Food Security issues in the
Eurasian region: major challenges
and G8/G20 initiatives in relation
with the regional situation
Collection of contributions received
Discussion from 22 May to 28 June 2013
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–1–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Table of Contents
Topic .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Contributions received ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
1. Andrey Buklov, the Russian Federation, NGO ECO "KamCha" ............................................................. 6
2. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security.................. 6
3. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security.................. 6
4. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO ............................................................................................. 6
5. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO ............................................................................................. 7
6. Prof. Waheed Jamali, Pakistan, Sindh Agriculture & Forestry Workers Coordinating Organization
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
7. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security.................. 8
8. Alexander Kaigorodtsev, Kazakhstan, the East Kazakhstan State University named after
S.Amanzholov................................................................................................................................................................ 8
9. Alexander Kaigorodtsev, Kazakhstan, the East Kazakhstan State University named after
S.Amanzholov................................................................................................................................................................ 9
10. Nariman Nishanov, Uzbekistan, Representative of the International Centre for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas in Central Asia and the Caucasus (ICARDA-CAC)..................................... 9
11. Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz United States of America, The World Bank ........................................................ 9
12. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University ...................................... 10
13. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University ...................................... 10
14. Dr. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research
Institutions (CACAARI) ........................................................................................................................................... 11
15. Dr. Alisher A. Tashmatov, Uzbekistan, The Central Asia and South Caucasus Association of
Agricultural Research Institutions ..................................................................................................................... 11
16. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security ............. 12
17. Prof. B.B. Mishra India, Bihar Agricultural University ........................................................................ 13
18. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources ......................... 13
19. German Kust, Russian Federation, Moscow State University .......................................................... 16
20. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour ..................................... 16
21. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources ......................... 17
22. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour ..................................... 20
23. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources ......................... 20
24. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour ..................................... 21
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–2–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
25. Prof. Victor A. Dukhovny, Uzbekistan, Scientific Information Center of Interstate Coordination
Water Commission (SIC ICWC)............................................................................................................................ 22
26. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert ......................... 22
27. Dr. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research
Institutions (CACAARI) ........................................................................................................................................... 23
28. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agricultural and water resources expert ............................... 23
29. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University ...................................... 24
30. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert ......................... 25
31. Azizbek Sharipov, Tajikistan, Chairman of the National Farmers Association ........................ 27
32. Zara (Zarmandukht) Petrosyan, Armenia, Armstatehydromet ...................................................... 27
33. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI ............................................................................................................. 28
34. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert ......................... 28
35. Sergey Kiselev, Russian Federation, Director of the ECFS/MSU, ................................................... 29
36. Gigineishvili Lery, Georgia, Director of the Georgian Farmers’ House ........................................ 31
37. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI ............................................................................................................. 32
38. Sergey Kiselev, Russian Federation, Director of the ECFS/MSU, ................................................... 33
39. Akilbek Rakaev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Association of Sheep Breeders 'KAO' .............................. 33
40. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI ............................................................................................................. 36
41. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour ...................................... 36
42. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert ......................... 37
43. Dr. Alexander Makeev, Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security..................... 37
44. Dr. Botir Dosor, Uzbekistan, CACAARI ...................................................................................................... 38
45. Lery Gigineishvili, Georgia, Georgian Farmers’ House ....................................................................... 38
46. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO ........................................................................................ 38
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–3–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Topic
Dear Colleagues,
Welcome to the Online Consultation Food security issues in the Eurasian region: major challenges and
G8/G20 initiatives in relation with the regional situation, which will be held 22 May to 21 June 2013,
in both Russian and English.
This four-week online consultation is initiated by the Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS).
The ECFS was established by the Government of the Russian Federation at Moscow State University as
a follow up to the commitment made by G8 leaders, known as the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative,
to implement measures to improve world food security.
The consultation is being held in the context of the Russian Federation presidency of the G20 and its
continuing work towards priority directions related to the need for “a new cycle of economic growth
in the world economy” – for which food security is a prerequisite. The ECFS aims to identify the
expectations of decision-makers regarding the G8/G20 initiatives to address food security issues with a
focus on increasing agricultural production and the solution of problems related to malnutrition affecting
the population in the Eurasian region and other regions of the world.
By attracting inputs from a wide set of stakeholders, the online discussion aims at obtaining a clear
picture of the main challenges to food security, of the impact of past and current polices, and to
understand the priorities of different countries and stakeholder groups in the Eurasian region.
Additionally the discussion will contribute to the development of a dynamic food security community
of practice made up of specialists and practitioners. Such a network, identified as one of the key
objectives for the ECFS’s short- and medium-term agenda, would link food security experts and
decision makers from Eurasia and beyond and encourage knowledge-sharing on the latest data,
research findings and best practices.
This online consultation is open to everyone interested in the subject and we are calling on
stakeholders such as governments, civil society organizations, research institutes, academia,
universities and associations to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Center and explore the food
security landscape of the Eurasian Region.
For a brief overview of the current G8/G20 initiatives and the food security situation in the Eurasian
region, we invite you to read the two background papers:

G8/G20 initiatives in relation with Food Security issues

Food security overview in the Eurasian region
In order to stimulate and enrich this discussion, we propose the following guiding questions:

What are the major challenges facing Eurasian countries in improving their food
security situation?

Are current policies conducive to ensure food security in your country?

What do the decision makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20
initiatives in relation to food security issues?
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–4–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
The outcomes of the consultation will be discussed at an International Networking Conference to be
organized by the ECFS tentatively in September 2013. The results will also feed into global, regional
and national policy debates, and inform the ECFS’s plan of action regarding the creation of a successful
community of practice.
We wish to thank you in advance for participating in this consultation and believe that your
participation and comments will prove to be very valuable and that both you and your organization
will benefit from the e-interaction with other experts in the region.
We look forward to an interesting and rich discussion.
Sergey Kiselev – the Director of the ECFS
Mark Smulders – Senior Economist (FAO)
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–5–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Contributions received
1. Andrey Buklov, the Russian Federation, NGO ECO "KamCha"
Is there any chance to be invited to the International Conference in September 2013?
2. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security
Dear Mr. Andrey Buklov,
Thank you for your interest in food security issues. The Program and the specific dates of the
conference will be established in the near future. The conference will be devoted to summarizing the
online discussions. We will send you an invitation and look forward to your active participation in the
discussion of the issues raised.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sci. Alexander Makeev, Head of knowledge management and learning department, Eurasian Center
for Food Security (ECFS), Lomonosov Moscow State University,
tel. : (+7-495) 9308952 mob.: (+7-910) 4819118 fax. : (+7-495) 9394239 http://ecfs.msu.ru Skype:
makeev.ecfs.msu.ru
3. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security
Dear Colleagues,
The following materials are of interest for the assessment of food security in 4 countries of the
Eurasian region.
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/sites/ecfs/files/resources/Countries%20analysis_En_0.doc
These materials have been prepared by leading regional experts of the World Bank, in accordance with
the program of technical assistance in the development of the Moscow State University Agricultural
Center. The materials were presented at the Conference on Strategy and Prospects of Development of
the Moscow State University Agricultural Center in March 2012. The complete texts of these studies
are available on the following website of the Moscow State University Agricultural Center, along with
other materials on food security (http://ecfs.msu.ru/ru/conf_meetings/wb_conf_mat.php).
Sincerely,
A. Makeev
4. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO
I will try to provide the specific answers to the questions raised.
What are the main challenges facing the Eurasian countries, in terms of improving the food security
situation?
The main challenges in the Kyrgyz Republic are the following:
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–6–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
1. The decrease in agricultural productivity (due to lack of integrity in the architecture of public policy
and efficient legal and regulatory framework, weak institutional development, lack of cheap credit, the
absolute dominance of the natural form of management in the industry, poor processing, management
and marketing, the lack of new, modern technology, scientific support, poor knowledge of farmers, low
crop yields and low productivity of animals and many others).
2. The invasion of cheap and poor quality (GMOs) imported products, which put local producers in an
economic disadvantage.
3. The increasing population.
4. Large migration flows.
5. Reduced productivity and land degradation.
6. Significant water scarcity and increasing aridity.
7. Rather strained relations between the countries of the region because of the water, land and energy
resources.
8. The clash of the geopolitical interests of the superpowers and many others.
Does the current policy promote the food security in the country?
No, absolutely not!
What results are expected by those responsible for decision-making at the regional level, from the
initiatives taken by the G8/G20 in respect of food security?
Of course, I do not know what kind of results is expected by persons responsible for decision-making
at the regional level from the initiatives of the G8 and G20. It seems to me, that they do not expect any
results, perhaps even no such question shall be submitted to the G8 and G20, and then they will have
to consider other issues not related to the food security of Central Asia, as they need to understand
among themselves the new wave of the crisis, competition for resources and their distribution, foreign
currency "wars", building up (regrouping) a new relationship, just to mention a few of them.
Thank you. One can write without end.
Sincerely yours,
Professor Y.Abdurasulov (Kyrgyzstan)
5. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO
What are the main challenges facing the Eurasian countries, in terms of improving the food security
situation?
