I
,
I
- __1! ?~_~,.
15 1
1141
I
11:
=I]-~·.
. --1----1 -­ ---­ ---.
Return to Water
I
j
I
1
1,050
I
I
I
4,560
~-=- -- -I·
54,924
I
.::-20,338
-333
I
-287
-2,060
-34
I
-29
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
.
Net Income
-
22,440
800
8,580
86
0.39
-
___ .?~_,4~9. __
-----~----
- ---·---.. ----------1
--------­
_...__..
___ .£~!3t J
(som)
13,464
13,464
.----­ - ._­
1,040
27,968
135
135
10
280
-------------- -----­ --------­
._2i~~~'28·0.-=~B7
Econ Unit
1­
~~~u,H~::II-,n~~=
::~::
l:~--m8
. ~;~~u~
:;;~~;~::~;~+-~
ton
I
I
i.
311
....
·400~··-520··9
Si-:product
=r==~~_~~~
X/R 100
Econ
Total
( som)
_-. -----.--­
----------.-----
l-----f----I­ ---- -----------------1--+------1
--0------------------- ----­ -­
1
Karakalpakstan
i~y~eJ!!: ~();__ ~~~e~~=-=-]-~]=--~-~-
l
I
I
-28,666
I
-2,852
I
30
r--­
333
I
175
----t-t-----~-+_----+_-l
I--+---}
1--+---·---1--+----------+­
-.--.-.---.--.. -----..-J­
FARM
BUDGET: WHEAT
------------,-----r--- -----------,
.-~----'-.'
- 1 - - - · - ----..-..- - -..­
----.-.-.- ..-- _._--1--..
Total Revenue
Main (50% state
orde -ton
1.35
I----+-.
- - - - - ..-.-... - - - - - ._._ i~~~~eed...EEJ..c....E!·1_...!..on___1~~_~
=r=-
____t:0~_ --
==--=--=.~~=-
7,140
1~_~3~_l2
4~.a_
~~~~- --~- ~~ -~~-== -~- ~~-
Costs
I~
--- --- - --
See~
'!<-.'L_
.
:~~ ~ ------4~~
__. ._., _
. -
I~~~------~~~~--t-~~ci=_-~
§, 720 f-e----~~02i
0.45
. -----
-_.--
-.-
--~.~.-.-
_
.________
------ -_.
I I
I
----l-I
__ ._____
I
o
I
_
57~
_C<:>s_l:.J .~ _
(so~)
30,294
30,294
_.. _--_. __ ._---­
~----_.-----~.-
-~.
-
-~
__ .J_,~6C::> ._
.L __
. __
2,2,440
.- -- -- t - ­
22,440
800
__ . - -
61,948
-.-..- - --.- ...•. - --I ­
-~---..I-._.-
~~J_._ -I-
_
-_.~
... - - - I ' - _ . -
---.----.-~
8~1 __ j
39
--=.c _
.--­
. ---~~; ,. --= -- .~ -~ -=-;~ii~I-I-1tH~·,
~g
. - - - -.. - .-. ····-··-·-1·--·---·--··--­
.__!.~~
~6
--- - -
--.-.-.... -.-.-
-----.--.--------.------ -.- -
~~~Llt±-- ~-?I' LI~'!
---------.--­
---.----.. -221
179
10,899
14
619
--
-- ·,·:i
-~-----'--
+
____ n
._....__._ -------1 ._
Machinery O&M
_. .-
- . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - ---.-. -.--..
I--....:.:...--------I--j~·_..::..:.:,-
Pesticides
Total Agrochem.
8
---
--
-----~-J-~-~!?L-l---- 87
-·-----l-~--- -----l--~----·---+---j
-----
1-­
+ - - - - - - ~- - . - - .... ­
'~a~E~i~;:tasium, - -;i~----~~: m~~~
I--
-t- -
Econ unit
r -­
.__. __J s<:>~J
-1~~ ---j--: -~-_ ~i~J-
158
316
- . . . . - - -.------.
220
Fertilizer
---
--29,
-
_. - -_._-_..
X/R 100
Econ
Total
Econ
- - -..- - - .-- - - - - - - - - -------·-1
2.:.!_ -
.
9,639
19,278.
t1=
-t··-----·· .-.'-'­
. . 9ty~I~:?d:::J-~(";oW~~~!~j~t~Ell.· J=i~}~i
Units
__--
Scenar io C: Khorezm
..
Payment
for
water
-T--------------_·--'--·--r---------·---- -.-.­
-l---+-------~-------.-----.
-~._-----------
1----1·--1-- --
':lrod"C~
1-+-+--·
I
---------.----•. -- .
