Report of the
International Academic Conference
‘Agricultural Knowledge and Knowledge Systems in Post-Soviet
Societies’
Date: September 12-13, 2013
Venue: Center for Development Research, ZEF, Bonn, Germany
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Contact Details of the Organizers:
Dr. Anna-Katharina Hornidge
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
mail: hornidge@uni-bonn.de
phone: (+49) 228 731718
Dr. Hafiz Boboyorov
Academy of Science of Tajikistan
mail: hafizboboyorov21@hotmail.com
Dr. Anastasiya Shtaltovna
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
mail: shtaltov@uni-bonn.de
Andreas Mandler
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
mail: amandler@uni-bonn.de
2
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Day 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Panel I: Cultures of knowledge production and sharing in agriculture .................................................. 6
Panel II: Agricultural Advisory Service Development.............................................................................. 9
Panel III: Agricultural Advisory Service Development........................................................................... 11
Panel IV: Agricultural Advisory Service Development .......................................................................... 13
Public Lecture: Knowledge Transfer and Cultural Context ................................................................... 14
Day 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Panel I: Local Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production ................................................ 15
Panel II: Local Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production ............................................... 17
Panel III: Local Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production .............................................. 19
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1: List of participants ............................................................................................................ 22
Appendix 2: Conference programme.................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 3: Presentations .................................................................................................................... 25
3
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Introduction
Agriculture in the post-Soviet states of Central Asia and the Caucasus continues to be of central
importance for securing individual livelihoods in the region. At present, the agricultural sector
employs about half of the region’s workforce; a high percentage of the population lives in rural
areas. Total revenues from agriculture in the region count between one quarter and one third of
annual national GDPs. However, the development of the agrarian sector is very heterogeneous.
Despite constant economic growth of the sector, overall production of staple crops is often not
sufficient to satisfy national needs with high poverty levels especially in the rural areas.
Furthermore, the newly formed states of Central Asia and Caucasus are undergoing rapid socioeconomic processes of transformation and agriculture appears in many ways half-way between
collective production soviet style and new forms of individual farming. Here, knowledge generation
and the development of locally adapted, agricultural innovations, which match the legal and
financial possibilities of local farmers to innovate is crucial. For guaranteeing adaptability, these
ideas for improving agricultural practices and ‘innovations’ have to be developed locally, embedded
in present cultures of knowledge production and diffused through local networks and channels of
knowledge sharing. External and global knowledge can stimulate these processes positively, but
depending on local governance practices.
This formed the focus of the conference: While on the one side new ideas, ways of doing things and
thus innovations have to match the ‘windows of opportunity’ of local farmers to actually make sense
and be adopted, it is on the other side this legal, financial and socio-political structure that has to be
adjusted to successfully foster local creativity development. And third, discussions on developing
existing agricultural service systems further in order to fill the needs of increasingly (semi-) privatized
farmers are drawing on both of these concerns.
Agricultural knowledge, which may be grasped as everything what is considered useful for
agricultural production, its production and diffusion, is heavily entangled with local governance
processes. The term ‘governance’ refers not only to governmental structures; it embraces also local
institutions and processes. Governance may be understood as reciprocal process, that refers to
detectable structures (as institutions, networks, hierarchies etc.) and deal with processes of
interaction among various structures, which eventually entail decisions and its implementation.
4
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
The three conference themes were:
1. Cultures of knowledge production and sharing in agriculture: How can local epistemic cultures
determining the character of the agricultural knowledge systems be assessed and what do they look
like? Who are the actors and structures of agriculturally oriented knowledge and innovation
development as well as the local channels of innovation diffusion?
2. Local governance arrangements and knowledge production: How is the local production of
knowledge, its share and use influenced and stimulated by overall factors, as state legislation,
economic incentives or social arrangements? What determines the status of knowledge in a rural
community, assuming that knowledge is constantly being shaped and at the same time shaping
people’s behavior? How do governance arrangements - including the governance of natural
resources of e.g. land and water – enable and constrain the development, mobilization and
adaptation of knowledge?
3. Agricultural advisory service development: We wish to analyze the present situation of
agricultural advisory services development by examining the role of knowledge in current
agricultural production. Do farmers/ farming systems e.g. lack certain types of knowledge, while
actively (re-)producing and disseminating others? What prevents them from accessing and using
knowledge? Who are the main knowledge providers to farmers during the transition process? What
enables and constrains the use of agricultural advisory support services for improved agricultural
production?
Participants from various European and Central Asian countries with different disciplinary
backgrounds presented empirical and theoretical research papers on the issues of knowledge,
innovations, extension, agricultural advisory services and the interfaces of knowledge and
governance. This shed light on present agricultural politics towards knowledge creation and
dissemination in Central Asian and Caucasian societies.
The conference was organized in close collaboration of two research projects implemented by the
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn. The first project is supported by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research, investigates ‘Epistemic Cultures and Innovation
Diffusion in post-soviet Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. Pilot Study: Agricultural Knowledge
Systems in Georgia and Tajikistan’. The second project supported by Volkswagen Foundation, looks
5
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
at ‘Conversion of Knowledge in Post-soviet Agriculture: The Impact of Local Governance on the
Knowledge Management of Agricultural Actors in Tajikistan’.
The following provides merely a short overview over the presentations and following discussions.
For detailed information on the presentations, please refer to the actual presentations in the
appendix.
Day 1
Panel I:
I: Cultures of knowledge production and sharing in agriculture
Moderated by Dr. Anna-Katharina Hornidge (Center for Development Research, Bonn)
Dr. Anna-Katharina Hornidge in her opening speech emphasized the interdependence of knowledge
production and governance arrangements. Two research projects that the colleagues from ZEF and
their local partners have been implementing since 2011 focus on the topics of (1) local epistemic
cultures, (2) local governance of knowledge production and (3) state and non-state institutions
which provide extension services or generate agricultural knowledge.
The region of Central Asia and Caucasus that the two research projects have dealt with has quite
diverse agricultural practices and different settings and conditions for the development of the
agricultural sector. Especially we can observe how ecological and socio-economic changes have
increased the risks related to uncertainties, insecurity and lack of safety. The research projects
observed, as many other studies including Wall (2008) also did, a ‘knowledge loss’ and increasing
mismatch of local knowledge and todays governance arrangements, in part due to the Soviet
modernization of the agricultural sector, disintegration of the Soviet expertise after 1991 and
knowledge gaps which have not been updated.
The researchers have found out that the local epistemic or knowledge cultures are characterized by
a high degree of fragmentation, including low cooperation due to the heritage of a strong
engineering mentality of the Soviet-agro-system. Due to this mentality the post-Soviet efforts of
knowledge production have substantially been isolated and alienated. As a result, we can observe
extension service providing NGOs as islands of alternative agricultural expertise which are
dependent on donors’ agendas and prone to state influence. With regard to the governance of
agricultural knowledge, the researchers have observed that knowledge production practices and
institutions, including ‘extension’ NGOs are group-based and shaped by local patrons and
6
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
development brokers. In the field of extension services in the region two competing epistemic
cultures have been important to shape the quality of agricultural knowledge practices. These
cultures are based on nation-state concepts and Western conceptions of extension services.
In her talk, entitled “Goldmine of Unique Archival Information about Age-Old Water Management
Practices and Knowledge and Their Modern Application in Uzbekistan”, Dr. Darya Hirsch (University
of Applied Sciences Bonn Rhein-Sieg, Sankt Augustin) raised the question on why knowledge,
especially ancient, is important for agricultural practices in the region of Central Asia. Her research
focused on the issue of the inheritance of old knowledge and its use in the context of contemporary
Uzbekistan. The Soviet state provided a lot of support on science and research in certain, including
agricultural fields. However, due to the 5-year planned economy and the demand that any
technological and knowledge production should meet the plan goals, old local knowledge in the
agricultural sector had been neglected. Megalomaniya was the result of such policy which meant
that knowledge was produced mainly for large enterprises, including the agricultural sector.
In post-Soviet
Uzbekistan
the
Uzbek
scholars speak
about how to
cope with the
social
and
economic
changes
which have led to insufficient knowledge on irrigation and agriculture. For this purpose, they also
consider the relevance of ancient knowledge which was initially produced in various local languages.
Since Tsarist times, orientalists were exploring the region on old-age knowledge, visible in
publications like Ancient Khorazm by Yagodin and ‘Water and Ethics’ by Abrar Kadyrov. The work of
Abrar Kadyrov showed evidence of traditional social behavior of Uzbeks in terms of water
management and discussed institutions and actors which managed irrigation system, including
mirab, oqsaqol and hasher. The book was written in Russian and now is translated into English (but
not into Uzbek). As an example of the modern integration of old-age local irrigation knowledge,
Hirsch talked about two websites, including CAWATER project funded by Swiss Cooperation and
7
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Development Agency and the Network of Irrigation Organizations (Сеть водохозяйственных
организаций) funded by Russia.
Hirsch argues that a proper model for the application of old-age agricultural knowledge has been
developed and implemented in Uzbekistan (the point which was also highly questioned and debated
by the conference participants). The production and sharing of ex site (old written) agricultural
knowledge have been channeled through educational institutions, often agricultural universities and
colleges to farmers via researchers and extension service organizations. Many participants
questioned and commented on how researchers and extensionists can reach farmers in the postSoviet context. It was mentioned that the book of Abrar Kadyrov was written in Old Russian and
translated into English, while there is no Uzbek translation. This would also say that this age-old
knowledge is not demanded and relevant to the actual practices in the agricultural sector – as some
participants commented. Furthermore it was mentioned that those who republished or revised the
old-age knowledge especially during Tsarist and Soviet periods reconstructed it according to the
political agendas. He mentioned that those who create or constructs such knowledge can also
influence its contents and functioning.
Jeanne Féaux de la-Croix (Zentrum
Moderner Orient, Berlin) presented
on “Food-soldiers of development?
The role of Kyrgyzstani Traineri in
agricultural knowledge transfer”. She
took the case of Traineri (Russian and
Kyrgyz version for ‘trainers’) to show
that they are not authoritative enough
to implement their development jobs
in Kyrgyz society. Often Traineri are
between 20-40 years old while their audience is much older. In a hierarchical society like Kyrgyzstan
– for example structured by gender, age or ancestry- such differences therefore create conflicts and
problems to reach certain development goals. As long as the Traineri provide financial and material
support to their clients, they are heard. For example, there was a lot of money spent on
environment risk prevention and water management. WB, AKDN and US NGOs are working with
local NGOs in these fields where the Traineri appear as “foot-soldiers”.
8
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
The other important barrier is that agricultural knowledge, including the one which is provided by
extension service NGOs and Traineri, is not only practical or technical information about how to
grow certain crops and the like, but in the context of Kyrgyzstan it is also about identity-building.
Panel II:
II: Agricultural Advisory Service Development
Moderated by Dr. Kristof van Assche, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Dr. Kristof van Assche (Wageningen University/ Center for Development Studies) made the
introductory speech referring on the western model of extension services that is based on a
conception of free, autonomous farmers.
Then, Dr. Filippo de Danieli (School of
Oriental and African Studies, London) gave his
presentation
on
“Agricultural
Extension
Service Providers in the Sughd Region in
Northern Tajikistan. His data and experiences
were collected during field research in 20112012. Working for Italian NGOs with local
staff of 15-20 people, based in Sugd region in
Khudshand province of Tajikistan. This work
was part of a larger EU funded project on
poverty reduction. He underlined that the
existing ESP (extension service providers) in Tajikistan are fragmented, with various features of
services provided and a differing quality of service. Generally, rather little collaboration with other
ESP happening, instead it bears features of a competitive relation among the ESP. The author then
raises the question, if the ESP are detached from the farmers. He points that instead they are more
linked to donors and often perceived as “post-soviet mafia style business”. ESP and NGOs are mainly
interested in maintaining themselves and not in delivering good service. On a technical level, the
ESP’s missed to take a value chain approach in agriculture in Tajikistan. Thus, advisory services have
not extended the agricultural development in Tajikistan. The author gives the recommendation to
train staff abroad. There are indications that the rural population and farmers start to perceive ESP
and NGOs as corrupted. Therefore a clear cut and change is necessary to make ESP useful.