Dear colleagues, I will add a few words to my answer on the first question:
The absence of a common policy, uncoordinated actions of politicians and as derivatives:
1. The lack of common markets and (political, economic) fragmentation;
2. The lack of uniform tariffs, prices and allocation of resources;
3. The invasion of cheap and poor quality products from the developed world, especially GMP;
In short, what has been written with respect to the Kyrgyz Republic, entirely applies to the Eurasian
community.
Sincerely yours,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–7–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Professor S. Abdurasulov
6. Prof. Waheed Jamali, Pakistan,
Organization
Sindh Agriculture & Forestry Workers Coordinating
Contribution
In Pakistan, poverty and hunger is not only due to insufficient food production but largely because of
systematic marginalization and execution that denies people from accessing natural and productive
resources and means to feed themselves in dignity.
From
Waheed Jamali
Sindh Agriculture & Forestry Workers Coordinating Organization [SAFWCO]
Pakistan.
E-mail: w.jamali@safwco.org
Web: www.safwco.org
7. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security
Dear colleagues,
We would like to distribute the official press-release of the seminar “Food Security through Social
Safety Nets and Risk Management” that was held in Moscow on May 14, 2013. The document shows
clearly that Food Security is one of the key priorities on the G20 development agenda.
Пресс-релиз семинара по продовольственной безопасности_рус_анг/FS seminar pressrelease_Ru_En
Dr. Sci. Alexander Makeev
Head of knowledge management and learning department,
Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS),
Lomonosov Moscow State University,
tel. : (+7-495) 9308952
mob.: (+7-910) 4819118
fax. : (+7-495) 9394239
http://ecfs.msu.ru
Skype: makeev.ecfs.msu.ru
8. Alexander Kaigorodtsev, Kazakhstan, the East Kazakhstan State University named after
S.Amanzholov
The enclosed paper provides an overview of the food security issues in Kazakhstan. There are internal
and external threats to food security discussed. The assessment of the state of food security in
Kazakhstan is presented. The tentative solutions to address the food security issues are provided.
Food Security Assessment in Kazakhstan (available in Russian)
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–8–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
9. Alexander Kaigorodtsev, Kazakhstan, the East Kazakhstan State University named after
S.Amanzholov
On May 22-24, the VI Astana Economic Forum took place. The recommendations for the leaders of the
G-20, including the food security issues, were adopted. In the attached file some recommendations are
presented (e.g. the recommendation No 14 is written by me, the recommendation No 13 was also
written with my contribution).
VI АСТАНИНСКИЙ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЙ ФОРУМ (22-24 МАЯ 2013 ГОДА) РЕКОМЕНДАЦИИ ДЛЯ
ЛИДЕРОВ СТРАН G20 (available in Russian)
10. Nariman Nishanov, Uzbekistan, Representative of the International Centre for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas in Central Asia and the Caucasus (ICARDA-CAC)
What are the major challenges facing Eurasian countries in improving their food security
situation? The main challenges are: - Increasing volatility in food prices caused by insufficient
production and poor yield due to climate disasters; - Rising food demand due to increasing level of
incomes; - Rising food demand due to population growth; - Lack of measures to prevent the economic
crisis caused by the surge in prices of the means of agricultural production; - Increase in the number of
migrant workers mainly from rural areas to urban areas and abroad, and a loss of interest to the
agricultural production from the younger generation.
Are current policies conducive to ensure food security in your country? Yes. Specially, the
Government’s support to livestock farm (mainly cattle) in Uzbekistan can be considered effective. As a
result of this policy it was possible to satisfy the demand of domestic market for meat and dairy
products, and to stabilize the prices for livestock products.
What do the decision makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20 initiatives in
relation to food security issues? Considering the issues of food security along with the development
of a universal package for all countries in the region, it is necessary to take into account the specificity
of each country, considering geopolitical factors and the degree of integration into the regional / global
economy.
11. Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz United States of America, The World Bank
FAO data on food security in the region show that the proportion of malnourished in CAC has dropped
from 12.8% in 1990-92 to 7.4% in 2010-12--a sizable drop of 42% over 10 years, as compared with
the overall drop globally (33%) for the same period. However, this positive development on the
average hides significant differences among the countries of the region, with Georgia and Tajikistan
exhibiting high rates of undernourishment and food inadequacy, and the Kyrgyz Republic and
Uzbekistan following right behind. While there is no common solution to the food security challenges
faced by the countries because their individual circumstances differ significantly, action in the
following three areas will need to figure prominently in their country action programs:
Increasing food production. Perhaps this could be done most effectively through higher investments
in agricultural research and strong partnerships with international agricultural research centers like
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
–9–
fsn-moderator@fao.org
IFPRI and ICARDA. This would help speed the transfer and adoption of proven agriculture natural
resource management technologies geared towards poor farmers in rural areas.
Strengthening networks and partnerships with other countries and institutions to share knowledge
and best practices. ECFS can play a significant catalytic role in this regard.
Developing and implementing effective social protection programs to address the nutritional needs
of the most vulnerable groups such as children and the rural poor.
G-8/G-20 initiatives should promote and facilitate individual countries' efforts in these three areas.
Selcuk Ozgediz
12. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University
The answers to the guiding questions:
1. Economic crises have a profound effect on the efficiency of the labor of producers in the rural
area. Unreasonably high price difference (disparity) between the industrial goods and
agricultural products also affects the food security situation (FS). These processes have a
negative impact on nutrition and living standards of vulnerable social groups. This could be
also seen in the level of the Gini index of the countries of Central Asia.
2. In general, the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic should contribute to ensuring food security.
However, the food security is not secured due to inadequate decisions of some top managers.
Such improper solutions have led to:
a) soil degradation
b) degradation of natural resources including biodiversity
c) deterioration of an epizootic situation
d) weakening of the Quarantine Service (phyto-sanitary and veterinary services)
d) reduction in agricultural yields
e) inadequate credit policy
g) lack of stimulation of a process of rural farmers’ cooperation
h) weakening of a process of education and science development
Abdybek Asanaliev
Kyrgyz National Agrarian University
13. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University
What do the decision makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20 initiatives in relation to
food security issues?
G8 initiative is extremely important for the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. These countries
have similar problems, but different approaches addressing the Food Security issues. For Kyrgyz
Republic, it is important to have the assistance from the G8/G20 in the following areas:


Even transboundary water should have a status of "Goods" and not to be considered as "God's
creation";
Harmonization of customs duties with neighbouring countries, especially for agricultural
products;
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 10 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org








Harmonization of laws and regulations governing the transboundary of animal
zooanthroponoses and plant diseases. Creating a bio-safety laboratory of the third level in
Bishkek;
Entrance of neighbouring countries in UPOV and ISTA for settlement of seeds trade of licensed
varieties, and signing MTAs between countries;
Compliance of the UN Convention for the Protection of Biological Diversity and to Combat
Desertification by the Central Asian countries;
Engage G8 initiative in concerted action for agricultural investments;
Applying environmental impact assessment for all projects of the C group according to the
World Bank methodology;
Revision of criteria and indicators used for population means testing in receiving the WFP
assistance. Many vulnerable households (HH) become "stable" recipients of aid WFP. It must
be organized in the way that majority of HH could maintain their households efficiently and be
free from the aid system;
Concerted action WHO, WFP, FAO and OIE to protect human health and animal welfare;
Specialists training on food security and food safety in the Universities (MSc & PhD).
Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University
14. Dr. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural
Research Institutions (CACAARI)
I would like to share my view on the second topic, particularly on alignment of policies and
instruments with objectives. In my opinion, one of the main tasks of socio-economic development is to
improve the welfare of the population, which is associated with the achievement of the MDGs.
In the context of government policy to ensure the stability and support of food security the four of the
eight MDGs are considered as the key issues:
MDG 1 - Reduce poverty and malnutrition;
MDG 4 - Reduce Child Mortality;
MDG 5 - Improve maternal health;
MDG 7 - Ensure environmental sustainability (The increase in the proportion of urban and rural
population with access to safe drinking water and sanitation).
Therefore, the mechanisms and instruments of national policy in Uzbekistan, in my view, is developed
and implemented in accordance with the objectives of food security.
Botir Dosov,
CACAARI
15. Dr. Alisher A. Tashmatov, Uzbekistan, The Central Asia and South Caucasus Association of
Agricultural Research Institutions
Dear colleagues,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 11 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
it is a great pleasure to write to you with this message, to congratulate you on the beginning of active
work of the Eurasian Center of Moscow State University. We look forward to your further work in our
region in strengthening food security. We look forward to active agreed activities on the development
of cooperation and partnership. The visit to our region of the team of specialists and experts from the
Centre in June 2012 the year of Dr Alexander Makeev and Dr Paul Kalashnikovs, which was very
welcomed by the organizations of our region awaiting real programmes and projects had been very
useful and fruitful. According to the main issue of electronic consultations on food security, we should
emphasize the seriousness of this problem in our region with a growing population, increasing
demand for natural resources management, in transboundary water management issues specifically,
influences of negative consequences of climate change and natural disasters, the increase in the
number of transboundary diseases and spread of pests and diseases of animals and plants. This is not
a full list of these aspects in agricultural development that requires joint efforts to create favourable
conditions and assistance for research, applying advanced methods and innovative technologies to
achieve the expected growth in agricultural productivity and food security.