22,097
- --_. _..- -_._-
- 1--­
. - ------+--­
~-I----··---
9
~4
_
~ti~ _+- __
- -- - .__ . 1---­
30
000m3
Irrigation Water
200
9
I
2,9971
301
3.33
1,800
30!
1,740
__ ._----­
29i
17
1,710
1,050
28:
17
17
4,560
75 1
-- ~ ~~.~ [_..-----==_._----­
__~t~~~;~==-_~~--·-·· l
____()~~_rll~a_~l~~'~~~.
1__
.
__]<::l:"_'=.c:l!!<::?~~S
iii
Tot..
!
:ti~::~
--r-l-· - .
s
jl-J
N~ti;'come!
-~:~n~ter;
I
15 1
\per day
:lumpsum,
I
114
i
-- --II
I ,
I
2
i
I
I
. I
33,710
553 11 ­
-4,113
-67
./.."
II
I
~:L;~
-Ui
,
-----
--1,740
-----
11
1,050
461
4,560 I
~~
I
I
5661
I
54,924
531
i
5,314
~~~
91 I
I
~'--~
923
333
175
- - - ..._----_.­
i
~_~-~-_-_-_··_-_~~:~:~7~IL·~I
-
I
I
II
,
~~
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
1----------------------1--1--------1---+-------- .---­
1
tj-----=t1­
-1--1
I
I
Scenario D:
_nc-:
I­
I
l __ 1~~L-9!X---
1-­
_JsomL
Econ
~/R 6~
Total
Cost
ta­
l
- - - -±
­ £ o-
Jt.J~~)
~.<:>m~_
------.-
Econ-­
_
__-->l':1?_rJJ
=t_~------1--/--------1---1­
Fertilizer
6 - ~ :~~I
~~~:~:~===-==--~~l~~=::~ t1~-0~-~ ~F=f=-~~~
_ __C<:)stJ
26,928
-_.-.----_._­
10
1,040
280
27,968
-+­
5,772
58
~
_(sam)
o
269 '­ _-_0­
_____
0.39
58
Econ Unit
E<:>~al_
o
·------1----1-1- ­
--­
___ ~8_L_I___2..~ __L-3 , 5~3
Econ
':I'0t~l
(USD)(~omL_
'~~~~:::ev~~::t~]ifl-±~1i~~~~-.- "-::~!~;-+~~~~J= ··~~tkg
F
._._----------­ .---­ ----------­ -_.
_._.---­
Cost _ _ _
Total Revenue
ICO~~:e~--------t-t
]
t=~-~~-~_<i}'~m~>-~or~~a:j~=X~~ _ ~:- __-­
FARM BUDGET:
WHEAT
i -----r--------·--l
-­ ---------1-1-------1---1-----­
--1--------+------­ ----­
Karakalpakstan
-~Er~ use~]_~l~L~ib'=E~ii-~;d~p~i~~~;--
- j - - - - - - - - - ----I -
39
.-­
26
--210 --------- 32
--- ---~15-o. . -­ 21
,000 C
~3=~901=~
5~l
5,700
19,000
0
~-===_~;-_=_ _ ~ :~~ _­__-~_-! , 16~[=
1=J:::~~as~~~_tt-::~ti~~~:i:t: ,~:~~ 3'~~~J _ _=-_~~= _=1~~~_=--I--l--------l--+--+---1­
Total Agrochem.
------,------~--
-­
I
I=IMac~inerY.
1
_____
. _
Mach inerL O&M..
D~p--"-_
~~-LUb-----------------!'!'<:J!I~a~!"tJ-~eE¥---
--1­
575
3 270 1---1-
."=1
.
. ---.---1.-·-- --­
---
.
_
--~-I------l--;.­
---+--+----+-~---------1-
18
1:908
~_~53
6
200
1,200
201
114
1,740
1,140
1,050,
29
10
.
_
_
__~
Irrigat.-D;-~-w~t~~
r-=-~_-c_-
--­ -- -----­
000m3
- . ­-­
Insurance
Labor
ove~~eadtAdmin
-1------ --­ .-­
p_er d<iX
lumpsum
-­
-­
- I
Credit Costs
I
,other
;1
32
124
Total Costs
I~_=··T-
to Water
(_e~I~~1::e
I
1-
4,560,
--­ - - ­
.
---- -­ - j
26,463 !
I
i
!
I
_II
11- ----­
-8,807
-1,2681
75'
!
434 1
1
II
1
I
333
175
1,050 ,
,
I
I
461
I
4,_560
4371
1
42, 558 1
,
-144
,,
-1571
I
-21
-I
-231
I
~--
30 1__
1,998
::1­
i
-15,730
I
!