9
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
In the ensuing discussion, the question was raised why there are no need based ESP in Tajikistan.
People’s perception of NGOs has changed; at the beginning there was a positive image of NGOs, but
then corrupted practices have appeared and became common. That means on local level the opinion
spread that services are provided for exchange payments, e.g. to exchange seeds and food supply
with access to land. Such supposedly “mafia” arrangements are hard to address by the researcher
as this belongs to a system of trust to convince people and make them comply with. If they don’t,
violence and money are used.
Coming back to the work of the ESP’s, present requests of farmers include access to new seeds,
information on Chinese greenhouses (which are widespread in Sugd) and other things are of
interest for those who want to invest. The present ESP’s need to provide good products, although
open questions concerning the future of the ESP’s remain, especially regarding their future financing
through regular payments by farmers. In the discussion it was underlined that meeting farmers
requests and pursue a value chain approach will be part of the future strategies of the ESP’s. There
are different kinds of farms and farmers in Tajikistan, it is necessary to create incentives for each
group.
Dr. Anastasiya Shtaltovna (Centre for Development research) then gave a presentation on
“Agricultural Knowledge Systems in Georgia”. By looking at the case of wine production, she
demonstrated how through centuries and different political regimes the traditional knowledge on
wine making was maintained, enriched and partially lost. Amongst numerous problems in
agriculture, are such difficulties as the fragmentation of arable land plots, poor infrastructure for
smallholders (storage, irrigation, etc.), the lingering economic embargo with Russia since 2008
(especially the impact on wine export) and high interest rate of loans from commercial banks. The
non-existent farmers’ association in Georgia tells about the weak political representation of farmers.
Agriculture is in Georgia, as in Tajikistan, seen as a synonym for poverty. The English language is
nowadays dominant, the previous Russian-speaking science and institutions from the Soviet time
suffers. The older staff is often isolated from the process of knowledge creation. English-language
information material is wide spread in the vine business and enforced through cooperation projects.
Agricultural advisory services are rarely available; they are mainly introduced by donors with their
different goals. Since 2013, the Georgian government is in the process of establishing 45 extension
centres around Georgia. The sources of knowledge for these centres are somehow mixed:
•
Academy of Agricultural Sciences
•
No cooperation with the ‘modernised’ Agricultural University
10
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
•
2013
Government relies more on NGO expertise rather than on Universities and former Soviet
knowledge institutions. NGOs – highly dependent on donors’ funding
Very little cooperation with the experienced NGOs
The presentation ended with the question if Georgia will be able to make use of the potential in
wine production and to develop and protect their heritage?
Panel III: Agricultural
Agricultural Advisory Service Development
Moderated by Dr. John Lamers (Center for Development Studies).
Dr. John Lamers opened the session by reflecting on some preconditions when establishing
agricultural advisory services. .Before establishing it, one has to think about the following questions:
Who is the client? Why to establish it? What is the message it should convey? How is it organized?
Who is doing this? What are the tools and how does financing work?
Dr. Anar Hatamov (Azerbaijan State Agricultural University, Ganja) held a presentation on the
transformation of the higher education system in Azerbaijan. 50% of the population lives in rural
areas of Azerbaijan; 55% of the territory of the country is used in agricultural sector. However,
agriculture and forestry contribute 5% to the GDP, whereas 50% comes from industries. He talked
about the issues of economic indicators, education and training in Azerbaijan. Mr. Hatamov talked
about the state programme on education for 2007-2015 that envisages ‘transforming black gold into
human capital’. He has also touched the topic of gender in education. He has mentioned that the
amount of women in agricultural
education
is
very
low.
The
structure in agricultural production
impacts
employment
in
agriculture. For example, in the
Soviet period, there was a focus on
cotton production. Thus many
women were involved in it as a lot
of labour force war required. Since
independence, there is a shift from
cotton towards wheat production.
11
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
And here there are not many options for women employment. Nowadays, small scale farming is
prevailing in agricultural production in Azerbaijan.
The next presentation was held by Dr. Nodir Djanibekov (Leibniz Institute of Agricultural
Development in Central and Eastern Europe IAMO, Halle). His presentation was entitled ‘Agricultural
organizations and the role of contractual structures in post-Soviet Uzbekistan’. In his presentation he
tried to answer the following questions: Why do some farmers in Uzbekistan perform better than
others? What are the functions of contracts? In his presentation he has talked about the history of
contractual arrangements. For this, he has worked with the institutional economics’ concepts by
Nelson & Winter (1982) and Ostrom (1990) amongst others. He has explained the details of the
transition of agricultural land in Uzbekistan.
During the discussion session, the question on sending students abroad was raised. Mr. Hatamov
answered that there are governmental funds available for students to go and study abroad at the
condition that they return and work for 5 years in Azerbaijan. He also added, that the University
currently opens a new programme where students can obtain education in English. Despite offered
opportunities by the government, there is a low interest of students to study agriculture. The main
reason for that is low salary in agriculture compared to public and other sectors of economy.
The next question to Mr. Hatamov asked waswhere the advisors for the extension services are
trained? Mr. Hatamov answered that it does not take place at the Agricultural University, but mostly
in NGOs.
Another question to Dr. Djanibekov addressed the determination of formal and informal rules and
institutions, taking into consideration the long ongoing debate in this regard. The informal was used
to describe what is not officially regulated in contrast to formal institutions.
The final remark in this session was how extension oragricultural advisory service should be
communicated to be as transparent as possible to know what it is about and how it can be
improved.
12
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Panel IV: Agricultural Advisory Service Development
Moderated by Petra Geraedts (Consultant on Agricultural Extension and Rural Development).
In his presentation on behalf of Dr. Galina Akimbekova, Dr. Clemens Fuchs (University of Applied
Sciences, Neubrandenburg) gave a presentation on “Providing Financial Services in Rural Areas of
Kazakhstan”. Following this, there are knowledge dissemination centres (KDC) throughout the
country. The speech started with the question, why rural people do not have bank accounts. Too
much bureaucracy, big distances and a low income were identified as limiting factors. The problem
regarding rural bank accounts in Kazakhstan is not so much if there is any use of a plastic card, but
how to establish access to loans. One main challenge of farmers is the lack of funding opportunities.
Many farmers take loans with 10% interest rate etc. and get heavily indebted. People in rural areas
are rather equal regarding income. 2-3 people might buy a tractor together and thus enhance their
producing opportunities. KDC in rural areas are mainly orientated towards small and medium
farmers. Mrs. Akimbekova and Mr. Fuchs recommend supporting them with more free of charge
advice. In the south of Kazakhstan we find predominantly small scale farming while in the north
many large enterprises are situated. Big agroholdings in the north produce cereals and livestock.
In the south household enterprises with land plots
between 1 and 30ha engage manly in vegetables
and cotton. In the following discussion, the
question where the knowledge comes from that
feeds into the extension services was raised.
Generally it has to be said that the quality of advice
is not very good. There are also private advisory
service providers that are commercial, which leads
to competition with the established KDC.
In the following presentation, Mrs. Katherina
Vantomme
(Leibniz
Institute
of
Agricultural
Development in Central and Eastern Europe IAMO)
addressed the question on “What are the Effects of
Knowledge, Innovations and Agricultural Services on the Productivity of Different Farm Types?
Evidence from Kazakhstan”. Following economic models, extension means enhancing productivity,
agricultural development and education, which in turn leads to higher returns of investment.
13
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
However, the extension efforts in Kazakhstan lead to mixed results. The Ministry of Agriculture of
Kazakhstan organizes extension services for free, but with rather low effects. This is potentially due
to the top-down approach in dealing with agricultural challenges. Findings from professionals
working in the services indicate that other incentives for farmers and advisory staff are needed.
Which incentives are attractive? Apparently an important point is the age of the farm managers.
Senior managers often act more successfully as younger managers. They do so by cooperating with
other key figures on sales. They are able to make more effectively use of advice and networking.
Public Lecture: Knowledge Transfer and Cultural Context
Prof. Dr. Dirk Tänzler (Bonn University, Bonn) gave a public lecture on “Knowledge Transfer and
Cultural Context, Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres”. In this speech he gave insights into the fight
against corruption and the work of Transparency International as example of an advocacy NGO. Prof.
Tänzler sees corruption as a prerequisite and general feature of all transformations of societies. The
research project dealt with the cultures of corruption and anti-corruption and considered the
implementation of the ALAC project with Transparency International (TI) in 2009-2012, funded by
the European Commission. The Methodology of this research involved action-research The ALACs
included 3 kinds of actors: Civil Society, the TI secretariat and Social Scientists. Theory establishes
strong links between theory and practice in knowledge societies, but a need for reflections and
cooperation between social scientists and actors is necessary. The question ensuing for TI is how
democratic ownership develops: 3 objectives (enhance legal advice, citizen participation, and
constant involvement of TI) can be established. TI is thus following the advocacy concept, through
fighting corruption locally and globally, lobby governments, professionalizing activists and creating
awareness, building opportunities for self-help and empowerment. Building on empirical expert
knowledge and standardization, working for structural changes in the fight against corruption and
creating public awareness, transcending private interests and giving concrete suggestions and legal
recommendations, while not confronting governments; these were the objectives of the ALAC
project. The findings illustrate that TI can work as a catalyst for civil society, especially in countries
with high day-to-day and institutional corruption. Through creating awareness via the media, people
become actively involved which eventually provides legitimation and leads to structural change.
Thus, networks of civil society can be studied as epistemic communities, with a need for enlarging
training and knowledge transfer, organizational learning and intercultural cooperation.
14
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
In the ensuing discussion dealt with the applicability and validity of the concept of corruption in nonwestern states and the extent of corruption in Western Europe. The debate touched the question if
there is a common understanding of what corruption is. Prof. Tänzler underlined the non-ideological
approach and the high degree of trust the population has in TI. Then, issues of transparency vs.
privacy were discussed and, referring to the context of Azerbaijan, the stabilizing role an
authoritarian government can have. Prof. Tänzler closed with the remark that the high level of
sensibility in many former socialist countries regarding matters of corruption can raise sensitivity in
the west as well.
Day 2
Panel I: Local Governance
Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production
Moderated by Dr. Conrad Schetter (Bonn International Center for Conversion BICC, Bonn)
In his introductory speech, Conrad Schetter welcomed and introduced the presenters and the focus
country of the panel which was
Tajikistan.
Then,
Dr.
Hafiz
Boboyorov
(Academy of Sciences of the
Republic of Tajikistan) held a
presentation on “The role of
personal networks in choosing
the types of crops in the cotton
sector of southern Tajikistan”.
Constrains and concerns for farming and cropping strategies in southern Tajikistan were examined.
70% of the country’s population lives in rural areas, while the share of agriculture in GDP is
decreasing and labour migration is very frequent. Economic incomes mostly benefit elites while
farmers are left in debt. The question was raised, why farmers settle for cotton as their crop, even
though income is lower than from other crops. The answer lies in the predictability concerning
debts, taxation and marketing. Other crops are often not available and exempted from taxes.
Further, cotton consolidates people through collective work. The marketing monopoly for cotton is
held by TASS, a company established by the World Bank and the central bank of Tajikistan. TASS
reduces seasonal uncertainties, but farmers get indebted and stay chained to the cotton sector.