With wishes for successful discussions and exchange of views.
Dr. Alisher A. Tashmatov
Executive Secretary,
The Central Asia and South Caucasus
Association of Agricultural Research Institutions hosted by International Center For Agricultural
Research In The Dry Areas (ICARDA)
16. Dr. Alexander Makeev, the Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security
Dear Colleagues!
We are very happy by observing the growing number of the E-consultation participants and those very
important and interesting contributions that have been received so far. At the same time, a comparison
of the total number of readers (more than 800 from 61 countries) and the number of comments
submitted shows that there is a certain disproportion. I believe this may be due to some tenseness
among participants. Given the fact that electronic forums and consultations are a new form of
communication for the agricultural field, allow me to remind you that this form involves primarily free
dialogue, which provides an opportunity to express opinion directly and in a simple form. And we have
plenty to talk about.
The fact is that the topic of food security is brought to the agenda of the G8 and G20 meetings for the
first time. It should also be noted that, heretofore, the discussions on global food security issues have
been mainly focusing on African region. This is certainly fair, given the severity of problems related to
hunger and malnutrition. On the other hand, Eurasian region largely determines the food security
status in the world for the short-term. After all, it is in its way a potential world’s "breadbasket". And
not everything is rosy. Aridization and deglaciation (20% over the past 40 years) can lead to
disastrous consequences for the entire globe. All of that have reflected in our desire to bring to the fore
of the discussion the food security situation in the Eurasian region.
Among the participants of our consultations, there are persons responsible for setting of agenda for
the meetings of the G8 and G20 under the Russia presidency.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 12 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Let's use this chance for the benefit of our countries!
Sincerely,
Alexander Makeev
17. Prof. B.B. Mishra India, Bihar Agricultural University
Dear Sir,
One of the biggest problems in Eurasian countries like India is the shrinkage of soil/soil sealing due to
speedy urbanization, non-farming activities, construction of buildings, roads etc. Such non-scientific
approach leads to shrinkage of productive lands. If a hectare of fertile land produces 30 quintals/year
and if 1.5 quintal cereal is food requirement of one person in India, the so-called shrinkage would
cause food crisis. This is alarming.
I would request to impose legal ban immediately. The challenges of global climatic change is directly
concern to it.
B.B.Mishra, India
Professor B.B. Mishra, Ph.D.(IARI), FNAS,
University Professor cum Chief Scientist,
Department of Soil Science,
Bihar Agricultural University,
(Formarily Rajendra Agricultural University)
Website: www.bipinbiharimishra.page.tl
18. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources
Dear colleagues!
I am grateful for your choice of me as an expert in this field. I will be glad to submit to your attention
my visions and suggestions in the near future. In my turn, I welcome your initiative and desire to make
such an important issue of food security in the Eurasian region clear to all.
Sincerely yours,
Matraim Zhusupov, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources, Kyrgyzstan
Below you will find my answers to the questions.
What are the major challenges facing Eurasian countries in improving their food security
situation?
The major challenges, if formulated briefly, would include the following:
1. the global climate change;
2. the tendency of moving the areas of irrigated agriculture from the south to the north;
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 13 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
3. the lack of water resources, the disruption of sustainable, natural distribution of water
resources in space and time, the disruption of the stability and repeatability of climate data;
4. the population growth;
5. land depletion, pollution, and degradation; soil poisoning with toxic industrial emissions;
6. the deterioration of the agricultural products’ quality due to the excessive use of fertilizers,
pesticides, genetically modified organisms and artificial products;
7. the demographic issues, migration of rural population to the cities, an increase in the age index
of workers employed in the agricultural sector.
The details regarding the Kyrgyz Republic would include:
1. The Kyrgyz agriculture is facing a number of global challenges. The first challenge is connected
with the process of globalization of markets, including food markets. The Kyrgyz Republic
expands its trade relations with other countries. The main economic partners of the Kyrgyz
Republic (Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries) are considerably larger than Kyrgyzstan in
terms of the size of the economy, and they provide to their agriculture huge financial support.
This situation will inevitably lead to the need to adapt agriculture to new conditions and
change the structure of agricultural production.
2. The global climate change is the next great challenge for Kyrgyzstan. The rivers’ run-off is
expected to increase in the next 20 years. After a period of increased surface run-off according
to various climate scenarios, the decrease in the run-off is expected to amount to about 43.6 88.4 per cent of the total run-off in 2000. The lifting of the upper limits of climatic zones and
the likely increase in the mean annual temperature will affect the area of arable lands and crop
yields.
3. Kyrgyzstan is a country with a small area of arable lands. The total area of the arable lands
amounts to1202.6 thousand hectares (0.25 hectares per capita), including 793.5 hectares of
irrigated lands (0.18 hectares per capita). The average size of arable lands in the rural
(farmer) economy in Kyrgyzstan was 2.7 hectares, including 1.9 hectares of irrigated land, in
2010.
4. The Kyrgyz agriculture has low investment attractiveness. First, the Kyrgyz agriculture is
highly dependent on natural and climatic conditions. Favourable years alternate with lean
years caused by drought, frost, heavy rainfall, etc. Second, agricultural production is a type of
activity with relatively low and unstable incomes, which leads to constant dependence on
external concessional financing. Third, the small size of land holdings promotes the small-scale
production. Fourth, if agricultural production itself is not under significant influence of the
regulatory and approval system, the processing and marketing of products (including exportimport transactions) are completely subject to the inefficient, redundant and often corrupt
Government regulation. Fifth, the system of products certification in accordance with
international standards has not been developed in Kyrgyzstan. This inhibits the growth of
exports and income. Together, all these factors reduce the attractiveness of investment in
agricultural production.
5. A key competitive advantage for Kyrgyzstan in terms of agricultural production is its great
potential for water supply and warm climate. The natural average multi-year total annual runoff is 47.2 km3. This national wealth creates a platform for sustainable agricultural production,
growing the diversity of crops, regardless of their water-loving.
Are current policies conducive to ensure food security in your country?
The objective of the policy designed to promote food security is to create conditions for the
population's access to adequate amounts of food in accordance with the minimum standards of food
consumption, based on its availability, accessibility and safety. Food security under the laws of the
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 14 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Kyrgyz Republic is ensured, if the level of public reserves covers no less than 90-day requirements of
socially vulnerable segments of the population for basic foodstuffs.
The main elements of the National Food Security Strategy include:
(i) agriculture; (ii) marketing; (iii) social protection and health; (iv) macroeconomics and public
finance.
Currently, the level of basic food supply in Kyrgyzstan, which is covered by its own production,
amounts to: grain products - by 62.5%; vegetable oil - by 30.9%; sugar - by 17%; meat - by 64.5%;
fruits and berries - by 63.8%.
This poses a threat of the country's high dependence on the situation in the world food markets, as
well as the foreign policy of states-exporters of food to our country.
The country now has the systems of monitoring and early warning of negative trends in the food
markets, both in the world and within the country. It is necessary to recognize that the level of control
over food safety and compliance with technical requirements is low, which poses a threat to the health
and lives of the population of the country. A share of genetically modified and counterfeit goods is
growing, some of which cause direct harm to human health or do not possess the qualities
corresponding to labelling.
Let us take an example of the water sector. Since the time, when the Kyrgyz Republic became
independent, this sector has been facing such problems as a lack of funding, staff turnover, the
imperfections of the legal framework, the difficulties related to the changes after the land and agrarian
reform, the gradual destruction of the irrigation and drainage infrastructure, and has been operating
mainly through the projects funded by donors, dealing with water resources and institutional
framework, including the creation and development of WUAs, but the overall strategy and plan of
gradual reforms, based on the vision of the Government of the future of the industry, have not been
fully identified, while the initiated reforms have been delayed due to a protracted transition period
and unstable political situation in the country over the last 20 years.
What do the decision makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20 initiatives in
relation to food security issues?
1. To provide for domestic needs of the state in the production of agricultural products and
processing industry.
2. Timely organization of reserves and spending of inventory items.
3. To improve the policy of managing the public finances to ensure food security.
4. To ensure the public control of safety of produced and imported agricultural products.
5. To ensure the availability of safe and healthy food.
6. To assist in ensuring food security for maintaining macroeconomic stability through: (i) the
development of tools to achieve macroeconomic stabilization; (ii) the creation of permanent
system for monitoring and evaluating the impact of food prices volatility on the rate of
inflation; (iii) maintaining macroeconomic environment conducive to food security; (iv)
maintaining the stability of consumer prices through the instruments of monetary control.
7. Anti-monopoly regulation and improvement of pricing policy.
8. Policy measures to supply socially vulnerable categories of citizens with food in accordance
with the regulations (until the stabilization of the economies of the relevant countries).
9. To improve the quality and accessibility of information on food security.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 15 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
19. German Kust, Russian Federation, Moscow State University
I would liked in a little more detail to touch upon the issue, which in various forms has been raised on
this forum, namely, the issue of land degradation (the declining quality of lands.)