-.
1,740
2
19
17
I
----+-­
_ _ 0_
201
3.33
j­
- ---- ­ - -. - ----t­ -­ -,­
J-__:__
___!!-~8_()
7,810
_..----_._­
3,180
-----­
12,370
14
---­ --­
54
0.30
31
94
--+--"--­
_=~:@_6_ -=.
liter
---1-·-·----­
15,068
151
•
l=f
I
1
---­ 122_t=l
7,468
-2,2891
!---­r~-=:--?~H-~-UD~E~: -_-:~_~T-- --_-----~_ •. ~IJ=c.~i~~r:~b~~;/~~~I~:~iz~r~i~e,,!E
-­ ---- ­ u~its .- -~~~~~::ctEosi:J=~7~:!~--~~s~IJ~~Li~!~_JJ!:y{Ffl~~~t:_
1------1---+-------1----+--­
,Scenario 0: Khor':~~__i _ J
_
..J~
~l ~-~~--------~--H
.qt,
Total R~~~':lu~
~
Main
(0%
state
order
f------'------­
_
J=~.-~--~~~~ ~~~==--:~ _~~~~-:=_ =_~~-3~~2:3~ --~ ~==~-:~~-~-. --~
(100% ~~<J~e~~_J?Eice_·
Hi-product
~J­
___
0
----­
ton
!~
~~:!..
1.7
ton
7 t 140
-­
}~, 280
400
0
0
.JJ 32
-----1
.-­ -
__ ~~~ 55~
680
11
t--11i I==I~ ..6~:
.
- -­
_~
Seed
Fertilizer
C----- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
-------- ­
---~
--------I-+----+---I--------1-j
o .]_~__ --+-___ __.58
3,.?_S.~L -f------­ 58 1---­
------------­
1_1_--1~~~-j----~l_
,
-_.­
619
= _
1---.-_'--_____________
o
.? ~-~~Q._-­
~ 2 , _~ 4.Q,
60,588
1,360
61,948
_
800
- _. --1.---­
39
5,772
--.--­
+-------1--1-­ -­ -----­
I--------l--I---'-------j-~-----­
,~ -::~~f:.~iU~--Y:: " ~~rr' +~~ J=1--=f.~~;_I_~_:f'
~
Jli,~
_~~~t--tH~~1!~i!r-J
_l~~~g
L:~­
~~ j _
Manure
Pesticides
Total Agroch,:~.
--------r-------. - - - ­
?_?
_ _ 22Q.
14
ton__
4
.5, 6oR=L:
-I
I
122
151
15,
06~ 1 __
._-_
..... _-,_.
9
54
------­
31
---­
---­
94
- --_._-- --_..
14
78
32
124
1,380
I
7,4681
~_
1-__
----------­
--~--------­
~aChineEX....~-~~-----+-I--------I­
11
Machinery DeR_·------l---­
Fuel
& Lub
- - - - - - - - - ­ - - ­ ------­
Total Machinery
liter
-
t-i­
-+­
000m3 1 1
Irrigation Water
=---]-_ ..
1----­
Insurance
__ .
Labor
- _.. - .. _---.-­ --­
1 OF-I
--_.-.
200
6
-------1­
per ~_ay
lump_su-",. _
_~~!:a~~:::in
10
114
­ ----­
-------~--­
1,200
I
I
1,740
1,140
1,050
-l-r-
. -1-1--­ -
I
-J-~r--=-·--
12,773
j
2,329
.-------------- -_.
3.33
20
3,180
12,370
20 1
---..j­
30
333
17
29
19
2
i
I
._~ ,__~ ~~L _ : _
I
17'I
I
1
.. __
--­
75
I
11
11j
-
175
I
I
46'I
i
437 !
434
26, 463 1
Net Income
0.30
--_._--~-
- j
--r-- I -
IReturn to Water
-
.
4,560 I
Total Costs
I
-+------~-­
18
1-+------1
-----~-.-----_. ----­
__~J _-=~~-~~--~- _~----­
575
3,270
1,908
5,753
400
- ------+--­
i
I
i
209
[
38
,
183
34,
1
*
Notes to Far.m Budgets
1. Estimated equilibrium exchange rate used throughout of 100
soumiS based on estimates by World Bank staff.
Current official
exchange rate is 61 soumiS.
2. Cotton financial price from interviews at cotton gins,
farmers, and at oblast Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
with
3. Cotton economic price based on assumption of 30% fiber content
in seed cotton with a $1500/ton price for cotton fiber; 60% seed
content of seed cotton at a price of $100/ton. This yields a gross
revenue of $510/ton of seed cotton.