15
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Deficits in infrastructure also inhibit farmers’ opportunities for changing crops. TASS dominates the
whole production and marketing process, a monopoly broken only by locally powerful farmers. State
pressures farmers into producing cotton but also encourages and benefits them. Local elites
dominate decision making and local economy, personal relations are crucial for maintaining hold on
agricultural land and income. A further discussion on the mechanisms of indebting and exploiting
farmers and the role of personal networks and local elites, who often show much continuity from
Soviet times, are needed. Extension is often used as an excuse to intervene into farmer’s businesses.
Mr. Andreas Mandler (Center for Development Studies) presented his findings from fieldwork in
Tajikistan in 2011/2012 under the title “Farmers’ Future Perspectives on agricultural production in
the Zarafshan Valley in Tajikistan”. The research region is marked by mountainous agriculture, smallscale fruit and vegetable production, pastoralism and livestock production. Problems include high
input prices and transaction costs, subsistence and part-time farming and a double income economy
marked by a high degree of labor migration. Farming is partly organized in collective farms (dekhan)
with little commercial activities, insecure property structures and non-transparent government
arrangements. Due to labor migration, women dominate agriculture. Farmers perceive agriculture as
leading to poverty, a second income is needed to sustain living. The overall technical level is very low
and the workload not sufficient for whole year, so seasonal unemployment is frequent. There are
better opportunities in Russia.
Farmers’ desires for the future include diversification to escape monoculture, a better balance
between livestock and cropping, more technical opportunities and better access to arable land.
There is also a desire to set up individual or family dekhan farms for the benefits it offers, e.g. higher
protection and security. There is a high level of knowledge on legal proceedings and governance
structures in the population. Power and governance structures are highly hierarchical, knowledge
and governance are coexisting, but knowledge on governance is prioritized by the population over
knowledge on agriculture.
In the ensuing discussion, the issue of uncertainty and if it is being produced deliberately was raised
once more. The presenters state that uncertainty is partly produced, partly a by-product of political
decisions and environmental change. Also, it was discussed who the local elites are and what their
role is. The Tajik civil war and its implications for identity and dealing with political issues was also
discussed, with the result that it is still prevalent in people’s minds, as well as in authorities takes on
solving problems through mobilizing fear.
16
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Panel II: Local Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production
Moderated by Dr. Hafiz Boboyorov (Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan)
The panel was opened by the chair Dr. Hafiz Boboyorov. After the introduction of the new panel the
first speaker, Alfiya Kuznetsova (Bashkir State Agrarian University, Ufa, Russia) started with her
presentation on “Problems in the development of innovations in agricultural activities in the
Republic of Bashkortostan”. First she talked about the agricultural development in the Republic of
Bashkortostan. According to the output through agriculture the Republic of Bashkortostan belongs
to the first three regions of the Russian Federation. The most prospering fields are the production of
milk, honey and the breeding of cattle, especially of horses. In the following Mrs. Kuznetsova
showed figures and charts on the Dynamics of Production Capacity of the Agricultural Organizations,
the GDP Structure in Russia in 1990 and 2010, the Structure of Production on categories of farms
from 1990 to 2011, the relation of an average monthly salary of employees of the enterprises and
the organizations on economy branches to the national average level in percent and the Investments
into the fixed capital, the economy of the Republic of Bashkortostan aimed at the development as a
whole and in agriculture from 2001 to 2011. During her presentation she pointed out, that the food
security depends strongly on the technical level of agriculture. Moreover, she stressed the problem
of the decrease of population in Russia. As a solution, Alfiya Kuznetsova recommended to keep the
number of students in the agricultural sector as high as possible and to invest injections in the
development of the branch to increase the prestige of agriculture.
The second presentation in the
session was held by Mr. Makhmud
Shaumarov (Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Social Sciences in
Tropics and Subtropics, Hohenheim,
Germany).
His
topic
was
the
“Contribution of Scientific Knowledge
to
Dryland
Pastoral
System
Development in the Former Soviet
Uzbekistan”. Uzbekistan is located in an arid, extreme continental sub-tropical zone. Moreover, it
has vast steppes, deserts and pastures and limited water access. Nearly 55 % of the country territory
is occupied by natural rangelands. Livestock rearing is a rapidly growing sector of agriculture and the
livestock sector make over half of the Gross Agricultural output. Nearly 90 % of livestock is kept by
17
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
individual rural households and over 2 Million of the rural population relies on pastoral animal
rearing, especially concentrating on the karakul sheep, which is the source of food, income and
savings. This leads to pasture overgrazing and biodiversity loss in the drylands.
The methodology is an inductive reasoning study relying on a field work during July to October 2012
and July to August 2013 represented by 64 interviews with 6 focus groups. The speaker first gave a
historical overview during the soviet times and the established services and institutions with their
functions in the pastoral system. After that, an analysis of the knowledge system in the transition
period followed. The biggest problems after the collapse of the Soviet system are the limited
funding, the shrinking scientific capacities in research institutions, limited modernization and the
decline of traditional knowledge and practices of the shepherds. The Soviets were able to develop
productive rangeland use due to political and economic incentives, extensive rangeland research and
comprehensive institutional structure. These lessons from past experiments and institutional setup
in rangelands are unique and have to be learned and utilized. Moreover, cooperative grazing
traditions and existing contractual practice in forestry pastures can be instrumental for further
reforms and strong political and economic incentives are essential for the future.
After the presentations, the
question on whether the
problem really is a lack of
funds or whether the system
was simply too expensive and
could not been kept alive was
raised. Makhmud Shaumarov
replied that unofficially still
some elements of the soviet
system exist, like for example
shepherds as contractors. The main problems are the unwillingness of the chairmen of the farms to
invest, as in former times many things were free and now expensive. Additionally, the infrastructure
is still there but is not maintained at all, which leads to its decline. These facts limit them from
contracting other services and they prefer to do a lot by themselves and maintain the business as it
is. Though many sources for micro credits are available, the system sometimes does not allow
expanding. Livestock breeding also has a traditional role in the society.
Concerning the case example from Russia, the main problems are the low motivation for working in
the agricultural sector and the switch of good educated employments to other higher paid sectors.
As advisory services were free during the soviet time, people are not willing to pay for them now. To
18
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
steady the agricultural service, the ministry of agriculture offers competitions between farmers
every year or offers courses which cover legal issues, business plans or the improving of
qualification. Also, regarding the Uzbek case, the question whether the system had ever been
profitable was posed. Mr. Shaumarov explained, that the former soviets had to invest a lot into this
sector and that the breeding was not really profitable. All in all it was not beneficial for the state, but
the price of maintaining this sector was also not that high, so the state was ready to invest to keep
the sector alive. This served mostly for social benefits and to keep people in the region employed.
Concerning overgrazing, no such issue was visible until the 70ies.
Panel III: Local Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Production
Moderated by Dr. Hiltrud Herbers (University of Cologne, Cologne)
In her presentation, entitled “Plains of the North Caucasus:
“Plain of the North Caucasus: The Experience of Interaction
of Economic Actors Under Condition of Disintegration of the
Kolkhoz System and Migration Processes“, Dr. Ekaterina
Kapustina (Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and
Ethnography, St. Petersburg) gave an overview of the
economic and agricultural actors in the Stavropol region.
These consist of collective farmers and private farm activities.
These different actors also differentiate along ethnic lines.
Her study object was Irakli village in the Stavropol region, in
which 10 big farm enterprises are to be found that are mostly
ran by ethnic Russian farmers. Sheep breeder and
sheepherders instead almost exclusively belong to the Dargin
ethnic group. Vegetable growers are mostly from the Nogai ethnos. Vegetable business is most
profitable but risky: storage and commercialization are difficult to realize under current conditions.
Ethnic tensions are common in the village. However, social tensions at the places of origin of these
ethnics are supposedly higher. In the respective settlement areas of Daring and Nogai in the
Republic of Dagestan the government decreed a moratorium on selling land. This was introduced
due to tensions that resulted from disputes over access to land.I In mountainous regions the
traditional Adat law is practiced, e.g. households receive land without proper documents, thanks to
local village arrangements. Therefore Dagestanis are very much interested to buy land in the
19
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Stavropol region. However, this led to tensions with local farmers and sheepherders regarding
pastures and land.
Then, Dr. Wibke Crewett (Humboldt-University, Berlin) gave a speech entitled “There is a New Law?
Experiences from the Implementation of Pasture Governance Reform in Kyrgyzstan”. The results
presented came from the project CBNRM – community based natural resource management. Based
on a loan from the World Bank a certain policy regarding collective pasture management was
introduced to Kirgizstan. A new law on community based pasture management was introduced to
the country. This is already the second law, previous attempts to reform pasture management failed.
The
relevant
decisions
on
pasture
management are to be implemented by
the local administration. Mobilisation and
training to the local administrators to
implement the law is done through the
NGO Amro. Pasture unions are to be set
up to decide on pasture regimes and use
during the season. However, difficulties
remain; apparently some local practises
are not sustainable. Overgrazing, too many animals and unclear routes were identified as main
problems. According to Dr. Crewett a long term outside authority is needed to induce changes.
During the discussion, the question on how to deal with the existing pasture management came up.
It needs to be substituted; the current framework is not efficient as it does not manage properly to
collect the yearly fee for grazing. The first law attempt was better for the farmers, because it was not
implemented, and farmers didn’t have to pay.
Conclusions
Conclusions
The conference brought together participants from different post-Soviet spaces and from different
scholarly as well as professional backgrounds. As such the conference acted as platform for
interaction of development practitioners, researchers and agricultural extensionists.
Findings from academia and implementing organisations were presented and discussed. Challenges
facing the agricultural and knowledge systems in the research region were identified and structures
of knowledge production and dissemination investigated. Among the most disputed issues were the
role and work of NGO’s and their financing, the work of agricultural extension and advisory services
20
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
and the role of governments. Further research is needed on the issues of dealing with traditional and
archived knowledge today, how to give farmers incentives and advice they can actually use, how to
train staff in NGO’s and advisory services and on how to implement policy changes on the local level.
Questions of linking academia, extension service providers and farmers were actively debated. At
thesame time the question on how to rightly assess local farmers’ needs and how advisory services
should finance their services was considered important.
Generally, the transition of the Soviet farming system, relying mostly on large-scale production, into
subsistence and small-scale farming caused a degradation of Soviet knowledge and the institutions
that were responsible for its dissemination and production in all research countries.
Obstacles to the development of a well-functioning advisory service and agricultural production
identified during the conference include the abuse of funds and influence by local NGO’s, the often
disputed role of local governments and elites acting not accounted for, challenges in infrastructure
and marketing, the presence of state monopolies over certain crops and in decision-making, the
funding opportunities of non-state actors and the exploitation of these actors to foster nationalistic
goals of identity construction in multi-ethnic societies.
21
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Appendix 1: List of participants
Name
Institution and
Country
Akimbekova,
Agricultural Economics
Galya
and Rural Territories
Development, KIMEP
Almaty (Kazakhstan)
Van Assche, Kristof Wageningen
University
(Netherlands)
Boboyorov, Hafiz
Academy of Sciences
of Tajikistan
Crewett, Wibke
Humboldt-University
Berlin
De la Croix, Jeanne Zentrum Moderner
Féaux
Orient, Berlin
(Germany)
De Danieli, Filippo Independent Scholar
(Italy)
Djanibekov, Nodir Leibniz Institute of
Agricultural
Development in
Central and Eastern
Europe, Halle (IAMO)/
ZEF, Bonn (Germany)
Fuchs, Clemens
University of Applied
Science
Neubrandenburg
(Germany)
Geraedts, Petra
Consultant on
agricultural extension
and rural development
Hatamov, Anar
State Agricultural
University, Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Herbers, Hiltrud
University of Cologne
(Germany)
Hirsch, Darya
University of applied
Science, Bonn-RheinSieg (Germany)
Hornidge, AnnaZEF Bonn
Katharina
Kapustina,
Department of the
Ekaterina
Caucasus, Peter the
Great Museum of
Anthropology and
Ethnography, Russian
Academy of Science,
Country of
Research
Kazakhstan
Email
akimbekova_g@mail.ru
Uzbekistan,
Georgia, Ukraine
and others
Tajikistan
kristof.vanassche@wur.nl
hafizboboyorov21@hotmail.com
Kyrgyzstan
Wibke_crewett@web.de
Kyrgyzstan
jeannefeaux@yahoo.co.uk
Tajikistan
dedafari@libero.it
Uzbekistan
Nodir79@gmail.com
Kazakhstan
cfuchs@hs-nb.de
Tajikistan and
others
petra.geraedts@googlemail.com
Azerbaijan
anarhatamov@gmail.com
Uzbekistan
daryahirsch@email.de
Germany
hornidge@uni-bonn.de
Russia
parlel@mail.ru
22
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
Kußmann,
Sebastian
Kuznetsova, Alfiya
Kuznetsova, Elena
Lamers, John
Maddah, Homa
Mandler, Andreas
Rahmanzades, A.