It seems to be a clear theme, especially from the point of view of scientists, but its solution at the
political level in almost all the countries of the region has not been adequately addressed. I would like
to focus attention of the discussion participants on the following key aspects of the problem in relation
to food security:
1. At present there is no alternative to soil as the main natural resource for providing food,
despite the development of hydroponic and other technologies;
2. The degradation of soils, which in the past was relatively slow, though ubiquitous, is happening
now at an alarming rate, and it is obvious that this inevitably will lead to a reduction in the
potential for the increased agricultural production;
3. Although the soils in general terms are recognized as important resources, so far, in most
countries of the region they do not have the value expression, or are measured at the very low
rates. This, in turn, creates an opportunity to exploit soil resources mercilessly, without caring
about their reproduction and restoration. In fact, this encourages overexploitation of soils until
they are completely exhausted. (By the way, in some countries of the region, water is also
provided free of charge or for a nominal price, which is not conducive to the development of
water-saving technologies);
4. The system of evaluation of resource quality of soil and its agro-ecological functions has not
been highly developed in the vast majority of countries in the region, and in most cases it is
based on the primitive terms of the content of mineral elements, which is not always capable of
meeting the concept of "soil health" or "agro-ecosystems health", if focus is made on food
security, which has been actively developed in the world.
20. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour
Weak education and extension services systems
It is really true that education in agriculture has improved tremendously to align with changing
scenario across the globe.
Research in agriculture is accordingly been updated but it seems to be a fancy in certain instance and
lacks a reliable system to define and set the researchable problem in facilitating to establish the goal
and objective and appropriate activities.
If a person is engaged in Remote sensing activities in agriculture, for example, he perhaps forgets that
such technique is simply a supplementary tool to validate the objectives only on groundtruthing.
Currently, many scientists do dare to formulate technologies based on similar supplementary data.
Modelling or simulation studies in most of agricultural research may be the tools appreciable in
classroom, but their outcome will simply be the approximation.
Food security in term of quality as well as quantity must be the net goal of agricultural education
system, which needs to be improved further, wherein Research Methods must be taught exhaustably.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 16 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
21. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources
Dear colleagues!
I have studied all the comments and opinions of our colleagues, in which the experts identify the
problem of transboundary water resources management as a critical issue, at the regional and global
levels. My position on this issue is provided below.
Sincerely, Matraim Zhusupov, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources, Kyrgyzstan
Regarding the problems of transboundary water resources management in Central Asia
According to forecasts provided by the international research organizations, the next 20 years could
be a turning point for the development of the world civilization and in the field of food security
because of the threat of water scarcity. In the world, as it turned out, the demand is growing not only
for hydrocarbons (oil and gas), but also for water, which in contrast to the "black" and "blue" gold is
not a commodity in international trade. It is well known that the food security is directly dependent on
water, because nearly 90 percent of agricultural production in arid zones is obtained on irrigated
lands.
Moreover, the shortage of water is increasing faster than expected. Russia and the European countries
do not experience serious problems with the supply of water resources, but the same cannot be said
about the states of Central Asia, where the “water issue” has become a major factor in international
relations and even regional security in recent years.
The root of the problem lies in the fact that water resources are unevenly distributed in Central Asia.
The situation is such that the Central Asian region is clearly divided into water-rich countries
(Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) and the countries dependent upon them in terms of the flow of water,
such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan controls the Syr Darya River basin,
while Tajikistan controls the Amu Darya River. In order to defuse tensions in the region the slogan has
been even introduced, according to which "we do not sell water as a commodity and ask to pay for the
services related to management, storage, transportation / shipping to the border", the costs of these
services cover additional costs related to operating, service and maintenance of transboundary water
facilities of the upstream countries. In this connection, there are some changes in the water relations
between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, which have managed to reconcile their water and energy needs.
The work of expert groups and the ad hoc committee of the two countries on the use of waters of
rivers Chu and Talas serves as a positive example. Kazakhstan has agreed to co-fund ($ 20 million per
year) the operation of hydro-technical facilities in Kyrgyzstan.
In recent years, after improvement of the situation, Afghanistan has started to develop its agriculture
and began to use more water for irrigation in his part of the Amu Darya basin. Prior to that, only about
2 billion cubic meters have been consumed, but now its consumption increased up to 10 billion cubic
meters of water, which would have negative consequences for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
Syr Darya is the first river in terms of length and the second in terms of water content in Central Asia.
The length of the river is 3019 km, while the basin area amounts to 219 thousand square km. The main
part (75.2%) of the Syr Darya flow is formed in the territory of Kyrgyzstan, while 15.2% of its flow
covers the territory of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan accounts for 6.9% and Tajikistan - for 2.7%.
The length of another waterway - the Amu Darya River - is 2540 km, while the basin area amounts to
309 thousand square km. Both Syr Darya and Amu Darya loose in their downstream a lot of water for
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 17 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
irrigation. The main flow of Amu Darya (74%) is formed in the territory of Tajikistan, while 13.9% of
its flow covers the territory of Afghanistan and Iran, and Uzbekistan accounts for 8.5%.
The uneven distribution of water resources in Central Asia causes a conflict of interests between the
key water suppliers (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) and its major consumers (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan).
In particular, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are interested to use water to generate electricity for their
own needs and for export to third countries. They are opposed by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, which insist on the mainly irrigative nature of the operation of the hydroelectric power
plants built during the Soviet era and the planned new ones.
The essence of the claims of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to its neighbours is to increase their financial
compensation for the work of hydro-power plants in the irrigation regime in the interests of
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Bishkek and Dushanbe over the years point to significant
costs which they have to cover to maintain their hydro-technical infrastructure. Most active in this
matter, Bishkek has offered to treat water as a kind of commodity, and potentially introduce a fee for
water (Kyrgyzstan receives now from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan compensation for the electricity
generated in excess). However, the experts agree that the idea of water charging is unlikely to be
realized in Central Asia due to the high risk of social and political upheavals in all the countries.
The purpose of Bishkek and Dushanbe is to obtain a fair and market compensation for the services
provided for the supply of water. In principle, to blame solely Bishkek and Dushanbe in "energy
egoism" is not entirely fair. These countries face an acute task of solving the problems of poverty, and
water resources are their source of national economic development. The problem is how to fit the local
development strategy in the regional scenario of sustainable development, which benefits all countries
with no losers.
The accelerated energy development and the construction of new hydroelectric power plants in
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan can became an additional source of tension in the region. The investors
from Russia, China, United States and Pakistan show genuine interest for the construction of
hydroelectric power plants. This all led to cautious reaction of the downstream countries. In this
regard, the experts warn that one-sided water-power policy of upstream countries can lead to tension
and is fraught with cross-border conflicts in the future, in the first place with Uzbekistan.
Such plans of the neighbours seriously disturb Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, since the commissioning of
new hydro-power facilities would require filling them with water, leading to shortages.
The topic of water use is constantly present in the energy disputes in Central Asia. Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan with poor hydrocarbon resources are not averse to using a "water faucet" in response to
the "gas valve" of Uzbekistan. Lack of water in the overpopulated Fergana Valley is a powerful
detonator of a social revolution, and Tashkent is well aware of this fact and therefore is closely
watching the energy and water policies of its neighbours.
As is well known, Bishkek and Tashkent have a long and fierce debate over waters of Naryn cascade of
hydro-power plants in Kyrgyzstan. Tashkent insists every year on dumping large quantities of water
from the Toktogul reservoir to improve water supply of agricultural regions of Uzbekistan.
For example, the construction of the quickly filled up the Toktogul cascade energy-irrigation reservoir
in Kyrgyzstan could solve many problems in the dry years, since it would solve the Kyrgyzstan's
energy problem, while the problem of irrigation water supply would be solved for the downstream
countries. For Kyrgyzstan, energy produced by the cascade of hydro-power plants would be sufficient,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 18 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
and the Toktogul reservoir would keep the accumulation of water flow during the non-growing
season, while the supply of water during the irrigation season would ensure production of additional
electric power.
Since their independence, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have not been able to overcome friction on
the issue of joint use of water in the lower reaches, as Turkmenistan takes up huge volumes of water
for the Karakum channel. The Turkmenbashi plans to create an artificial "Lake of the Golden Century"
(with volume of 132-150 cubic km to be filled by the catchment channels and possibly at the expense
of the Amu Darya river) only reinforce the fears of Tashkent with respect to water supply. The existing
rivalry between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in respect of the distribution of water downstream may
be exacerbated if the demand for water will increase in Afghanistan in connection with the
development of irrigated agriculture.
Thus, in the long-term the problem of water in the Central Asian region will only worsen because of
the high population growth. According to expert estimates, the population growth in Central Asia will
inevitably increase the demand for water in the coming twenty years by 40%. This situation can serve
as catalysts for inter-state conflicts, which requires that the leaders of the Central Asian states display
their political maturity and the will for a just solution of the water-energy problems.
The economic damage of this unresolved problem is shared by all countries of the region. According to
the UNDP data for 2005, the unresolved problems related to the exploitation of water resources in
Central Asia lead to annual losses of $ 1.7 billion due to mismanagement of water resources.
The irony is that there is enough water in Central Asia. The excessive losses of water in Central Asia
can be explained by the archaic system of farming in which water consumption per unit of production
is three, sometimes ten times higher than the comparable world figures. According to specialists'
estimations, the transition to modern agricultural technologies and efficient water use will save up to
half of a year flow of transboundary rivers in the region. The problem is that the modernization of the
Central Asian agriculture requires huge internal funds and foreign investments.