Ginning, transport and
handling are estimated at $122 (based on 12,200 soum cost for
ginning and transport according to field notes from interviews,
converted at equilibrium exchange rate of 100 soum/dollar). This
yields a net economic price per ton of seed cotton of $378.
4. World prices for rice from World Bank Commodity Markets and the
Developing Countries.
Wheat from current import price of Kazakh
wheat adjusted for transport costs.
5. Yields per hectare taken from Goscomprognostat data.
For
Karakalpakstan, all yields taken as average of 1991-1996, with the
exception of wheat, where 1996 was excluded as atypically low. For
Khorezm, cotton was taken from 1996 figures, wheat from 1995 since
1996 was atypical, and rice taken as average of 1995 and 1996.
6. Seed financial costs taken from field notes in Khorezm and
Karakalpakstan. Economic costs taken as price of improved cotton
seed in USA without adjusting for transport cost on the assumption
that the Cotton Improvement Project will soon be producing
equivalent seeds domestically. Seed application rates taken from
field interviews.
7. Manure application rates and prices taken from field notes.
8. Pesticide and fertilizer application rates taken from field
notes.
Financial prices from Agrochemservis.
Economic prices
taken from World Bank Commodity Markets and the Developing
Countries, with the exception of price of potash imported from
Kazakhstan which was taken at actual import price in dollars.
9. Machinery prices and usage taken from field notes at state
machinery company and on farm interviews.
Economic costs taken
from USDA farm budgets for irrigated cotton.
It was assumed that
transport costs on a per hectare basis and amortized over the life
of the machinery were negligible.
10. Fuel usage from field interviews.
Prices' taken from W. Van
Harreveld's estimates based on information collected in May and
­
June of 1997.
11. Water application rates from SANIIRI except for wheat, which
was taken from World Bank Farm Restructuring Study. Water price of
$3.33/1000 m3 taken from SANIIRI estimate of shadow price of
providing water.
12. Labor rates taken as average of field interview numbers and
those from TACIS survey, which exclude all but on-field labor use.
13. Labor cost taken from current wage rates from field interviews.
14. Overhead and administration taken from field interviews.
15. Other costs taken from field interviews.
Though these costs
may be assumed to include pumping costs and miscellaneous expenses
related to water management, further investigation will focus on
disaggregating these figures.
-
Tables
-
Table 1. Khorezm - Agricultural Production in 1995 and 1996 (tons)
Kolkhoz
Total
Private Farms
1m.
.l.22Q
1m.
.l.22Q
Cotton
304,694
290,042
304,694
290,042
-­
-­
Grains
Wheat
202,762
249,925
179,605
217,716
23,157
32,209
44,853
63,181
38,231
53,553
6,622
9,628
124,425
172,546
113,925
155,606
10,500
16,940
28,476
9,898
26,456
7,343
2,020
2,555
27,559
27,998
4,889
3,348
22,670
24,650
140,120
144,092
43,829
41,400
96,291
102,692
42,645
42,838
14,785
12,678
27,860
30,160
35,862
36,589
12,833
12,074
23,029
24,515
11,568
Source: Goscomprognostat
8,344
6,543
3,308
5,025
5,036
.l.22Q
.l225.
Rice
Com
Potatoes
Vegetables
Melons
Fruits
Grapes
•
Table 2. Karakalpakstan: Agricultural Production, 1995-1996 (tons
1m.
.l.22.Q
Wheat
34,056
20,532
Rice
141,912
201,562
Cotton
288,223
203,921
Potatoes
4,778
10,759
Vegetables
66,238
77,191
Fruit
4,171
4,541
568
1,616
Grapes
Source: Goscomprognostat
-
Table 3. Khorezm: Planted Area -1996 (hectares)
Wheat
28,847
Rice
44,561
Seed Com
Other Grain
Cotton
1,898
583
100,967
Sunflower
44
Other Industrial
41
Potatoes
535
Vegetables
2,658
Melons
1,398
Fodder Crops
31,963
Source: Goscomprognostat
-
Table 4. Karakalpakstan: Planted Area 1996 (hectares)
Wheat
33,927
Rice
100,288
Other Grains
10,635
Cotton
146,611
Potatoes
2,025
Vegetables
8,231
Melons
7,250
Fruit
2,739
Grapes
345
Source: Goscomprognostat
..