Salzer, Anja
Schetter, Conrad
Shagdarsuren,
Oyuntuya
Shaumarov,
Makhmud
Shtaltovna,
Anastasiya
Taenzler, Dirk
Tan, Jiaxin
Vantomme,
Katharina
Utkur Djanibekov
Joe Hill
Bekchanov,
Maksud
Djalilov, Begzod
M.
St. Petersburg (Russia)
Student of organic
agriculture sciences at
the University of
Kassel/Witzenhausen
FGBOU VPO Bashkir
State Agrarian
University, Ufa (Russia)
Pensa (Russia)
ZEF Bonn (Germany)
PhD student, ZEF
(Germany)
ZEF (Germany)
BFTE
Freie Universität
Bozen
Bonn International
Center for
Conversation
ZEF (Germany)
2013
Georgia
h.schnoefflinger@gmx.net
Russia
Zorge34@bk.ru
Alfiya2050@gmail.com
Russia
Uzbekistan,
Azerbaijan,
Georgia and
others
Iran
Elena_myskina@mail.ru
j.lamers@uni-bonn.de
Tajikistan
amandler@uni-bonn.de
Georgia,
Azerbaijan
Anja.salzer@education.unibz.it
homamaddah@gmail.com
c.schetter@uni-bonn.de
Mongolia
Ocabone_23@yahoo.com
Institute of
Agricultural Economics
and Social Sciences in
Tropics and
Subtropics, University
of Hohenheim
(Germany)
ZEF (Germany)
Uzbekistan
Makhmud.shaumarov@unihohenheim.de
Georgia
shtaltov@uni-bonn.de
University of Köln
ZEF Bonn (Germany)
Leibniz Institute of
Agricultural
Development in
Central and Eastern
Europe, Halle
(Germany)
ZEF
ZEF
Germany
Dirk.Taenzler@uni-konstanz.de
jiaxintan@hotmail.com
vantomme@iamo.de
Kazakhstan
utkurdjanibekov@yahoo.com
jhill@uni-bonn.de
ZEF
Uzbekistan
India, Pakistan,
Tajikistan and
Kyrgystan
Uzbekistan
ZEF
Uzbekistan
begzod@hotmail.com
maksud@uni-bonn.de
23
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Appendix 2: Conference programme
24
Report of the Conference ‘Agricultural knowledge and knowledge systems in
post-Soviet societies, September 12-13, 2013, ZEF, Bonn
2013
Appendix 3: Presentations
The individual presentations follow chronologically and consecutively with four slides per page.
25
Presentations of the first conference day
Thursday, 12th September 2013
Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung
Center for Development Research
University of Bonn
!"!#$"%!#
!" # $%"%"&'&!()*
+ !,$-&./)*
&' (
0 -1 /2 # "
0 3 - 2 " ) (*
24.01.2011
A.-K. Hornidge
4
4( ! 5
! '-
#7111
5
• 8( • # - #-1 +-&,
• ! - -
! '-
(
• -9 " :- ! " - -
• +, ; - $11( ;"*
( + #,6
! $-*- ( -# -6
- # -1
-7-&
• < ; " ; #=
•
9 - # ; ( (( # ( 1
"
+*'
> 5 -3- (
5 517
# #
' ?"@
+*'
>5- 7- 9( !
'- ( A @
Thank you!
4(!
Agricultural Knowledge and Knowledge Systems in Post-Soviet Societies
International Academic Conference
September 12 – 13, 2013
*+,
7- $7B"*
• $-*
• 8
7- 5( $C(D*
Goldmine of unique archived information about
age-old water management practices and
knowledge and their modern application in
Uzbekistan
• ! $-"(D*
• 5
-
7- ($'*
• • 8
Dr. Darya Hirsch
7-"($'?*
• " • E
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. Inheritance of age-old knowledge and examples of their modern
application
3. How ex situ agricultural knowledge enriches knowledge
production and sharing among actors in Uzbekistan
4. Conclusions and recommendations
INTRODUCTION
Soviet period
Research institutes enjoyed sufficient governmental attention, had welldeveloped structures and financial support but suffered from their inability to put
their findings into practice (vnedreniye)
Most of the scientific approaches and technologies developed exclusively for
large enterprises (so-called “megalomania”)
Post-Soviet period
Uzbek scientists and policy-makers started seeking ways to cope with the
changes (Soviet experts departed, agricultural area shrunk/defragmented,
insufficient knowledge on land and water management)
It was recognized that there is ancient and age-old knowledge on water
management and governance practices
But this valuable knowledge is not available for broader use
INHERITANCE OF AGE-OLD KNOWLEDGE AND
EXAMPLES OF THEIR MODERN APPLICATION (I)
o Abrar Kadirov analyzed evidence of traditional social behavior of Uzbeks
in terms of water management
o Written (ancient and old literature) and oral (proverbs) sources on issues
of social ethics in water use were collected
o Local terms from the code of regulations of Muslim legislation, shariah, on
water and land use, mirob (local water master, responsible for the canals
and the water allocation between households), tuganchi (who constructed
dams or dykes), aryk-aksakals (the head of the canals, elected and paid
by the peasants of the village), khashar (joint activities on e.g. digging of
canals) were interpreted and explained
o For the first time ever, old recorded sources such as the Bulletin of
Irrigation (Vestnik Irrigazii), issued in 1917-1926 and available in Uzbek
libraries, were mentioned in a written modern publication
INHERITANCE OF AGE-OLD KNOWLEDGE AND
EXAMPLES OF THEIR MODERN APPLICATION (II)
http://www.cawater-info.net/
http://www.eecca-water.net
PRODUCTION AND SHARING OF EX SITU AGRICULTURAL
KNOWLEDGE
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
o The collection of recorded traditional environmental knowledge as well as
science-based knowledge and their management (e.g. archiving in
digital or other forms) is essential
o Traditional and science-based age-old knowledge need to be recorded
and digitized
o Oral traditions and in situ approaches should be maintained in institutions
where they are still in practice
o Coordination with and involvement of international bodies, e.g. digitizing
of old literature sources or the translation of key publications into English,
need to be strengthened
o Support of local scientists in educational programs, mobilizing
researchers from the region to publish their findings in renowned peerreviewed journals
!
"
#
$
%&'
Thank you for your attention
Dr. Filippo De Danieli, independent scholar
Table 1: Features of five Tajik extension service providers (ESPs)
Indicator
Size of organization (staff)
Geographical
dimension
Fields of expertise
0-1
2-5
>5
District
Multi- Nation y/n
district
-al
ESP 1
>10
>5
2-5
>10
X
ESP 2
>10
>5
>5
>10
X
ESP 3
1-5
2-5
0-1
1-5
ESP 4
1-5
2-5
0-1
6-10
ESP 5
6-10
2-5
2-5
6-10
X
X
X
X
Greenhouses
0-1
2-5
>5
Organic
farming
1-5
6-10
>10
1
Potato
1-5
6-10
>10
Levels
Livestock/
breeding
Tree
nurseries/or
chards
Range
Technical
admin,
Technical
staff partmanager- staff full-time
time
ial
(agronmists)
(advisors)
Cotton
total
staff
Donor
assistance
Vegetable
Sub-indicator
y/n
y/n
y/n
y/n
y/n
y/n
1
2-4
>5
Number of
donors
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
>5
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
>5
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
1
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
2-4
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
>5
10
Dr. Filippo De Danieli, independent scholar
Table 2: Qualitative analysis of ESPs work
Indicator
Range
Technical
staff
knowledge
Presence in
the field
Variety of
agricultural
services
provided
Collaboration
with other
organizations
Independence
from donors
Transparency
•
low
•
low
•
low
• low
• low
•
low
•
moderate
•
moderate
•
moderate
• moderate
• moderate
•
moderate
•
high
•
high
•
high
• high
• high
•
high
ESP 1
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
ESP 2
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
ESP 3
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
ESP 4
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
ESP 5
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Agricultural knowledge systems:
A case of wine production in
eastern Georgia
!"
#
$
%
&
'()(*+
2
%/#
(
/-33-
11
,-./.0-1
,%
,%
•
• 4,5 million people
• Georgia is a lower middle-income country (25% poverty)
Agriculture Sector
–
–
–
–
• 1991 – independence from USSR
• Worsening relations with Russia since independence
‘For the past 20 years agriculture has been an experiment’ (Interview with Elkana, Tbilisi, Georgia,
May 2013)
•
Structural Constraints
–
–
–
•
.
poor outlook and negative view of agricultural livelihoods
deficient support/advancement structures
agriculture is a populist cause in terms of modernization
“The agricultural sector has become synonymous with poverty or employer of last
resort” (Interview, current director of formerly prominent Soviet scientific federation,
May 2013)
4
"
%
#
"
%
•
Georgian wine making has a long tradition
Produced mostly from local endemic grape varieties (525 documented)
Winemaking technology is based on the use of kvevri
Wine production: Cottage industry and small/medium scale enterprises
International standards and orientation are contemporary phenomenon
embargo with Russia since 2008 -> impact on wine export
interest rate in commercial banks is high
no farmers’ associations (weak political mobility)
Social Issues
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
hazel nuts, spirits, wine, mineral water, citrus and fruits
53% of population, 9% of GDP
fragmentation of land: average 1.25 ha
poor infrastructure for smallholders (storage, irrigation, etc.)
Pre-Soviet period:
–
–
•
•
1000 BC: Kvevri cottage industry
19th Century: Tsarist regional wine export
Soviet period: parallel production sphere: (1) mass production , (2) brand wine,
(3) family industry; research institutes
Post-Soviet period:
–
–
–
–
rise in medium-scale enterprise and continuation of cottage industry
decline in Russian technical assistance, hurdles entering international English-dominated scientific
community, decline in research livelihoods
unattractive for the young scientists to work in the Agricultural University & research
expertise comes from international organisations, i.e. GIZ
#
"
•
•Different donors have their programmes
•Since independence, agriculture was not the state priority
•2013 - Government establishes 45 extension centres around Georgia
Sources of knowledge:
•Academy of Agricultural Sciences
•No cooperation with the ‘modernised’ Agricultural University
•Government relies more on NGO expertise rather than on Universities and
former Soviet knowledge institutions
•Very little cooperation with the experienced NGOs
–
–
•
•
•
•
•NGOs – highly dependent on donors’ funding
Georgia envisages creation extension centres. Government will support. This small
reference cannot substitute 14 research institutes. (Interview, current director of formerly
prominent Soviet scientific federation, May 2013)
Wine and its linkage with a heritage, a landscape and a cuisine raises the
potential to join the global progressive food sector
•
Traditional, local, organic, geographically-indicated, slow food
Domestic-oriented cottage industry of wine is increasingly trendy in the West
Without Soviet large-scale orientation, potential exists for medium-scale exportorientation and other differentiated strategies
Intersection of global wine culture and great wine tradition as an avenue for
rural development and heritage product preservation in Georgia
Cottage production has sustained through ages not being too much impacted by
different political regimes; more localised knowledge
Little attention from the government towards agricultural knowledge systems
resulted in a collapse of many Soviet knowledge organisations. There is a risk
in loosing knowledge produced during a long time
There are very little good wine experts (i.e. Wine making skills, business and
natural scientists) left in Georgia
6
7
)
How old traditions become modern?