It does not mean that the leaders of the Central Asian countries have not attempted to resolve the
problems of water use in the region. A lot of talks and meetings of the Heads of States of Central Asia
have been conducted and held, but, according to international organizations and experts, the main
problems between the countries of the region in the regulation of water and energy relations remain
unchanged.
It is clear that the creation, with the assistance of the external actors, of a space designed to regulate
the problems of water and energy relations will become a significant resource for penetration into the
markets of the Central Asian countries. In this context, the role and importance of the Eurasian
Economic Community (EEC) in promoting the interests of Russia and its allies in the region in the field
of energy and water use continue to grow.
Russia has developed smooth partnerships with all the states of Central Asia (which, of course, does
not preclude discussions in the framework of bilateral relations). In the long term, this means that
Russia has the opportunity to play the role of the "honest broker" to find the solution of water and
energy disputes in the region. It is also important that the Russian experts have accumulated during
the Soviet period unique knowledge about the specifics of the region's hydro-power.
Creating a water-energy regulator is not an easy task. The main obstacle for the formation of a
permanent and effective structure within the EEC is the lack of political will on the part of the Central
Asian leaders to overcome the existing differences. However, the transboundary nature of water
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 19 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
resources and the close relationships between water and energy supply in the region dictate the need
for a coherent regional policy in the field of energy and water use.
There are many scenarios and suggestions that can be reviewed. The most promising scenario
involves the active cooperation of all countries of the region in the field of water use and energy
supply. The settlement of disputes through negotiations in order to reach mutually beneficial
agreements is the only possible approach in this regard. The necessity to implement this scenario is
determined by the urgent need for integrated water resources management that will optimize the
operating modes of hydro-power facilities, taking into account both national and regional interests. To
this end the Eurasian Economic Community may become a convenient institutional platform for the
design of a coherent water and energy policy in the region.
The rapprochement of the positions of the Central Asian states in the field of water resources use
cannot be considered apart from the development of effective models of economic development of
each country. In fact, what we have in mind is the inclusion of national strategies into the overall
scenario of sustainable development of the region in which the water policy would form its integral
part.
22. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour
Farmers cannot be said poor, if global food security campaign is designed and approved in line as
under (in crop production, for example):
(i)Let a farmer sow/plant the seed/seedling/necesary plant following the recommended technology
and available inputs (already existing).
(II)Let him harvest the product under his own control following the improved technology (already
existing in most parts).
(iii)Farmer must have liberty to store his produce or go for post harvest technology/processing or
even value addition to fetch a good price. Let farmers be sole responsible in planning and decision.
(iv)Farmers must be exposed for opportunities in marketing (import/export) and that too under their
direct control.
The above four point poverty alleviation programme at farmer's door (direct control) virtually needs
encouragement/approval by the policy makers (Government), agricultural universities, cooperative
bodies and extension workers. Every farmer with landed property is legalised to furnish all four steps
at his door. Other professions like dairy, goattery, mushroom production, apiary etc additional to boost
up the economics. Once the programme is legalised just by adopting a village (as NUCLEUS VILLAGE),
the farmers will get excited towards its adoption.
The above simple tips seem to be vital towards food security mission particularly in Eurasian
countries in all fairness.
23. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, Expert in Agriculture and Water Resources
The common vision of the future food security of the Central Asian region and the world
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 20 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
The world's population continues to increase. It is expected that by 2050, the current population of 7
billion people will increase to 9 billion people. By this time it will be necessary to produce each year an
additional 1 billion tonnes of cereals and 200 million tonnes of livestock products.
Today, nearly 1 billion people are undernourished. Even if agricultural production in the developing
countries is doubled by 2050, the threat of malnutrition will continue to be maintained for each of the
twentieth (370 million hungry in total) person on the planet, and a large part of such population will
continue to live in Africa and Asia.
Over the past 50 years, the area of irrigated land has doubled and the volume of agricultural
production increased by 2.5-3 times due to the significant increase in yields of major crops. However,
in some regions the global increase in production has led to the degradation of land and water
resources. In today's world, 70 percent of the volume of water used are devoted for agricultural
purposes. And in the Kyrgyz Republic, 90 percent of water is used for irrigation. It is expected that
future growth in crop production will occur mainly due to the intensification of agriculture, while
increasing the strategic role of irrigation by improving water supplies, increasing water use efficiency,
better productivity and more intensive farming.
Climate change in Central Asia can significantly affect the food security of the region. FAO studies show
that "in the coming years, climate change will have an impact on such fundamental health conditions,
as food security, water safety and air quality. In general, in Central Asia the yield is expected to be
significantly reduced in coming years due to the influence of the change of precipitation, floods and so
on."
Meanwhile, as the World Health Organization (WHO) notes: "in Central Asia by 2050, crop yields are
projected to decrease by 30 percent." It will all be due to the lack of water resources.
24. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra, India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour
Today, the globe particularly the Eurasian territories in general is suffering from nutritious and quality
food insecurity, which is linked directly with poor livelihood, economic diversity, social insecurity,
unrest, corruption and crime.
Agriculture is at risk facing challenges of diversified nature. Soil is the foundation on which relative
management options are formulated to suit the need of land use. But, soil is used in suppression in
most of the cases. Unfortunately, only top soil of 0-15 cm or hardly 0-25 cm depth with fertility data is
considered to be enough as if soil unit (pedon) is dead or pedology is buried. In fact, soil is a natural
resource like the sun, which does not require any rest and soil can be exploited for production round
the year. But, in order to maintain sustainability, the agricultural foundation (soil) must be evaluated
for pedogenic productivity, so that such resource must attain its potential productivity. Then, classify
the land unit for specific set of land uses for remunerative return. Once the land use suitability is
identified, there is need to assess the soil fertility and input requirement.
Such systematic approach would help to maintain the long-term production approach. This should be
mandatory in agricultural production system. By and large, we need gross rural happiness.
Conservation agriculture may be a boon and so there must be refinement in line with the theme.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 21 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
25. Prof. Victor A. Dukhovny, Uzbekistan, Scientific Information Center of Interstate
Coordination Water Commission (SIC ICWC)
Regarding the discussion of the problems of food security in the Eurasian region it is important to
stress three key issues.
1. In most countries of the region there is no clear focus on the completion of the restructuring of
agriculture and water resources, as well as in respect to the recommended type of farms, their
cooperation and development and in relation to water management organizations.
2. Everywhere there is a lack of knowledge on the rational use of land and how to achieve the
potential productivity, which should be the main criterion for the use of land capacity. The
advisory services to farmers and their associations practically do not exist anywhere except
spontaneous pilot sites.
3. It is necessary to develop and implement a clear mechanism of economic relations in irrigated
agriculture, including public inputs, which will motivate all participants and farmers as well as
the irrigation and drainage services to use water and land economically, and to ensure the
exact water supply to water users.
Prof. Victor A. Dukhovny, Director, Scientific Information Center of Interstate Coordination Water
Commission (SIC ICWC)
26. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
Regarding drinking water - a strategic product of the XXI century:
When I think of food security, in the first instance I imagine that the number of population on the Earth
has increased, the land resources cannot withstand such a load, people have no elementary bread and
hungry people fall from fainting; the second picture: it is when, due to global climate change and water
shortage, many countries face the agricultural crisis, the lean years, import becomes very expensive,
people are poor and have no money to buy food, and they are not able to survive without assistance;
the third picture: many countries have adapted to these changes, apply a lot of chemistry, soil is
poisoned, their water resources are poisoned by discharges, they start producing artificial food
products that are very harmful to human health (how shall we monitor the safety of food?).
I have frequently asked this question recently, why there is no drinking water - a strategic product of
the XXI century – in the list of staple foods (bread, meat, milk, butter, sugar, potatoes, vegetables and
fruit, fish products, etc.)? Do you know, that according to UN experts, about one-sixth of the world's
population does not have access to clean drinking water and one third - to water for domestic use.
Every eight seconds a child dies from diseases related to water, and 2.4 billion people lack adequate
sanitation.
Experts estimate that the Eurasian continent accounts for more than 42% of fresh water. At the same
time we live in the international space as "shoemaker without shoes." The matter is that more and
more people, especially in the Asian region, in addition to hunger, are suffering from a shortage of
drinking water - a strategic product of the XXI century.
Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 22 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
27. Dr. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural
Research Institutions (CACAARI)
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to share and support the comments of Dr. Matraim Zhusupov of Kyrgyzstan, Expert in
Agriculture and Water Resources. Indeed, today the issues of food security, quality and healthy
nutrition, and protecting the vulnerable population from the adverse effects of global change in the
social, political, economic and ecological spheres are very important.
The consequences of climate change have a negative impact on agriculture, which already heavily
suffers from the consequences of the world economic crisis. In addition, the projected population
growth, with a bias towards the urban population will increase demand and prices for food, which, in
turn, will necessitate further use of limited natural resources. Ultimately, these problems are primarily
a threat to vulnerable groups of population, including people with low incomes. Thus, the society faces
the task of addressing these issues, and the appropriate measures should be taken to ensure a peaceful
and stable development and food security in the CAC region.