Table 5. Kaakalpakstan: Returns on Cotton Producing Kolkhozes,
1995-96
1m
Turfbul
%
-26.6
l22Q
%
-45.8
Beruni
-36.4
-49.6
Ellikalla
-29.1
-45.7
AmuDarya
-8.1
-40.9
Khodzeli
-6.0
-46.4
Shunnana
-11.9
-51.3
Kanlykul
-19.8
-42.5
Kungrad
-23.0
-31.1
Kegeili
+2.2
-58.4
Chimbai
-8.1
-43.7
Karauzyak
-22.6
-51.6
Tahtakupir
-36.3
-37.9
Bozatau
:1:L
-36.2
-18.00
-44.7
Total
..
Source: Mlmstry of Agnculture and Water
-
Table 6. Khorezm: Livestock Production 1995-96
Total
of which: Private Plots
1995
1996
1995
1996
Cows
167,347
171,999
132,841
137,038
Pigs
12,494
7,418
726
831
Sheep and Goats
174,959
180,636
131,403
142,740
Horses
2,435
3,292
1,218
2,062
Camels
82
82
13
16
Rabbits
6,395
5,575
5,938
5,451
Poultry
1,540,250
1,365,380
540,000
560,000
Source: Goscomprognostat
Table 7. Karakalpakstan: Livestock Breeding, 1994-95
1994
1995
Total
ofwmch
private plots
Total
ofwmch
private plots
Cows, bulls, calves
403,080
267,694
386,508
265,671
Sheep and Goats
487,156
219,574
485,819
219,584
Horses
18,214
7,449
18,127
7,867
Camels
4,913
2,242
4,997
2,334
Poultry
572,706
386,514
575,295
382,841
Source: Goscomprognostat
•
Table 8. Khorezm: Dekhan Farms by Type
Total
1996
1997
..
Number of Farms
Crops
Livestock
Fish
956
289
667
9
1044
409
596
23
Source: MInIStry of Agnculture and Water
Table 9. Average Yield of Specific Crops by Region (tons/hectare)
Fergana
Region
Central
Region
Southern
Region
Desert
Region
Aral Sea
Region
Total
Cotton
3.0
2.5
3.4
3.5
2.0
2.8
Wheat (irrigated)
3.2
3.0
2.8
1.9
2.3
2.9
Rice
2.9
2.6
2.1
1.0
1.9
2.2
Alfalfa (irrigated)
12.5
10.6
11.3
15.4
10.1
11.8
Watennelon
(irrigated)
16.2
13.1
13.2
13.3
12.3
13.7
Melon
16.5
9.1
11.2
9.2
6.9
8.7
Tomato
24.5
19.5
18.0
9.5
8.7
16.8
Source: UzbekIstan Agncultural Basehne Survey, July 1996.
-
Table 10. Karakalpakstan: Fixed Wheat and Flour Prices as of
November 1996
Wheat
Grade
soum/ton
1
18,038
$US at Equilibrium
Exchange Rate
$180
2
16,430
164
3
14,467
145
4
12,500
125
5
11,140
111
6
10,374
104
Flour
1
27,500
275
2
19,801
198
18,244
182
3
Source: Uzkhlebproduct
Table 11. Karakalpakstan: Rice Processing Costs, 1996
(soum per ton)
Cost of Production
Including 10%
Profit Margin
Including Taxes
Best Grade
31,416
34,558
40,779
1st Grade
29,030
31,933
37,681
2nd Grade
27,336
30,070
35,483
Broken
9,791
10,771
12,710
For Flour
4,079
4,487
5,295
-
Table 12. Average Age of Farm Vehicles (years)
Trucks
Tractors
(wheeled)
Tractors
(tract)
Main
Fergana
Region
14
Central
Region
9
Southern
Region
9
Desert
Region
10
Aral Sea
Region
9
Total
10
Associated
12
6
9
9
8
9
Main
13
9
13
10
8
11
Associated
10
8
9
10
8
8
Main
12
8
9
9
9
10
Associated
12
7
9
10
9
9
Source: Uzbekistan Agncultural Basehne Survey
•
Table 13. Khorezm: Farm Machinery, 1996
(number of units)
Tractors
of which: Currently Functioning
•
Trucks
Cotton Picking Machines
11,019
2,215
3,161
789
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Water
•
•
Table .It Karakalpakstan: Fertilizer Use in 1996-97, kg
Nitrogen
Planned Actual
Total
1996
%
Phosphorus
Planned
Actual
Potassium
Actual
Planned
%
%
50,810
31,620
62
19,870
1,250
6
22,300
0
0
1997
for Rice
1996
68,200
53,293
78
25,500
12,666
50
22,300
12,167
55
16,896
10,710
63
6,497
139
2
6,605
0
0
1997
19,692
18,022
92
7,199
5,608
78
6,605
5,278
80
I
l.