Will Georgia be able to make use of the potential in wine production,
despite many pressures of transition, to develop themselves and
protect their heritage?
8
• Wine production in Georgia builds on thousand years of tradition. The
post-Soviet wine (appr. past 10 years) production builds on Soviet
technical innovation denying authoritarian political system. In this way it
fits modern and capitalist agricultural development.
• The way wine produced is a mix of the traditions and Soviet innovation
systems. What is traditional/ old style in Georgia is something very
modern in the West in the past ten years up to now.
• Kvevri (earthenware buried in soil up to the neck)
5
2
'6+
France
1990s: Heritage
wine business is
standard
1905: AOC regional
and international
export
1000 BC: Kvevri
cottage industry
19th Century: Tsarist
regional wine export
1960s: Increasing notoriety
of wine through competition
from new world
1920s: Beginning of
Soviet wine
production
1960s: Soviets contribute
intersection of science
and tradition
1990s: Cooperative
mass scale
systems for export
2000s: Int’l export
and standardization
2000s:Continuation
of domestic cottage
industry
Georgia
Transformation of agricultural higher
education system in Azerbaijan
Assoc.Prof. Anar Hatamov
Vise-Rector For Academic Affairs of State Agricultural
University
anarhatamov@gmail.com
Trends of agricultural development
Indicators
1995
2011
Gross output of agriculture, mill.manats
(at current prices)
-plant growing
-livestock
Share of agriculture and forestry in GDP, %
Number of employed people in agriculture,
forestry and fishing, 1000 persons
Utilized agricultural area (UAA), 1000 ha
Share of UAA in total area,%
Arable land, 1000 ha
Number of rural population, 1000 persons**
Share of rural population, %
Investments in agriculture, forestry
and fishing, mill.manats
-Share in total investments,%
Sown are of agricultural crops, 1000 ha
Number of animals, 1000 heads
-cattle and buffalos
-sheep and goats
726.8
4525.2
Change,
+:+3798.4
418.1
308.7
25.3
1112.8
2339.8
2185.4
5.3
1657.4
+1921.7
+1876.7
-20
+544.6
4489.1
51.8
1628.4
3637.9
48
4.4
4768.7
55
1843.8
4281.6
47
437.3
+279.6
+3.2
+215.4
+634.7
-1
+432.9
1.9
1207.9
3.4
1608.2
+1.5
+400.3
16328.8
4557.6
2646.7
8491.8
+13682.1
+3934.2
“State Programme on the Education of Azerbaijani Youth
Abroad in the
years 2007-2015”
• • !"#$
%&&$
Number of enrolled students in higher
education by group of specialization
Number of enrolled students in higher education,
including women, person
Total
Women
Helath, welfare and services
143.146
140.241
139.194
Agriculture
Technical and technological
Natural sciences
2011-2012
2010-2011
Economics and management
2009-2010
63940
Culture and art
66521
65112
Humanitarian and sosial
Education
0
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Number of enrolled students in agricultural
higher education, including women, person
Total
Women
1.253
879
478
422
341
148
2009-2010
2010-2011
'(
)
• (*
(
+
• '
(*
(
• (
2011-2012
2
+
0
(
• ,
(*%-
.
*
#&/
.
/
(
• (
+
0
(
,1%1
*
(
• Azerbaijan:
– 9 million people
– In the Caucasus, straddling Europe & Asia
– Area 86,600 sq km
• Located in Ganja
–
–
–
–
4000 years old
Azerbaijan’s second largest city
Regional center
Capital of the country in 1918-1920
30
Location of higher education institution
is also important
4
0
•
•
•
•
•
,&&5
(
Structure of students by faculties of University
Electroenergetic
engineering and IT
10%
Agronomy
13%
Agro technology
22%
Agricultural
Economics
30%
Engineering
12%
Veterinary Medicine
and Pharmacy
13%
Agronomy
Agro technology
Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy
Engineering
Agricultural Economics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(6
6
(6
*
6
(6
6
6
(6
7
6
Cooperation and integration are driving
factors in agriculture
Number of enrolled students for 2013/2014
academic year
Planned
Actual
• *
88
9
• (,-
&#
90
30
5
30
1
30
25
30
5
0
Structure of agricultural output by types
of farming
of which
Years
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
plantgrowing
livestock
Agricultural enterprises and other
organizations
60,8
70,8
43,2
56,1
67,2
37,0
50,0
63,7
21,2
39,2
55,5
21,3
33,6
43,7
15,0
32,1
46,6
12,6
3,7
1,4
6,4
3,0
1,4
4,8
4,1
1,3
8,1
5,3
2,0
10,2
6,0
3,3
9,3
5,0
3,0
7,1
5,2
3,5
7,0
!
Total
plantgrowing
Average size of agricultural enterpsies
in Azerbaijan, hectare
livestock
Private owners, family peasant
farms and households
39,2
29,2
56,8
43,9
32,8
63
50
36,3
78,8
60,8
44,5
78,7
66,4
56,3
85,0
67,9
53,4
87,4
96,3
98,6
93,6
97,0
98,6
95,2
95,9
98,7
91,9
94,7
98,0
89,8
94,0
96,7
90,7
95,0
97,0
92,9
94,8
96,5
93,0
Misunderstanding on cooperation
"
• • /
:
; • 4 * ( * • < * ( * • (
*
6
• 6
• =
+
6
• >
.
6
• ?
Thank you!
!"#$
%$
&
'(')$
(*')
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
++
(
++
)
• & "'
• (!)
– "
– *+
– ,-+"
++
!"#! "$%
• ." /! #0123$45""!
!!"!6!7
#2893$)
– %
– %
– %
– %
,
++
-
"
/
1
"
/
• #28:0$),!""
/ ""
• ; #2881$)""!+"
•
#0123$)""!!
")
– ""-"""
– .!""
++
• &
• &"""!
"
• &"-
1
• ."""
1
•
!
"""
""
.
3
++
0
"
• ""
• +5$
• B"+""
• 7
• 7!""#C" C$
• /
• )"!""<=
/(."
'
'
'
'
'
• >)?@A0@A""
'
()
*
+
#
,%"%-.
!"#$
%&&
#
*)"B#011:$D*'#0120$
++
2
++
4
5&
6
'
"3
'
)."
"
'
"! "
,-") "
"3
)-
""
'
'
'
0)
1
2)$-
%))%(
)#
+%..
)
-3
*
%.")
,-") D F" "
,-") 1.&
%#
%**((.*4#()(53(.
6"
.
6
%.".%(%7(%"%-.*-%)
*)E'#0123$
*)E'#0123$
++
'*
5&
011 )
."
++ "!
''
"3
2G1
12
"3
8@
1G@
230
1@
290
2?@
211
G1
+
+
+
+
230
230
+
+
B
>
7
#$
B
I
">
J
HI!=!
*)E'#0123$
++
++
'(
++
B
!
" 6
#$
B
&
')
.&
.&
%
1
&/
1
&/
%
++
',
"
/
'-
"
/
• ,"!+
""
• 7!""!
"!
•
""
"!
""!
+"
• 7)
• #$
• "!#"!$
• -!=!
#-$
• -+5"#
$
• "+5<!=
++
++
'.
++
'0
81
81
1
• #2881$)"!
• !!#$
!#""-"$
• #28:0$)*
"
• >!
• 7"+
""
• &!
++
'2
++
81
1
"
/
1
• 7!
-"""!"1
"
• 7""
1
• 7"!""-!6
• F"
"!!"#!$
""#!$
"!
• 7
!!
• 7""
#$"
"
• 7
++
(*
++
'4
('
"
/
1
• .!!
")"
!
• ."
"=
")
– '2882
" +""
• >!
• &
"
++
• 7""+
-!
!
• 7!"+-"!
6!
• 7"
""
((
++
()
#
83
• 7+!"
-"
• • +!
C
++
(,
++
(-
61
"
!
++
" #$
%
&&
%
''
%
%
()*
(.
$%
- significant need for consultation especially in rural areas
- low level of education
of the rural population, low professional
qualification of farmers and workers of agricultural enterprises, as well as
owners of small households (SSH)
- there are about 214 thousand agricultural enterprises (corporate farms and
family farms), 2.268 thousand SSH,
using low-productive equipment and technologies,
and being highly labour-intensive entities;
- underdeveloped rural labor market in particular as for quality of labour force
!"#!
-
Ministry of Agriculture – executes functions of authorized body
− JSC Kazagroinnovation - a general control of the project, a main
performer of all actions
-
Research institutions, HEI provide lecturers, trainers, experts,
participate in creation of educational training programs
-
Regional authorities and departments of agriculture, unions,
associations, all of them form groups of participants for the knowledge
dissemination centers
- The knowledge dissemination centers (KDC) are independent divisions
which are created on the basis of the affiliated organizations of JSC
Kazagroinnovation
!
Ministry of agriculture RK
Resources, directions
Functions
Instruments
Scientific
organizations
Providing feedback for agricultural Gathering primarily information
producers
Making surveys of clientele
Functions
ɐɊɁ Ȼɚɹɧɚɭɵɥ
ɐɊɁ Ⱥɤɬɨɛɟ
ɐɊɁ Ⱥɬɵɪɚɭ
1
Placement information on the web site and
social networks
Trainings of agricultural producers Conducting workshops (theory + practice +
on
new
technologies demonstration)
implementation
Demonstration of successful experience (
field days, field workshops)
2
ɐɊɁ Ԧɫɤɟɦɟɧ
Providing feedback:
Questioned 2 784 people., including
System of informative and consulting
centers of KazAgroMarketing – 1 900
people.
ɐɊɁ Ȼɚɥɯɚɲ
ɐɊɁ Ʉɵɡɵɥɨɪɞɚ
ɐɊɁ Ԛɲԕɨԙɵɪ
ɐɊɁ Ɍɚɫɫɚɣ
Information dissemination :
118 recommendations, 32 teaching videos,
7 advertising clips
ɐɊɁ Ɍɚɪɚɡ
ɐɊɁ Ɇɚɤɬɚɪɚɥ
Consulting activities on new Distance learning
technologies implementation
Direct consulting at the place
3
Training
on
implementation :
9 269 people.
new
4
Consulting:
Direct - 4 966 people.,
Distance– 5 138 people.
technologies
Exsiting KDC
Service support
Proposed for creation KDC :
- 2013
- 2014ɝ.
-
2015
Activities’ effectiveness assessment
"#$"
Distance consulting (2 340 people.)
2010 (857 people.)
Question
Bee-farming
Direct consulting (2 421 people.)
ɐɊɁ Ʉɵɡɵɥɠɚɪ
ɐɊɁ Ʉɨɫɬɚɧɚɣ
ɐɊɁ ɒɨɪɬɚɧɞɵ
ɐɊɁ Ɉɪɚɥ
Knowledge, experts,
infrastructure
Dissemination of information on Dissemination of video- and printed material
new technologies
on new methods and technologies.
Training (96 worshops, 2 468 people.)
German agro center , Chaglinka village
Technology
providers
3
Rabbit-farming
13
Mechanisation
22
Poultry farming
32
Did you implement (applied) new knowledge in your practical
activities?