However, the response to these challenges is the responsibility of not only policy makers, researchers
and other experts, but also of all other groups of population, including the low-income and resourcepoor people, who in the first place will be affected by the negative effects of climate change, growth
population and unsustainable use of natural resources, which primarily threaten food security.
This raises the question: how different groups are aware of the impending dangers of climate change
and the reduction of natural resources. Therefore, those who are the first to be affected by these
challenges, namely the poor groups of population, should be widely informed and prepared to meet
these challenges. This will contribute to their willingness to adapt small-scale innovation. In this
regard, the concept of food security should be adaptable to climate change, in other words the term
"Climate smart Food security" is probably the demand of time.
Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
28. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agricultural and water resources expert
Regarding land degradation:
I fully support Mr. Herman Kust on the issue of fight against land degradation.
Today, the state is practically not able to make farmers plant one or another crop, because (for
example in Kyrgyzstan) more than 90% of irrigated lands are owned directly by private farmers.
Farmers sow the crop, which would allow them to receive the maximum profit. It is no secret that over
time, the soil of land of many farmers is depleted and degraded. And this is due to the fact that farmers
do not follow the simple measures of agricultural technologies, such as carrying out a crop rotation.
In order to have such a system of crop rotation, the private farmers must cooperate. One of the most
powerful factors for stabilizing agricultural production is the expansion of cultivation of perennial
legume grasses and legumes. Alfalfa and sainfoin are the most valuable fodder crops and sources of
high quality protein feed. Forage production is an important sector of agriculture. Its importance is
enormous, not only in terms of providing animal feed, but also in addressing many of the pressing
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 23 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
problems in the biological function of agriculture, conservation and improvement of soil fertility and
ensuring sustainability of agricultural landscapes. Revival of grass cultivation will not only improve
the forage production, but also increase phyto-meliorative and agronomical soil conditions. Among all
legumes, alfalfa and sainfoin are the most potent nitrogen-fixing crops. Alfalfa is able to accumulate at
least 250 kg of readily available nitrogen per 1 ha, and in favourable moisture conditions up to 400 kg.
Well developed alfalfa herbage on the second or third year of life accumulates in the arable horizon 812 t per hectare of root mass and crop residues, which have the content of nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium and other nutrients equivalent to the introduction of 40-60 t of manure per hectare.
Depending on growing conditions, alfalfa and sainfoin restore from 0.5 to 1.5 tons of humus per
hectare, providing its deficit-free balance. In addition, the long-term continuous coverage of the
surface of soil by plants alfalfa and sainfoin regulates storm water and melt water runoff and prevents
the soil from water and wind erosion. Alfalfa and sainfoin are good precursors for almost all crop
rotation and sainfoin is also a great honey plant.
Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agricultural and water resources expert
29. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University
I would like to make some additions to my previous comments.
One of the experts pointed to the presence of the GMO foods in the diet of the Kyrgyz people. Yes, this
is one of the threats. The contradiction between what EU and the United States is a well known fact,
and it relates to the admission of such products. Many people know that in China the farmers cultivate
varieties of GMO soy beans, corn and cotton. The source material for creating them has been imported
from the United States. Many of the products of these varieties come to Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and
other countries.
The Customs and Quarantine Service of the Kyrgyz Republic does not have laboratory equipment and
trained personnel to identify these products. Moreover, the seeds of these varieties are smuggled and
delivered to the Kyrgyz Republic and the farmers grow them. Article 10 of the Law on the Seeds does
not allow the use of such varieties before they are submitted to the test and study within the relevant
ecosystems. Such varieties may be used only in case of positive test results.
The scientists in Moscow have been seriously engaged in studying the impact of GMO food on rats and
came to conclusions about the negative effect of GMO on their viability, productivity and reproduction.
In the Kyrgyz Republic such experiments have not been carried out.
Yes, the task of breeders is to feed humanity, including more than 800 million hungry people, but we
have to think about health of future generations.
The second point is the threat to the food security and food safety in the Kyrgyz Republic due to a bad
phyto-sanitary situation. Inadequate funding of plant protection services is the reason for poor
prognosis, and farmers without adequate information are not able to deal with pests and diseases. In
other words, there is no early warning system.
The average age of professionals in the industry is about retirement. Therefore it is necessary to
prepare staff in universities.
Reduction in yield due to pests and diseases is known to all, including FAO.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 24 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
The third point relates to the availability of drinking water. The experts have said enough about it
already. In the Kyrgyz Republic a portion of the population suffers from diseases related to the use of
river water. Therefore, the governments of many countries, including the Kyrgyz Republic, are facing
the problem, how to make available drinking water to the entire population. Clean glaciers in the
Kyrgyz Republic are the subject of attraction for many of the parties.
30. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
Dear colleagues!
I would like to share some suggestions and good practices learned in Kyrgyzstan on the topic
"Application of integrated methods of research and the introduction of modern technologies in
agriculture".
Increased productivity of irrigated agriculture plays an important role in ensuring food security. The
current inefficient organization principles have led to the fact that the water distribution system is
characterized by instability, insecurity, and moreover, it is unfair. In addition, the current system leads
to excessive water use, water loss, deterioration of the environment and to a decrease in the efficiency
of agricultural production.
The irrigation systems used at the farm level are insufficiently developed, allow the excessive use of
water resources at the farm level and the high cost of the applied practice of farming. The inefficiency
of water management by farmers exacerbates the problems associated with lack of water in the
region.
Agricultural production is inefficient because of the lack of sufficient knowledge of modern
technologies and the lack of resources available to farmers, which in turn cause a drop in crop
productivity and reduction of farmers' income.
In an attempt to overcome the existing problems in agriculture, FAO, at the request of the Government
of Kyrgyzstan, is implementing many projects in almost all sectors of agriculture. These projects relate
to vegetable and seed production, livestock and animal health, irrigation and fisheries, forestry
development, walnut and pistachios, the establishment of the information system on food security and
the development of strategies for agricultural growth.
Through these projects, FAO provides immense help in spreading the accumulated worldwide
advanced knowledge, technologies and innovation for the development of agriculture, management of
water and land resources, and supports the simple farmers and water users' associations, as well as
the agriculture in Kyrgyzstan in general. In the framework of FAO projects on irrigation
"Modernization of the small-scale irrigated agriculture for the improvement and development of the
economic situation of the rural population" and "Capacity building of farmers using irrigation
technology," a lot of training sessions have been conducted related to modern innovative technologies
and FAO methodologies for rapid assessment and the compilation of plans for the modernization of
irrigation systems (MASSCOTE), for water use, as well as the creation and development of farmer field
schools (FFS).
For the first time the computer program "CROPWAT" has been introduced in the Kyrgyz Republic to
establish a regime of crop irrigation in the pilot farmers' fields. To ensure the operation of this
program, FAO has purchased on a grant basis, and delivered from Austria three sets of unique
automatic agro-meteo stations. The agro-meteo stations mentioned above have been installed and
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 25 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
automatically transmit 9 types of climate data over any distance. Now, the farmers have an
opportunity to use precise climate data and through the computer program "CROPWAT" to set the
volume, timing and duration of irrigation of specific agricultural fields, to establish in advance the
volume of the projected yield and to strive for achieving it. To ensure the required supply of irrigation
water, the construction work have been carried out to modernize the irrigation system. A large
number of advanced water metering and water distribution facilities have been constructed.
Because of the lack of planning techniques, the land levelling has not been carried out in the
agricultural fields of Kyrgyzstan for more than 30 years. Without a plan it is difficult to evenly water
the plants, and this leads to erosion of irrigation furrows and overflow. Water use efficiency is
reduced, and for this reason the crop yield decreases. The land levellers with manual control were
used in the past. It was impossible to achieve the desired bias of the fields. Therefore, within a UN and
FAO project the land levellers with a laser control for agricultural fields have been procured. In
particular, additional spare parts for them have been purchased. The training on their use has been
conducted. The use of laser land levellers allows farmers to make good use of water for irrigation of
crops and evenly moisten the fields, thus increasing their productivity.
A lot of donor organizations render assistance to farmers in Kyrgyzstan: the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, UNDP, FAO, WFP, the Global Fund for agricultural development and food security,
Japan (LSA), Switzerland (SDC), USAID, OSCE, EU, etc. These donors also play an important role in the
implementation of new methods, practices and approaches to improve the agricultural production and
irrigation management at the local level. However, the uncoordinated actions often lead to a certain
extent of duplication.
Another drawback is the lack of national and regional centers, which could spread the experience of
the pilot projects, new knowledge, tools, and introduce the advanced pilot innovative technologies and
methodologies, and to develop the capacity to manage irrigation systems in the country. Here, the
most important thing is the lack of investment in agriculture and rural development in the regions,
which has a negative impact on sustainable development and growth in this sector. The lack of
investment is the key reason for a sharp rise in food prices and a recent increase in the problems of
malnutrition and food insecurity in the region. The expansion of regional agricultural production is
required in order to provide the growing population with food and to reduce poverty, and it is clear
that current levels of investments are insufficient.
FAO estimates that up to US $83 billion per annum of net investments in agriculture would be required
in order to meet the future demand for food in the global scale. For example, the need for investment
to restore the damaged irrigation drainage infrastructure in Kyrgyzstan amounts to about US $1
billion.