Table 15. Financial and Economic Costs of Crop Production (soum/ha)
Difference Between Economic Net Income
and Current Financial Net Income
B
A
C
D
1996
Area (ha)
Current
Financial
Net
Income
Cotton
146,611
-17,775
20,670
40,290
20,670
39,451
Rice
100,288
4,210
-246
38,658
-246
31,228
33,927
-18,538
-10,128
-992
-10,128
2,808
100,967
6,875
30,040
59,866
30,040
48,827
Rice
44,561
13,210
14,317
57,933
14,317
45,791
Wheat
28,847
-2,313
7,627
25,739
7,627
20,563
Karakalpakstan
Wheat
Khorezm
Cotton
A = Liberalized Prices
B = 30% Yield Increase
C = Payment for Water
D = Combination of A, B & C (except rice which does not include yield increase)
..
-
Table 16. Difference Between Economic and Financial Net Income
(soum/ha)
Difference Between Economic Net Income
and Financial Net Income
B
A
C
D
1996
Area (ha)
Current
Condition
s
Cotton
146,611
20,670
7,270
20,730
23,870
17,179
Rice
100,288
-246
--
23,778
6,754
25,407
33,927
10,128*
14,412*
3,596*
8,328*
6,923*
100,967
30,040
24,010
43,162
33,240
33,919
Rice
44,561
14,317
--
41,253
21,317
39,390
Wheat
28,847
7,627
-2,012
18,851
9,427
5,477
Karakalpakstan
Wheat
Khorezm
Cotton
A = Liberalized Prices
B = 30% Yield Increase
C = Payment for Water
D = Combination of A, B & C
* - Negative economic return.
Figures
Figures 1 and 2 from Final Report for the Preparation Study of
the Uzbekistan Drainage Project.
Figures 3 and 4 from TACIS WARMAP project Volume 4.
-
;~.
.
.\
.~.
Aral S~a
/
Samarkanil
Navoi
t
1P'3,{S'rl'3S'R\VC.
All·-··_­
---..........!achkamar R
~hQ~
es
;;><:Zclr
~
~
$:
S'
()
~
e.
,
i
Talimardjan Res
•
III
Lakes/Dcscrt Sinks
..--
~
~
;;><:
Gauging Stations
I&
en
Shcrabad Canal
~
~
Ig'"
~
n
..,
I
OQ
()
~
E..
rn
n
::r
n>
a
3ll)
;:;0
t""4
ll)
Reservoir
Proposed Alignment of RBCD
Schematic Layout ofRADU
=
o
"':=1
~OQ
>~
t:j
C>-'
r-~·----··~·
•
\
64.75 km3
t .·.'.
(
:~~'7:"'..1::.f~::::li·.~\'"·~.:'~·-".""'~: ·c~;.
.' 'L.CU <lJ..:j
l'!w:~~;r~e~9!tiil:I" t
~~i<O'. . ~'!L • ~.~'- ~P;>ii~
·.. ·.f~-', ...r,'.
3 lan3. '" __ "" ""
an~1':j t!',:.
,
,. •
"\.:- '!V$1~~Jlft,,,~~~·~~
...~)C' ~
_.... ":... ,.; :... h~•. ~·V.:1"'1·~ '~..~ i' ...."
~h ..·••,,~.
11.4 1on3
I ~~!1'!~~~I~
0.3 1on3
;r«ar;-~'lmlE:ill:aI~ y~~ ~
.rfiUi~~~~;!U
J
- - -Losses
.L7.0 1on3
ijl.\'!UJt.'tc'1tWn';~~·fi:~i".,.;: . .
,
1an3
..
'11!.",~""";;'.:';J!.1e'; .·~·_ ..... '1l.,:'lf~lc',';t~Ili.·
4.8 lan3
2.1 lan3
0.58 lan3
I
.,
-~~·~i~;·~::t.'; ~'~~~K~1PJ~i~ ~- :. ~
~mUk1lm"~"
I .;.e'@,~"~:."l;"",:·
~N:ttii$· .•• I'!I1~.
i
s.'!~~·'\·~r..~.;··.:::;~~~~tt.:~~~
~
~
~._-
~
..,
-----
~
- _. . ...-
t:a
\0.07 km3
~
;­
1
Khg'rezrm'"•• ":ollf\;~~ I'
•
,I
~~'",
.1•• \ .
::r.. ~·i·<i·:~~·~.~:"'·~·1~
~.... 1'· ··~··~l·"·~·~l'l;'!:.·
\
·"\~·,:·~~~1·~I~,·J:· ·,;.~... ~.,...,,. ' ~
~··~l,....·.·
v:..• ~ .... ~.... "t. :r,
"...