58
Veterianry
65
Rice farming
73
2010
110
130
Protection and quarantine
Friuts and grapes farming
Fruits
153
Fodder production
163
Technology in animalbreeding
Other
Plant growing
Issues on ɂȺɋ
174
0
no
yes
no
70%
(600 people)
30%
89,8%
(926 people)
10,2%
Results of new knowledge implementation
Potato and vegetables farming
Soil and agrochemistry
2011 (1 031 people.)
yes
35% out of total
questions
302
820
2011
Sources of fund for knowledge dissemination centers (KDC)
State and local budgets
Within programs financed by the state budget
for the professional development of civil
servants and the decrease in unemployment
following categories are trained:
- experts of regional departments of agriculture,
akimats, regional representatives of Ministry of
agriculture of RK;
- farmers, heads and experts of agricultural
enterprises, businessmen participating in
projects on new technologies implementation;
- heads and experts of the research
organizations, specialized farms, and other
organizations which are carrying out research
activity;
- rural unemployed according to needs of local
agricultural entities;
- teachers of agricultural colleges and HEI;
- other participants if their activity corresponds
to the seminar topic
Own sources of participants
KDCs on a commercial basis provide
following services:
- short-term training courses and
educational programs (on
specialization);
- holding joint exhibitions with
business;
- consulting on technical issues and
maintaining investment projects;
- business consulting;
- renting rooms of KDC in free from
training courses time
Joint funding
Joint financing is based on creation of
a mechanism of interaction with
customers, who are interested in the
promotion of own technologies or
creation connections with domestic
agricultural
producers.
Potential
partners
are
national
holding
"Kazagro",
agricultural
research
institutes,
World Bank,
Food
agricultural organization
(FAO),
producers of equipment, regional
social
and
entrepreneurial
organizations, HEIs
Financial illiteracy and agricultural development
!"!
Problems constraining developments
dissemination centers (KDC):
of
knowledge
- insufficient financing KDC;
- insufficient knowledge on advanced technologies of both domestic and foreign;
- lack of uniform system of public and private information services and individual consultants;
- insufficiently equiped KDCs with computers and other necessary equipment;
- insufficient flexibility of teaching tools: providing only teaching seminars doesn't allow to
have a maximum effect;
- underdeveloped monitoring mechanism of programs productivity: new tools which are
necessary to carry out monitoring of received knowledge implementation in practice ;
- inactivity of agricultural producers: new approaches to motivation development are necessary
Micro econometric analysis. Sample description
y !&'(!)
%
!
*
+,
y !
!!
)
!,
y -
!)
(./)01
( &2/
03/
!!!
!4.0/ ! ,
Micro econometric analysis. Sample description
Hypotheses
"#
!#
#
!#
!#
"#
))#
y 5 '6 !
!)
!
)
,
y 5 06 !
,
')#
$%#
"&'!
'"&$!
$"&(%
(%
" ! *
+
+
*
,
" ! !
Binary logistic regression model
ββ
β β
β !"#
"$
y & -!.
/ -".
y 0
& -!.
/ -".
y 0& -!.
/ -".
1
Logit estimates model of the probability to have a deposit account
for rural dweller in Pavlodar region, 2011
B
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Bureaucracy -1.191
.656
3.297
1
.069
.304
Distance
-.763
.367
4.314
1
.038
.466
Distrust
-.204
.292
.490
1
.484
.815
Low income -1.210
.350
11.966
1
.001
.298
Constant
.828
16.542
1
.000
28.968
3.366
Prospects of knowledge dissemination system
in agriculture of Kazkahstan
y !
!
!!
!
!!
! !
1
','7'
!
,
y "
! ! ! !! ! ! 1 8,2(.
! ,
y "9:;
,
y <9=
)
;
!
!) !) )
,
Development purpose: formation of complete system of knowledge dissemination
Main activities:
Institutional
- finishing the formation of the Knowledge Dissemination Centers network in RK;
- providing KDCs with new equipment according to specifics of their activities;
- attraction funds from non-state sources;
Functional
- the approval of regulating documentation on KDCs ;
- improvement of techniques and development of tools for KDCs' activities;
- development of information channels for interaction with agricultural producers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
!
"
#$ %
&
'
$
$
()
• $
**!
+,---.
• / *+,--0.
• / *+,--0. !
+,---.
• 2
$ "
+"
"
3.
1 $
• "
3
450
,6
• /"
3 )
4
41 4
• 1)
%
• / )
4
$ 4
1$ • 1 $)
4
$
41
4 1
8
+56,5.
4
+
$.9 +56,,.
• "
2
7 "
• / "
2
)
!
"
$%
'
• ! /1$ *+56,6.
$ )2$
4 1
$
• 5 $ )
1
4 $
• '
*
• &
$ :
• '
$ "$;1
" ;1
• ,
$ 566<
=
!
74 ,06 06
;1
• 5
$ 56,5
3"2;4,06 ,06
;1
• ' )
56,5
$
#
&
*
• & )
4
,)
**
$$ $ 4
5)
$ • "
/1$ *+56,6.
1
*
)"
3"2;
()
*
3
1$
56,5
*
3
1$
56,5
1$$+56,5.
!
"
&
#$%
!
"
#$%
(
(
(
(
16%
20%
'
#$%
'
#$$%
(
(
(
)(
$(
(
(
$ (
(
(
(
(
(
)$ (
$ (
(
(
$ (
! (
(
(
(
(
)(
(
(
4= ) 4= )
50%
radio programs
newspapers
library
contact in other farm enterprise
akimat
) tv programs
written material/leaflets
internet
household based farmers / friends
) 42
4'
1
>
*
!
$
!
$
,--"&
(
" *+
,--"&
)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
&
1
$
56,5
$(
); • 2
)
4
1
$
4
4
$
• +56,<.@7 +56,6.)$
$
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
$
!
$
!
!
); (
+,
&$1
$
1$
#
*+
(
• 8
+56,5.)
2
7
1?
); ((
" *+
,--"&
(
(
• &
)
(
%
&''' #
()'&)*
./0 1
1 &
$
$
$
)
$
$$
$
$$)
$$
$$
$
)
$$
$$
$$$$$333
)
$$$
$$
%
&''' #
()'&)*
./0 1
1 &
2/
$$
$$)33
$$$$333
$
2/
$
$
$
$$$$333
$
$
AAB6*60?AAAB6*6,
(
-
-
• 2
1
• )
4
4
$
4
$
> 1
+
$
.
• # 1
$
• # $
4@
• $
$
• / $ 1 1 • '
1$ (!
/ $
$
C
(#
("
Presentations of the second conference day
Friday, 13th September 2013
Constraints and Concerns for Farming and
Cropping Strategies in Southern Tajikistan
Map of research region in Tajikistan
Hafiz Boboyorov
Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan
International Academic Conference “Agricultural Knowledge
and Knowledge Systems in Post-Soviet Societies”
Bonn University, Center for Development Research
September 12-13, 2013
The case of cotton economy
• Decrease in agricultural contribution to GDP from 37 per
cent in 1991 to 18 per cent by 2008
• Agriculture officially employing two-third of the total
population
• Mainly raw cotton constitutes one-fifth of the exports
• The economic income from raw cotton sold in
international markets is mainly reduced to elites
• To solve the debts of cotton farmers, the Decree No 111
aims to restructure debts by allowing them select
different types of farming and cropping
Why do farmers mainly select cotton
farm and crop?
• Cotton crop guaranties relative safety and predictability
from uncertainties related to
–
–
–
–
–
–
Management of agricultural resources and properties
Cotton debt and plan system
Taxation control
‘State standards’ of intervention
Marketing
Labor force
• These aspects I am going to discuss in next slides
A farmer‘s own experience of constraints
and concerns
• Cotton is not a perishable product but other crops are,
while stores are not available and marketing is not easy
• Cotton is exempted from some taxes but other crops are
not
• Because cotton-growing is a collective work, it
consolidates people
Management of agricultural resources
and properties
• TASS-monopolised cotton sector
• Elite-dominated local bureaucratic institutions of the state which
– Favoured them to privatise strategic properties of the kolkhoz
– Farm registration ranges from 25 up to 900 USD
• Elites’ absolute right to fix crops for most of irrigated land resources
– Some fields remained out of cotton crop and not allowed for other
crops
– Deteriorated infrastructure for other lands and crops
– “If people are not consolidated and tightened together, love and
loyalty will disappear, relations and exchanges will decline,
collective support during ceremonies and sickness will be
vanished. A person is sick, the collective will support with cash
or with an acquainted doctor” (Interview, Shahritus district, July
2, 2013).
Cotton debt and plan system
• The rumor going around that TASS will not offer patronage for the
farmers anymore makes them feel abandoned and insecure. TASS
reduces seasonal uncertainties at the price of long-term
uncertainties
• The debt line as a mechanism of indebting farmers to the cotton
sector
– Each hectare is laden with 1,000 USD of debt
– In-kind and financial inputs of TASS invests in deepening the
dependency of cotton farmers on debt and plan systems
– The cases of Jamoat Resource Center, Association of Dehqan Farmers
• Due to elites‘ monopoly of domestic and international markets,
cotton debt restructuring (Presidential Decree No 663 – May 30,
2009) initiated by WB, ADB and IMF has low effect, but rather
invests in the suppresive economic sector
• From debt system to bank service?
Case study of an old female brigadir
• Poorly served by technical facilities and fertilizers
• Managed to harvest ‘state fixed’ (2.5 tonnes per hectare)
and ‘obligatory’ (0.3 tonnes per hectare) plans.
• Failed to harvest 1.6 tonnes of ‘forced’ plan from 6
hectares of her cotton field which was a pretext to
replace her with another cliental farmer
Table of plan indebtedness
The mechanism of taxation control
• Cotton crop is exempted from some taxes
– The “state standard of productive rate” for each crop adjusted by
“expert analysis” (MA) and checked by local bodies
– 50-per cent exempt from water tax
– Uncertainties of weather change, crop damage, marketing and
so on compensated by debt system
• “Share of product” and “come-and-check” by 21 state
offices for all marketable crops but cotton
– Perception and practice of taxation as a mechanism of crop
selection
The case of cooperative farms
• Different taxation rates for small (family) farms
and production cooperatives, including
– 10 TJK Somoni vs. minimum 40 TJK Somoni per shareholder
(income tax from salary)
– 1 per cent per shareholder to ‘accumulative retirement fund’
which is not paid by small farms
– 25 per cent of ’unified tax’ (incl. 8 to 13 per cent of production
income) for any non-cotton crops; it ranges from farm to farm
while non-cooperatives pay less amount or their debt is frozen
The ‘state standards’ for elites’
intervention
• Farmers perceive that due to the legal status of land as
state property, the elites’ intervention is inevitable and
legitimate
• Legitimate access of the elites to farms by the regular
meetings of local state offices
– To check ‘state standards’ – including ecological standards of
natural resources and technical facilities, the welfare standards
of the employment and the social protection of shareholders
provided by farmers
• The report meetings on ‘state standards’ are used to
oblige farmers for cotton growing
Labor force for cotton farms
The political aspects of crop marketing
• TASS exclusively invests in cotton-related transportation
facilities and infrastructure
• Lack of agricultural machines, transportation facilities,
infrastructure and stores in the field and market for noncotton crops
• Annual change of commercialized seeds and related
knowledge
• Outdated knowledge about market demands
A global governance of uncertainties,
indebtedness and exploitation?
• Colonial legacy?
– Third world – religious, military, modernization and development
intervention
– Divide between state and civil society; formal and informal
• Actors, networks and means of global governance
– Retraining elites
– Extension services as an legitimation attempt
– Competing corporate actors
• Can we see the horizon?
•
•
•
•
Agriculture is less attractive
Labor migration
The ‘cotton crisis in 2000‘
Mobilization of families and
qawms
• Exploitation of women
Cotton Farm
/ Brigada
Type of
Farm/Brigada
Laborers
NR
Cotton farm
Extended family
MR
Cotton farm
Extended family
TM
Cotton farm
Extended family
GS
Cotton farm
Extended family
RK
Cotton farm
Extended family
NA
Cotton farm
Extended family
EH
Cotton farm
Extended family
NO
Cotton brigada
Extended family +
Qawm
MZ
Cotton brigada
Extended family +
Qawm
QS
Cotton brigada
Qawm
NS
Cotton brigada
Qawm
MS
Seedling farm
Nuclear family
Farmers Perspectives on Future
Agricultural Business in Tajikistan
ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Andreas Mandler
Research Area: Zarafshan Valley
ƒ ƒ !