We are all very grateful to the World Bank, which renders great assistance along with other industries
to the sector of agriculture and water resources of Kyrgyzstan, especially to the creation and
development of WUAs and rehabilitation of irrigation systems of the country. In particular, the
rehabilitation and upgrading of about 25 percent of the irrigation systems has been completed in the
period from 1998 to 2013. With due account of the financial interventions of other donors this figure
amounts to just over 30 percent.
In line with the strategy of sustainable development of the country in 2013-2017, it is scheduled to
secure sustainable agricultural growth, especially in plant breeding, by the year 2017. What kind of
growth can we talk about, when 90 percent of agricultural output is produced on irrigated lands, while
the irrigation systems are unable to fully provide irrigation water to the existing agriculture. During
the last 20 years, the agriculture awaits the normal functioning (recovery) of irrigation systems. This
refers to an accelerated completion of the rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure. At
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 26 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
this rate of funding, it will take at least another 30 years to rehabilitate irrigation. Given that about 65
percent of the population lives in rural areas and agriculture is the main source of socio-economic
development, in our view, the Government should provide the necessary funding and attract adequate
investments for the implementation of the Strategy.
Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
31. Azizbek Sharipov, Tajikistan, Chairman of the National Farmers Association
Dear Colleagues,
We, the farmers of Tajikistan, are pleased to take part in e-consultations, which allow us to obtain very
important and interesting information.
The main and the most important task of the socio-economic development of Tajikistan is to increase
the well-being of our population. Policies that promote food security in Tajikistan have been
implemented in accordance with the objectives set up in the field of food security. The Government of
the Republic of Tajikistan has been carrying out a lot of work. Problems are being solved; the services
run smoothly and perfectly meet their objectives.
We, the farmers, believe that to meet the demand in the domestic market for the main agricultural
products, as well as to stabilize food prices, taking into account the solution of the challenges of food
security that we face, it is necessary to improve the mechanisms and tools through:
1. The establishment of the productive and social infrastructure serving agricultural production
and rural settlements.
2. The provision of the basic agricultural production resources (tractors and agricultural
machinery, improved seeds, fertilizers, crop protection, veterinary services, etc.).
3. The expansion and simplification of the access of agricultural producers to financial resources.
4. The increase of the level of knowledge and skills among farmers in the use of modern
technologies of crops and livestock production.
Azizbek Sharipov,
Chairman of the National Farmers Association of the Republic of Tajikistan
32. Zara (Zarmandukht) Petrosyan, Armenia, Armstatehydromet
Greetings to all Forum members, in particular, the moderator for accessibility of information, focusing on
the most important issues.
The improvement of the food security situation can be achieved through the flexibility and strength of
the relationship of management-science-production.
Some of the problems related to the agriculture production in my country include:

fragmentation of farms;
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 27 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org






lack of cooperation;
unavailability of agricultural machinery for most farmers (the absence of the centralized parks
of agricultural machinery, while equipment is owned by individuals, requiring a high fee for
the services rendered);
very high interests for agricultural lending;
lack of insurance system in agriculture;
the absence of state approach to the marketing of the harvest: government intervention is
necessary, where farmers are not able to sell their products;
lack of centralized activities in the filds of research and prevention of diseases in agricultural
crops and their elimination.
In this connection, it is necessary:
1. To use modern Internet capabilities (forums, etc.)
2. To strengthen the link between science and agricultural production, taking into account
climate change, deepening the study of the solution of problems arising from climate change to
reduce the impact of climate risks;
3. To provide a system of irrigation water by using new technologies both in the irrigation system
(to adjust to the minimum water loss), and in the evaluation field (correctly assess the actual
amount of water to monitor the flow of water);
4. To improve the system of close regional mutual cooperation (joint research, discussion of
problems) to allow the integrated solution of the problems;
5. To use modern Internet capabilities (forums, etc.)
33. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
Dear Team of facilitators,
I would like slightly to clarify the guiding question: What do the decision makers from the Eurasian
region expect from the G8/G20 initiatives in relation to food security issues?
For me, as an ordinary consultant of the organization, the issue, in such a setting, a bit complicated.
The fact is that being a consultant but not a decision-making person at the regional level, I am not
aware what high-ranking officials expect from the G8/G20. Notwithstanding, if it is intended that:
“What, by your opinion, should the decision makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20
initiatives in relation to food security issues?”, perhaps, it would be easier for me to express my
opinion.
Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely,
Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
34. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
Dear Colleagues,
As a FAO expert, I for almost one year have conducted research on the ways to address the problems
of agriculture and water resources of Kyrgyzstan. Now I have no time to write briefly about all this (as
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 28 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
in the following story: Taking a report from a subordinate, the big chief asks: "Why your report is so
long?" And the subordinate says: "I did not have enough time to write it shorter").
But the essence is that our officials take rash and unjustified decisions because of frequent changes of
the Chief Executives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, due to the chaotic action, due
to the lack of time to study the core issues and because of uncertainty that they will stay long on their
positions.
The situation now in Kyrgyzstan is as follows: farming is very fragmented, there is not enough
irrigation water for crops (because the irrigation canals and structures are designed for the large
major field crops), a lot of water is lost on the way to the fields, there is global climate change, it is not
possible to predict the agro-meteo data (the long-term repeatability of climate data has been
disrupted), the crop growing technology is not followed / not provided due to lack of money, the
farmers lack the modern knowledge, they do not want to deal with this loss-making business, land has
completely degraded and the farmers just keep it until the good times as the property (in the literal
sense, as real estate, i.e. without any movement.) Yields fell by 2-3 times compared to the 1980s.
Farmers take out loans, and the costs do not pay for themselves, many of them went bankrupt. All
hope is lost.
What the farmer has to do??? So, in order to regain the trust of farmers, it is necessary to deploy a
comprehensive large-scale work, and not to focus only on individual issues. Rehabilitation and
development of the irrigation complex up to the level of 1990 will allow:






To provide work for about 100 thousand people in the construction, reconstruction and
maintenance of drainage systems;
To employ on the cultivation of crops at least 500 thousand people;
To provide jobs for about 150 thousand people in the processing of agricultural products;
To increase the tax base in the rural areas (up to 8-9 billion soms annually);
To maintain and develop the rural society of Kyrgyzstan;
To stop internal and external migration of the rural population.
This is exactly what our Government is trying to solve over the past 20 years. This requires about US $
2 billion. And it is necessary to start doing this urgently. One should not be content with obtaining
loans / grants of about US $10-15 million from donor organizations. They will not solve anything. The
irrigated agriculture is a high-tech system of production, which requires compliance within the entire
operational chain. Any breach or failure to perform one technological element would lead to
irreparable loss of material resources.
What results are expecting those responsible for decision-making at the regional level, from the
initiatives of the Group of Eight / Group of Twenty (G8/G20) in respect of food security?
In general, it turns out, that the answer is: Money...
Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
35. Sergey Kiselev, Russian Federation, Director of the ECFS/MSU,
First of all, when considering the issues of food security within the topic raised at our Forum, we must
bear in mind the differences in approaches within the G8 and G20. The "Eight" is a "club" of developed
countries that can take and make decisions related to the allocation of certain funds, assistance,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 29 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
specific measures to promote the solution of the food problem. Thus, for example, during the U.S.
presidency of the G8 in 2012, the framework documents on cooperation were developed and agreed
with such countries as Burkina Faso, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia (they can
be found at the web-site of the MSU Eurasian Center for Food Security http://ecfs.msu.ru/ru/resources/g8.php). They include the key political obligations, intentions on
financing from members of G8, investment objectives and other parameters of cooperation. During the
UK presidency this year, new framework documents have been developed for new countries - Benin,
Malawi and Nigeria.
In my opinion, in the context of initiatives and decisions of G8, the countries of the Eurasian region
should start preparing similar documents, worked out within the in government bodies of the
countries and agreed upon with the business and international organizations. At the same time, of
course, one should take into account the differences between the situations in various countries. Let's
say that Kazakhstan has great potential for investment from domestic sources. Tajikistan does not
have such capabilities. The special situation exists in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. The situation in
Mongolia is more specific, etc.
Investment targets can and should be different. This requires taking into account the particular
circumstances of the countries and their capabilities in the context of cooperation and obtaining
technical and other assistance. To do this, in addition to those basic documents (strategies, integrated
programs, the main directions, concepts, etc.) that are available in most states, each country needs a
framework programme for cooperation with international organizations, individual countries and
large companies in a single package.
Within the G20 the policy issues in agriculture and rural development are discussed in the first place.
Over the years, depending on the situation, different questions have been put forward. At the
beginning, the general issues of food security have been mainly discussed. The sharp rise in prices has
caused a dramatic need for discussion of price volatility issues. Under the presidency of Russia in
2013, G20 focuses on the problems of rural development, however, the issues of agriculture itself have
not been left without attention.
In this sense, many of the recommendations, including those of the Astana Economic Forum could be
"embedded" in such programs or plans of action to address the problem of food security. The food
security itself should be construed broadly, highlighting the problems of water security and nutrition
safety.
What matters, in my opinion, should be contained in the programs of cooperation and development of
agrarian sector in the countries of the Eurasian region, as well as in other countries?