...:.:.:
='
n
~
rn
c
3
3
..,
~
-'2.4 km3
8.64 \un3
+
Water Balance Summary of Amu Darya Basin.
'<
o~
~c
t::l
~I-J:j
'< 1-"
~(JQ
t:ag
~ III
S'N
Figure 3
Water Table Depth and Crop Yields
Karakalpakstan and Khorezm
f30
ell
,.t::
0
0
0
120
Ayerage Yields for 1994
COllon
: 30.0 eJh.a
Win'" Wile.. : 16.0 eJlII
. Rice
: 35.0 eJlII
Alfalf.
IB.O cllu
110
~
Q)
CO
100
I::l
ell
c:::
90'
I::l
oM
~
~
80
70
Q)
I-l
Q)
"S
-0
60
50
Q)
0­
0­
40
I-l
U
30
0
r
ell
Q)
I-l
<:
20
10
0
0.0
lo 3.0 m
1.0 lo 1.5 m
> 5.0 m
Karakalpakstan
-_._--------
150
- - _... _------ --
140
Ayerage Yields lor /994
130
ell
,.t::
0
0
0
120
Conon
11.7 cilia
Winter 'Whul: 9.8 clha
Rice
: 30.4 eJh.a
Alf&lfa
: 46.1 cilia'
110
~
Q)
100
CO
I::l
ell
90
I::l
80
~
70
c:::
oM
Q)
150
I-l
Q)
"S
'50
-0
40
"'
Q)
0­
0-
0
I-l
U
ell
Q)
I-l
<:
30
20
10
0
__. ",,~~--l~~L--l8X~@""':"_----,.~_-!
~L~~~~:
1.5 lo 2.0
3.0 1.0
lo 1.5 'm
2.0 lo 3.0 m
Waler Table Deplhs (m) in 1994
~ April 1994
~ July 1994
Khorezm
~ Oclober 1994
> 5.0 m
Figure 4
Soil Salinity, Fertilizer Use and Yield
in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm
320 " - - - - - - - - ­
!
300 1------,.......- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
280 if - - - - - - - 1 ' , ( f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
I
260
I
-.----...,...?l----------=~'--------_::___::__~-----------1
"C
4i
>­
240
220
"C
t:
1tI
200
<:i
180
..
N
--
"
.....
.-..
>.
~
160
140
120
100
80
('j
if)
60
40
20
0
1985
19AO
1990
1993
Year~
500
Khorezm
--_._ ...
. _-
r-----­
...
_----.
1
450
i
431
I
I
"C
400
:.>
;;...
I\?
;X,
I
350
...
N
--
GJ
l.:..
.-::­...
r.". .
~<
-- [><
X
2QO
\(
150
c:l
if)
~
>~j
V:,
.
r.
!
.~
.~
100
,<;
~2'53
)<
~ [>< ~1
50
1 -
y
II<
A
0
I
~?'
-~%
>:
0i-'\."I"/. x
1980
X
~::;<
f-.r..>:
,.........~
..
r.~{
.:X ~
~.
...
:x
:x
><
><
;<.
V< h
>
X
~.
I
-,_
".'
"
)<
-
X
--_._---- .
"
x
.---
x
·_·_--tJ-·
:x..
;
.~
)<
I'Y
-
>~
r-
~
----- ><
)<
x
/
Y
i
i
.11A
l)<
',',
x
250
i
X
/
><
><
300
l-
V
>~
.,.,
"C
CIl
393
"
I
~
-
j<
x
~_.-
:>:
~
>:
46
,~.,.,
x.. ....
~ x..~~1
R~
vv
~
x
1990
g
~.
x
• ~.,
l~[ ;x ,....
rR~ Q~
)<
199,1
Years
~ Slightly saline
~ Moderately saline
rs:sJ
Collon yield (c/ha)
~ Highly saline
LZZI
Rice yield '(c/ha)
~ F'el'Lilzer usage (kglha)
Karakalpakstan
Administrative Structure
>
i:
I
VI
•m
MUYNAK
VI
lI)
m
L
,
I!
, !
~
/
I:
KU GRAD
I
43 N
! !
r'
/
/
(':'~
::>
\
(
KA
~~U"~~,
~\\\
\'
)
I
I
I
,
ERUNI
EWKA4
'-..I
.::J
/
I.
:
I
42 N
\
!
!
\
\
i
: I
I
TURTKUL
' - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - ' - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - 'I
KM
-
Gna 1degr
20
40
60
80
..;.
"",
"-~
----======================~I
:
I
,
Khorezm Oblast
:
i Administrative Structure
IL
_
III !