!
ƒ "
#
!
ƒ $%&
#
'
ƒ $
#
(&
(&
#)'
* #
##
#
ƒ $+
,&&&-
#
,&.&&&-
/'
ƒ !
*#
0
#
ƒ 2
!
!
1 ƒ 0
##
#
ƒ 2
!
!
ƒ ƒ "!
0
##
!
ƒ !#0
# ƒ 67
4 5 7
!
*#
ƒ 3
4 ƒ !
!
)
5
!
ƒ 3
ƒ <
ƒ "
!
4
8
5
ƒ 6#
!
ƒ 4 5
ƒ #
4))
##
5
ƒ 9#
#
#
#
Æ #
:# ;
!
2
6# Problems in the development
of innovations in agricultural activities
in the Republic of Bashkortostan
Alfiya Kuznetsova,
Bashkir State Agrarian University, Ufa, Russia,
professor of the chiar of management and marketing
alfiya2050@gmail.com
On output of gross output of agriculture the republic is
included steadily into the first three of regions of the
Russian Federation and borrows:
Table 1. Dynamics of Production Capacity of the Agricultural
Organizations of the Republic of Bashkortostan
1990
Area of agricultural grounds, hectare
including arable lands, hectare
• 1 place on a number of cattle, horses, on
production of milk and honey;
• 2 place on production of cattle and a bird on
slaughter, potatoes;
• 4 place on a livestock of pigs;
• 5 place on production of grain crops, eggs,
on a livestock of sheep and goats;
• 6 place on production of vegetables.
transport and
communication
6%
construction
10%
2011 y.
in %
to 1990 y.
4944,6
3967,4
56,2
2908,6
2631,8
Cattle, one thousand heads
55,4
621
503
30,9
338
221
182
39,1
602
384
216
148
16,5
1995
2000
7065
5878,4
5732,2
4749
4476,9
3919,2
1626
1287
928
466
417
899
including cows
Pigs, one thousand heads
2005
Bird adult, one thousand heads
2822
7039
13530
13054
6139
217,5
Average annual number of workers, one
thousand people.
347,1
267,8
234,2
109,7
56,1
16,2
grain and leguminous
4968
2438
2460
2496
2607
52,5
potatoes
234,9
41,8
24,9
35,3
32,2
13,7
vegetables
108,7
27,4
24,5
19,1
20,5
18,9
milk
919,1
867,1
646,4
600,8
509,5
55,4
meat
326,1
195,9
114,2
92,9
110,9
34,0
eggs, one million pieces.
698,2
773,8
745,2
796,5
833,4
119,4
It is made, thousand tons.
including:
80
agriculture
18%
services sector
22%
2011
Years
Indicators
70
67,4
66,7
62,6
64,3
60,2
60
56,8
60,2
57,5
53,9
5048,9
50
trade
12%
industry
32%
education and health care
6%
1990 year
agriculture
4%
finance and services
14%
industry
14%
2010 year
33,3
36,8
34,5
32,8
33,8
30,9
28,7
30
production and distribution of
the electric power, gas and water
3%
taxes
15%
37,7
40
construction
6%
mining
9%
trade
16%
45,3
public administration and
military safety
5%
transport and communication
8%
Drawing 1. Gross Domestic Product Structure
in Russia in 1990 and in 2010.
20
10
4,6
0
0,8
5,3
5,5
5,7
4,8
1,1
6
3,9
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
ɫɟɥɶɫɤɨɯɨɡɹɣɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɟ ɨɪɝɚɧɢɡɚɰɢɢ
2006
2007
ɯɨɡɹɣɫɬɜɚ ɧɚɫɟɥɟɧɢɹ
2008
2009
2010
2011
ɤɪɟɫɬɶɹɧɫɤɢɟ (ɮɟɪɦɟɪɫɤɢɟ) ɯɨɡɹɣɫɬɜɚ
Drawing 2. Structure of Production of Agriculture of the Republic of
Bashkortostan on categories of farms from 1990 for 2011 (in actually
operating prices; as a percentage to a result) agricultural organizations,
population farms, country (farmer) farms
180
140000
140
135
140
135
142
135
134
120000
percents
100
108
10096
100
100
100
100
100
110414,9
102765
120
119
120
128623,9
158
155
154
160
100
100
100
100
100
117
100
117
100
100000
87608
100
77900
84732,4
80000
62967,1
80
60
51
49
37
40
37
38
37
38
38
54
53
54
37
36
60000
48307
40886,1
40000
20
20000
2520,2
0
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
On economy as a whole
2194,5
2004
2005
Agriculture
Drawing 3. The relation of an average monthly salary of
employees of the enterprises and the organizations on
economy branches to national average level, %
2006
2007
in total on economy
7113,2
7113,2
4257
4858
2008
2009
2010
2011
agriculture
Drawing 4. Investments into the fixed capital, the economy of
the Republic of Bashkortostan aimed at the development as a
whole and in agriculture from 2001 for 2011.
On it my report is finished,
thanks for attention!
6226
4669
2353,7
0
2001
years
Industry
2011
Outline
1. Introduction
!
2. Methodology
3. Study Results
4. Conclusions
"
#$% &
Introduction
Land Distribution in Agriculture
Why Livestock Sector and Rangelands?
1&
2
ƒ 55% of the country territory occupied by natural rangelands
ƒ Livestock sector makes over half of the Gross Agricultural Output
ƒ Nearly 90% of livestock kept by individual rural households
ƒ Over 2 mln. rural population rely on pastoral animal rearing
"#$%&'#(#')#$*)+(,-)*./012
ƒ Source of food, income and savings for rural population
ƒ Cause of pasture overgrazing and biodiversity loss in drylands
"
-./0
!
"
'($)$
*+
,
&
Livestock Population Dynamics
1
2
0
3
0
4
40
4
4 4!
4!
43
43
#%%()
433
44
44
44
44
44!
0
3
))5#-*&#%$
"
3 )
&**+
#$%
&+
4
&
3
Methodology
Case-study areas
ƒ Qualitative research
– Inductive reasoning study, explorative
ƒ Grounded Theory approach (Charmaz, 2010)
– Identification of categories and their properties
– Helps to build evidence-based theoretical framework
– Theoretical Sampling – filling up emerging theory gaps
3 $,'7#%
! ')6,&-
&',$ #-*&6*&$,'7#%$8,99#7 ')6,&-
ƒ Area selection and study population
– Field work during Jul-Oct, 2012 and July-August, 2013
– 64 interviews, 6 focus groups, three levels of respondents
– Two case-study areas (a, b) and two control groups (a1, b1)
– Areas represent degraded and well maintained rangelands in
semi-desert and desert ecosystems
Methodology (2)
Well maintained & degraded rangelands
ƒ Data collection tools
– Process-influence net maps
– Individual in-depth interviews
– Focus group discussions
– Participant observation, transect walks
– Desk research
ƒ Data analysis
– Grounded Theory, constant comparison & analysis
– Archive study; historical, induction, content and
discourse analyses
Sample Archive Materials
0
Historical Overview (2)
Historical Overview: Evolution
ƒ Massive state investments for range research experiments
−
−
−
−
Prominent scientists from other Soviet cities, 1920-1930
Use of indigenous practices for accessing distant pastures
Hydrological, geo-botanical expeditions
Groundwater scheme, pasture rotation maps, zoo-climatic experiments
and seasonal drought assessments
− Hydrometeorology and radio stations, plant nurseries
− The long-term stability of fragile desert ecosystem and extensive
animal production in drylands were key land reclamation principles
− Key achievement: year-round grazing approach in distant pastures
ƒ Political and economic incentives
− Ideological competition of communism with capitalist economies
− Earning hard currency for industrial growth
− Food security, employment and rural industrialization
"
! 0
&*+
5!0
&*67
#$)*&-4:40);5)',<)-%$
&=,)%$+,)-%,$%$')5&'%)*
8
9
/
9
9
&:70
!.
;0
9
6;
ƒ !
!"! #$%!&#'()*(+,()*%&5>.(,+?,-#-+)
,-@)+%,&-$%&$>55&'%);%)-*)*'#-6)(#-*#')#$')+(#<#%,&-
.>,(*,-6A#%)'#-*+&<<>-,+#%,&-$,-?'#$%'>+%>')+&-$%'>+%,&-
&?#-,<#($)(%)'$#-*&>$)$#%')<&%)'#-6)(#-*$?&**)'#-*
A#%)',-$>'#-+)?>-*$?&'A,-%)'$)#$&-$$&+,#(,-?'#$%:'))%+
"
! 0
&*+
5!0
&*67
!
Established Services & Institutions
Established Services & Institutions (2)
-."&/"!* 01 '&#!!%!&
&"$ $ $
%&2!&#&1"#!-"$#0#! 3
"!&"$
#'#7>(:')$% "$%#%>$&?,-,$%'/2
". &2 #
'-# 2!-
,-,$%'/&?&')$%'/
2-4&"!& )5>.(,+#-&'5&'#%,&-?&'#-6)(#-*
)(,&'#%,&-#-*&-$%'>+%,&-"2
A,%&.,())+#-,9)*-,%$"2
%#%)&<<,%%))?&'#%>')'&%)+%,&-
(#--,-6#-*+&&'*,-#%,&-&?5#$%&'#((,=)$%&+7
5'&*>+%,&-<#,-(/#'#7>($))5
#$$,=)')+(#<#%,&-B#??&')$%#%,&-,-*)$)'%$
&-$%'>+%,&-#-*<#,-%)-#-+)&?A#%)'
?#+,(,%,)$,-5#$%>')$#-*=,((#6)$
# "-25
&#!!%! #6
71 -3 &!*
!"$ #!"!&#
%#%)-$%,%>%)&?#-*)$&>'+)$
$$)$$<)-%#-*(#--,-6"96,5'&9)<2
&=,)%)$)#'+-$%,%>%)&?#'#7>(
'&*>+%,&-"42
)$)#'+,-$%,%>%)$&?E#%)'(#--,-6
&')$%'/
)%)',-#'/,=)$%&+7'))*,-6
&%#-/#-*(#-%-6,-))',-6
&-,%&',-6<#,-%#,-,-6)+&$/$%)<$&?
*'/(#-*$#-*%&5')=)-%%),'=,&()-+)
)$,6-,-6*,$%#-%5#$%>')'&%#%,&-$+)<)$#-*
<#55,-6+,)-%,?,+);5)*,%,&-$+&-*>+%)*
')6>(#'6)&.&%#-,+#(#$$)$$<)-%$
$%#.(,$)*%&,<5'&=)C>#(,%/&?#'#7>(5)(%
5'&*>+%,&-%'&>6#-,<#(6)-)%,+$.'))*,-6
#',*5(#-%,-6A#%)'C>#(,%/#-**)$)'%
<)(,&'#%,&-D
E,*)'#-6)&?5>.(,+6&&*$#-*$)'=,+)$%&
,<5'&=)5#$%&'#($/$%)<5'&*>+%,&-
"
!
,
0
!0
&*6&+
<!0
&*=+
4!0
&*
-."&/"!* 01 '&#!!%!&
&"$ $ $
44!&"$
# -2 #
%&2!&#&1"#!-"$#0#! 3
6'&:<)%)&'&(&6,+#(#-*F&&:+(,<#%,+
#$$)$$<)-%$".#$)*&--#%,&-#(#6)-+/
?&'/*'&<)%)&'&(&6/2
&-,%&',-6#-*?&')+#$%,-6?#+%&'$&?#-,<#(
5'&*>+%,=,%/.#$)*&-+(,<#%,++#-6)$-><.)'
&?>-?#=&'#.()*#/$?&'6'#9,-6#-,<#(
5'&*>+%,=,%/+#-6)$5#$%&'#(=)6)%#%,&-/,)(*$
)%+
%#%)?#+%&',)$&?7#'#7>(5)*,6'))
,$%',.>%,&-&?,6C>#(,%/.'))*$$)<)-
&.,()=)%)',-#'/.',6#*)$D9&&:
%)+-,+,#-$
,$)#$)5')=)-%,&-#-*%')#%<)-%$)'=,+)$,-
')<&%)6'#9,-6#')#$#$A)((#$*,$,-?)+%,&-&?
A#%)'5&,-%$#-*$)*$D
&.,()A#%)'%#-7$<#+,-)'/$)'=,+)$
#-*%'#+%&'.',6#*)$
>55&'%)*')<&%)A#%)',-6#??&')$%#%,&-
5/%&<)(,&'#%,&- #-*+&-$%'>+%,&-
-4%2!&8 -,%$?&'5',<#'/5'&+)$$,-6&?<)#%5)(%A&&(#-*<,(7
1-2 ##&.6 #+%&',)$A,%.',6#*)$%&+&-$%'>+%?>'-,%>')#-*<&.,()&>$,-6?&'$)5)'*$
2&#!-%2!&
"
!
,
0
!0
&*6&+
<!0
&*=+
4!0
&*
4
3
Historical Overview (3)
Historical Overview (4)
ƒ Motivation schemes to increase rangeland labor productivity
− New salary scales, formal rewards, recognition and staff promotions
with extra financial premiums and social bonuses were allocated for
farm shepherds, veterinarians and specialists
− Additional land plot allocations, free access to secondary and higher
education, subsidized state apartments and automobiles, free
health care and recreation, family allowances, privileged pension
schemes etc.
FAO staff impressions from 2-month range study tour in the
Soviet Union (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), 1964:
1. Availability of detailed information – resource use maps
2. Production of native ranges – vigorous vegetation
3. Domestication of native forage plants
4. Climate and weather forecast studies
5. Supplemental forage and fodder – winter storage
6. Animal breeding and livestock husbandry
ƒ Distant pasture grazing approach in the FSU
– 1920s - 4 mln heads
– 1950 - 35 mln heads
– Distant pastures with water supply expanded by 250 mln ha
"
! 0
&*7+
4!0
&*
“The signs of plant cover, forage composition, soil stability and
general good condition were clear to all of the Fellows, many of
whom had never seen such expansive areas of good productive
range. It was evident that these ranges had had the benefit of light
to moderate stocking for many years.”
"
<
, &*=
Knowledge system in transition period
Profitability Norms in Soviet Agriculture (1989)
2!-#'
".-2%$!%-
%!1%!
1-2 8
$&%9
#!'
&23 8
1-4%2 8 $&
$&
%9
%9
-'!
"9%3"-.&8 #!8:
:
"9%- 2#! -4%2!&
!1-'!
2#!!1-'!
-"!
-"!
ƒ Shrinking scientific capacities in research institutions => weak
continuity of scientific knowledge => aging of researchers
"-";%$*- "-&.
!
0!
0
0
0
ƒ Neglect of generated scientific knowledge => deleting archives
"!!$ *- "-&.
40
3
3
!
ƒ Limited modernization of science => repetition of existing works
!!&*.-<&.
0 30
! !!
3
. !"9$ *
.-<&.
0
033
3
3
-!2%$!%-
!4
!
04
0
3
!2%$!%-
!0
4
000
00
ƒ Disintegration after the Soviet system collapse
ƒ Limited funding and weak influence in political decision-making
ƒ More for technical solutions => management issues remain
ƒ Weak cooperation between research institutions and producers
ƒ Scheperds’ traditional knowledge and practices decline
"
<!0
<!.! >
#!0
&**7
Political Economy of Land Tenure
ƒ Private land property rights?
−
−
−
−
−
Collective farms were left to provide employment and services
No historical legacy of traditional land ownership
Absence of strong demand from land users
Potential conflict risks => traditional elite networks
Unattractive geographic and climatic features for private farming
+
ƒ Cooperative land property rights?
−
−
−
−
Traditional practice of community-based animal grazing exist
Long term relations => built trust among community households
Less transaction costs of monitoring and infrastructure maintenance
Positive cases from seasonal pasture use schemes (Forestry)
0
Remarks for Conclusion
Thank you!
ƒ Soviets were able to develop productive rangeland use due to:
− Political and economic incentives => driving force
− Extensive rangeland research => inputs for decision-making
− Comprehensive institutional structure => implementation tools
ƒ Lessons from past experiments and institutional setup in
rangelands are unique => have to be learned and utilized
ƒ Lack of rangeland studies: focus on technical solutions rather
than on rangeland system management issues
ƒ Government considers far-reaching reforms in rangelands as too
risky from political point of view => prioritizes irrigated areas
ƒ Cooperative grazing traditions and existing contractual practice
in Forestry pastures can be instrumental for further reforms
ƒ Strong political / economic incentives are essential
(
"
3.?!@8?
Plain of the North Caucasus: the
experience of interaction of economic
actors under condition of disintegration of
the kolkhoz system and migration
processes
Ekaterina Kapustina
Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography,
Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg
Stavropol area
¾
The Eastern Stavropol area is
well recognized agricultural
part of the country although a
part of it is in the zone of risky
agriculture
¾
The Eastern Stavropol area is
considered a frontier area
between the “Russian
Caucasus” and North
Caucasus republics.
Irgakly
Nogai (established the
village in XIX century)
¾ Russians (since the
beginning of the XX
century
¾ Dagrins (migrating since
1960th)
¾
Actors: ex-kolkhoz
In 1985 it was the most profitable
farm in Stavropol
¾ To the beginning of XXI century
have reduced the productivity. At
the moment it gave up livestock
and gardens, it only sows grain
and rents out grazing.
¾ SPK has 500 shareholders. It is
more profitable for the villagers to
hand over a share to local farms,
but the shareholder must
terminate the contract with SPK in
the courts.
¾ Some dwellers do not take their
shares from the SPK for patriotic
and nostalgic feelings to kolkhoz
time.
¾
Actors: sheep breeders
Actors: farmers
¾
¾
¾
¾
10 big private farms in Irgakly
that are primarily engaged in
the grain sector and were
formed by local Russian
residents
Farmers try to professionalize
their activities
There is a farming identity
Farmers are quite well
represented in local
governments
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
18 of 22 sheepyards belonged
to Dargin livestock breeders
Sheep breeders keep sheep
only for meat
The main resource for the
purchase of folds was revenue
from the sale of sheep.
Some bought the pasture land
around sheepyards, others
rent it from kolkhoz and
privateers.
There are land conflicts
between grain growers and
breeders
Actors: vegetable growers
¾
¾
¾
Dwellers who are engaged
mainly in growing vegetables
and melons in the fields,
mostly Nogai
One of the main problems for
Irgakly plant-growers is the
marketing
Vegetable business is more
profitable than grain or even
livestock, but it is definitely
more risky
Old-timers
¾ prefer the old form of economy (kolkhoz shareholders), they
experience nostalgia that sometimes run counter to the economic
benefit.
¾ Some of them (Russians) put their hope in the new form of farm
management, trying to respond to the challenges of the real market
(grain), and implementing some innovations.
¾ The Nogai old-timers, former cattle-breeders, embraced this
relatively new economic system from migrants from the Central Asia
- Meskhetian Turks and Koreans
Migrants
¾ Dargins brought economic model familiar to them from the
mountains of Dagestan - sheep breeding, and adapted it to the
conditions of the steppes of Eastern Stavropol.
¾ They buy land in the Stavropol area perceiving the land as a basic
value
System of economic niches
¾
¾
The Russian old-timers, the
Nogai old-timers and migrants
from Dagestan all took their
own economic niches.
Their business-trajectories
usually go parallel and
therefore do not cross
¾
Distribution of the main ethnic groups of population on economic
niches is explained, on the one hand, by the specific policy of the
late Soviet times, when residents of Dagestan were invited to work
in the sheepyards on kolkhozes, on the other hand, by changes in
lifestyle of old residents, unwilling to work hard in the nonprestigious sheepyards . The consequence of this may be the
easing of ethnic tensions in the village, since competition within the
industry is partly got rid of "national " rhetoric.
¾
Acuteness of discourse on the ethical conflicts is also related to
economic development: the more successful people are in economic
terms, the less they tend to mention the ethnic economic rivalry.
¾
¾
¾
¾
The mechanisms of distribution and application of innovative
knowledge in agriculture and even the preservation of traditional
knowledge system for the villagers are affected by economic factors.
Destruction of growing pedigree wool sheep is the result of decades
of decline in the processing of wool in the region and the low
purchasing prices for wool. As a result, the new shepherds do not
engage in breeding sheep on this basis, focus on the meat breeds
which has led to the degeneration of wool breeds.
The practice of sub-lease and rent for the season provoke people to
the barbaric use of the land, because gektarschiki often change their
concession area and they don’t know who will work on this piece of
land next year.
¾
The economic models, practiced by different groups of citizens, the
regulation of agricultural relations and the functioning of the systems
of knowledge in the village Irgakly are directly linked with migration
processes in the region, and with characteristics of regional
economic development in the post-Soviet era, and with the cultural
characteristics of certain ethnic groups
¾
Thank you!
!
"! !
!#$%"$&'%($&
)*'+
+,-./ 0
! +,-."#
%! !
! !!#
&'$
()
"
"
!
9=$. *!
+
,6
6
0
+7
* 0
*!# • 6
#
• !
0 /#
'
'
0
!:!
;%((><
1
#2 +,-.
30
.
' #2'
'
'
455
8
%9'%((9
.
:4 55
;455<
#:4 ;4 <
.
+,-.
, !
" # !$
#
4 6
6
4 6 -?
!
"!!
# ! +%#% ,
* !
-# !
!!#
#*
! ,
!
"!!
%
:C0
/ 0
;
<
:4 0
% !
!
!
&=('
=;;5>5<<;=&=5'
,
2
&#.//0123/ '
;!$! !
@A
# ?
'
#2
-
#
*
= !
!
6
4
4 !
%
!
! !
&7!26689
5 % 26:/'
<
$#!
!%!#
#
#
#
4!
&(
!5 2663'
&
0
.
#
#
7% !:$%&-*',+
0
!
"!!
B
!
"!!
D
#
# !
I J +,-.
4!
*!
! "%
•
•
•
•
-
# ;
<
4!
! !#
; <
* ; <
•
•
•
•
•
.
3
30
3 # •
•
•
•
4
#
4
;'' <
# #0 #
=)
!
5!#!#!
!!%
.E
.
!" ;,F$>< '# ,
;,FBG< 0 6
H
E
!
"!!
6!7F!3+
•
•
•
•
•
-
00'
C
3"
3 A
!
"!!
>
0
!3+
K
C+
0
4
;!3+<
.C-4
6
4
-
#
6!7
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
-!
# EE3 0
6!7
0 4!
*!
! "%
- 0
. #
? :4 #
6
# " # 6!7
!
"!!
G
•
•
•
•
=)
!
•
•
•
•
•
5!#!#!
!!%
•
•
•
•
-
# ;
<
4!
! !#
; <
* ; <
3 F!3+
.
.
• -
00'
3
• C
30
• 3"
• 3 3 # • A
4
#
4
' <
# #0 #
!
"!!
9
#
'
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
0 =
, # 7
# !
% !
! !#
, # ƒ ƒ '
ƒ C # 0
#=
0 L M#
=LNM
' ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
-
/
;*! % ! ! !
! ! !
! !# ! !
!
!
% #
% !
!
#
!
"!!
$(
0
!3+
$%=E$&=
!#
!
"!!
$%
$%=E$&=
!#
!
"!!
$$