:
I,
I
:
42 N
)\
n~
~,~~~.~azar
\
\
SHAV
'"
,, ,
g
I'll
L
\
s
-.. . . .
"V
.~~~"
)
~
~
~\
@
I f KOSHKUPIR
~HANKA
...
N
I'll
I'll
\~~~.YIIW'!!!.
(~~
.
("'.G"
"'1
',,~
a'G'T
""-,
~
\1
~
,,"'Z<RAS
----lL.
~
r----""
'"
~' "
\ ~"'~.
\1----~------------J---~---~4~1!LN-------_Mb,
\
UZHBA
i:
!
"'-,_
""-'"
"
i
,
!
Layers
/
/
Rayons
•
/
/
Raycemers
KM
-
/
Gnd 1 degree
20
40
60
80
-
',.'
===
~-==-==========::::::========================~!Ii
I
IIi
I
Aral Lake Zone
II"
Irrigation
!i
II
••
1
1
1
:
Ii
I!
i!
i
'
I
I
-----~~
II
,,/~~,'-,
II
,
,-J
~/
!j
!i
,I"
/
Ii '!
I
i;
i,
:.
•
,
I
11
I'
II
II
,.
/
/
I'
,,
,
'I
I,
I'
'
I'
i ~
Layers
\
Khorezm oblast
"'"
KaraKalpaKstan
·1
Irngated areas
'----.J
0
•
:~
LaKes
Amudarya
KM
Raycenters
a
Main canalS
20
40
60
80
100
\
.-/
,</
:
•...
,"
"
~
::~.
".,
-------------------========:-11
II
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
Karakalpakstan
I
I
Infrastructure
o
o
;-.A·"_I
"
: " ' - - ' , ' \ .. :>
I'
I,
"-_J
Layers
Karakalpakstan
Raycenters
Settlements
-­
Main roads
-+­
Railways
KM
20
40
60
80
-
.,;
:>.:
II
II
Khorezm Oblast
II
I I
Infrastructure
i I
; I
II
, i
I,
:
I
i i
i:
i!
,
I:
:, i
I
,,
,
! :
I
! .
Layers
Khorezm oblast
Raycenters
i:
Settlements
I
KM
o
__
Railways
20
40
60
80
L
.
WPNo
:IJ.tm
Author(S)
97-11
Farmer Participation in Reforestation Incentive Programs in
Costa Rica
Thacher, T., D.R. Lee and J.W.
Schelhas
97-10
Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National
Park Entrance Fees in Costa Rica
Chase, L.C., D.R. Lee, W.D.
Schulze and D.J. Anderson
97-09
The Private Provision of Public Goods: Tests of a
Provision Point Mechanism for Funding Green Power
Programs
Rose, S.K., J. Clark, G.L. Poe, D.
Rondeau and W.D. Schulze
97-08
Nonrenewability in Forest Rotations: Implications for
Economic and Ecosystem Sustainability
Erickson, J.D., D. Chapman, T.
Fahey and M.J. Christ
97-07
Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Energy? An
Econometric Analysis
Agras, J. and D. Chapman
97-06
A Comparative Analysis of the Economic Development of
Angola and Mozamgbique
Kyle, S.
97-05
Success in Maximizing Profits and Reasons for Profit
Deviation on Dairy Farms
Tauer, L. and Z. Stefanides
97-04
A Monthly Cycle in Food Expenditure and Intake by
Participants in the U.S. Food Stamp Program
Wilde, P. and C. Ranney
97-03
Estimating Individual Farm Supply and Demand Elasticities
Using Nonparametric Production Analysis
Stefanides, Z. and L. Tauer
97-02
Demand Systems for Energy Forecasting: Practical
Considerations for Estimating a Generalized Logit Model
Weng, W. and T.D. Mount
97-01
Climate Policy and Petroleum Depletion
Khanna, N. and D. Chapman
96-22
Conditions for Requiring Separate Green Payment Policies
Under Asymmetric Information
Boisvert, R.N. and J.M. Peterson
96-21
Policy Implications of Ranking Distributions of Nitrate
Runoff and Leaching by Farm, Region, and Soil
Productivity
Boisvert, R.N., A.Regmi and T.M.
Schmit
96-20
The Impact of Economic Development on Redistributive
and Public Research Policies in Agriculture
de Gorter, H. and J.F.M. Swinnen
96-19
Penn State Comellintegrated Assessment Model
Barron, E.J., D. Chapman, ~1.F.
Kasting, N. Khanna, A.Z. Rose and
P.A. Schultz
7'
"
<fJ
To order single copies of ARME publications, write to: Publications, Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Warren
Hall, Comell University, Ithaca, NY 14853·7801.
~