1. The issue of agricultural growth, taking into account the need for rural development
The development of agriculture must be a way to create new jobs and expand opportunities for
income generation.
Sustainable growth requires a set of measures. They include, among others:


The issues of research, application and development of advanced technologies, including those
saving water and other resources, the creation of conditions for the activities of advisory
services (extension services), seed growing, livestock breeding, etc.;
Diversification of agriculture and the rural economy (including the development of processing
of agricultural products, the creation of certified production of organic agricultural products,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 30 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org



2.
development of services, increasing opportunities for non-agricultural income generating
activities, etc.);
Creation of conditions for development of small and medium-sized businesses in rural areas,
family farms, promotion of cooperation processes in various fields of economic activity (from
production to the procurement of products and their marketing and processing);
Providing an attractive investment climate, the environment for innovation in the agricultural
and rural economy, the development of public-private partnership in the investment
processes, guaranteeing responsible investment in agriculture and rural areas;
The adaptation of agriculture to climate change, including change in the use of land and water
resources.
The issues of state regulation and development of market relations
In the framework of these issues it is important to formulate clear guidelines and specific measures,
such as:





To provide the market access for agricultural producers to sell their products, the development
of market infrastructure and institutional environment (here it is important to ensure the
collaboration between the countries of the CIS and the Eurasian region in order to intensify
trade, industrial and economic relations);
To guarantee the transparency and efficiency of markets, mitigate price volatility of
agricultural and food products, improve market information systems;
To develop the stock trading in the Eurasian region and the CIS, to ensure the development and
application of modern agricultural insurance programs, as well as the management of
agricultural risks;
To ensure the significant improvement in access to financial resources, including credit,
forming micro-credit schemes;
To create reserves for emergencies, allowing mitigating crisis situations.
3. The problems of the social protection systems and food security programs
Whatever the level of the market economy development, the need for the existence of social protection
systems will remain. This applies to all countries regardless of the level of development of their
economies.
For the countries of the Eurasian region the following measures are relevant:



The development of school and pre-school nutrition systems, as well as the system of trade and
distribution of the so-called "social" products for the vulnerable groups of population;
The participation and support of the programs of the World Food Programme;
The establishment of programs to alleviate poverty in rural areas (due to the diversification of
the rural economy, the development of non-agricultural activities, the creation of conditions
for part-time employment in non-agricultural sectors).
In my view, these and other issues require in-depth discussion, including in our Forum
Sergey Kiselev – the Director of the ECFS/MSU, Russian Federation
36. Gigineishvili Lery, Georgia, Director of the Georgian Farmers’ House
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 31 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Dear Alisher, dear colleagues!
It is difficult not to agree with the relevance of addressing food security issues in the countries of the
Eurasian region. It is evident that these problems cannot be solved by any single or individual country.
Launched under CACAARI, the e-consultations with the participation of all countries of the region have
shown promising results. The governments began to pay more attention to the recommendations. But,
unfortunately, that was not enough, and, in fact, in addition to the scientific, technological, social and
other problems, it is necessary to elaborate new approaches to solving challenging cross-border
issues.
We place great expectations on the active work of the Eurasian Center for Food Security of the Moscow
State University, and it would be good to update the program as a whole of the e-consultations, as they
are the most effective way to develop coordinated decisions in a short time.
On behalf of the Georgian Farmers’ House I congratulate all the farmers in connection with the Day of
Water Resources Workers of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and wish them abundant harvests, health and
happiness!
Gigineishvili Lery, Director of the Georgian Farmers’ House
37. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
Dear Colleagues,
The message of professor Sergey Kiselev, the Director of the Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS)
at the Moscow State University, makes clear, what we ought to think about and focus our discussion,
using the opportunities offered by these e-consultations.
At the same time, two key areas, in my opinion, require priority actions:
1. The preparation of the Framework Documents for Cooperation between the Eurasian
Countries, similar to the documents adopted in other countries such as Burkina Faso, Ghana,
Cote d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia. These documents, taking into account
experience of these countries, should be worked out by the Government bodies and
coordinated with international organizations in the context of the G8 initiatives and decisions.
In accordance with the terms of the Framework Documents on Cooperation between the
African Countries, it has been planned to increase investment and to introduce innovative
technologies in agriculture, along with the concentration of efforts to improve the stability and
transparency of trade policy and land management; to stimulate private sector; to bring the
National Food Programmes in line with the National Nutrition Strategies, etc.
2. The development of coherent action plan for the implementation of measures to increase the
productivity of agriculture and to ensure its development in the context of food security, as
well as areas mentioned in the communication of professor Sergei Kiselev.
The actions implemented in these areas are consistent with and promote the efforts of countries
designed to fulfil commitments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). If these two
areas, in fact, in your opinion, are relevant, then the next questions will be as follows:
How it should be done? Should the initiative come from the countries themselves, or should there be a
recommendation provided at the initiative of G8/G20? Should an intergovernmental agreement be
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 32 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
concluded or a document of this kind already exists? Who / what organization can assist in the
development of a framework document on cooperation in the Eurasian region? How the development
and implementation of such documents is governed?
These questions, in my opinion, are fundamental. It would be interesting to know the views of other
participants in the consultations, and the opinion of experts in the field.
38. Sergey Kiselev, Russian Federation, Director of the ECFS/MSU,
Dear Colleagues!
The major decisions, initiatives and commitments related to food security issues made during the
meetings of the G20 are presented in the Compendium. Please see the attachment (available in
English).
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/sites/ecfs/files/resources/draft_COMPENDIUM_G20_2.docx
39. Akilbek Rakaev, Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Association of Sheep Breeders 'KAO'
Dear Mr Kiselev and Mr Smulders,
Please find below my comments on the topic of the discussion. I do an apology in advance for some
muddle and inconsistency. It is quite a complicate topic in the context of G8/G20 and with the Russian
Presidency.
Sincerely,
Akilbek Rakaev, Kyrgyz Association of Sheep Breeders 'KAO'
Dear participants,
Allow me to express my views on the topics under discussion. The explanatory note aptly observed
that food security is a necessary precondition for a "new cycle of economic growth in the world
economy." The solution of the task related to food security is a fundamental challenge for the
preservation and stability of the modern world and the future development of mankind. It's no secret
that the lack of food is a cause of much regional instability, and sometimes the root cause of the recent
revolutions.
The term "food security" we, as the representatives of the post-Soviet space, especially the
Government agencies, understand just as physical availability of food, mainly wheat, while the United
Nations definition goes something like this: Food security is not only the physical availability of food, but
its accessibility which is consistent with its (the population) traditions and characteristics of the diet ... *.
Eurasia is a huge region with different levels of food security. Europe, in particular the European
Community, has its own distinct food policy designed to find a way out of the situation and is unlikely
to lose. The term "the Eurasian region" I understand as the post-Soviet space, which has the common
recent past and where the unifying language is Russian - one of the United Nations' official languages.
And the online consultations in Russian are much needed and will create conditions for the exchange
of views and discussions.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 33 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
It is well known that the "Millennium Development Goals" have not been achieved, but rather the
number of hungry and undernourished people has increased and amounted to more than 1 billion
people in 2008. As one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics (I forgot the name) said,
"today's world order, where one in six fasts, or goes to bed hungry - requires rethinking..." *. I must
admit that many previous development programs, projects, and other Green Revolutions in Africa,
Latin America and Asia have failed to achieve their goals, and opened the way for transnational
corporations, forcing the small farmers out of the market, thus braking food security, etc.
Many experts believe that the global food crisis is not the result of lack of food in the world. Since
1967, the world population has doubled, while the grain production has tripled. And in 2007 the
record yield of grain was harvested amounting to more than 2.3 billion tons, which was 4% more than
in 2006. But despite a record harvest in 2008, the number of hungry people exceeded 1 billion. The
number of people without adequate nutrition has passed already 2 billion, and at the time when the
world leaders and the international institutions have declared the global food crisis, the global
corporate grain, meat, poultry, fodder and seafood traders, (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural
machinery) suppliers, the agricultural products processing enterprises and the retail supermarket
chains have made enormous profits. The roots of the global food crisis lie in the corporate control of
the world's agriculture, food, energy and finance.
The United Nations and especially its international agencies in the field of agriculture, food,
agricultural science, food and financial assistance are in deep crisis. As a consequence, today these
agencies need to rethink and to find new ways of development and undergo major reforms. "The
approaches and mechanisms of the past" do not work or do not work as effectively. Therefore, the
voice of rural producers should be heard and a partnership dialogue between all stakeholders is
needed more than ever. It is fair to say that because of the prolonged global and regional financial
crises, investment in agriculture in developing countries have been reduced by 2 to 3 times, compared
to 1970-1980s. It's time to learn from the past mistakes.
The Russia's presidency in G20, as can be seen from the proposed additional priorities - Investments
for growth and employment; Trust and transparency - for the economic growth; Effective regulation - for
the economic growth; - has been encouraging and optimistic. Indeed, Russia has huge national
experience in the field of development, as well as in addressing the issues of food security and rural
development. Within theses priorities, investments will be directed for the development of the
economies and employment with a focus on increasing food production and solving the problems of
malnutrition. The issue of transparency for donors and recipient countries is particularly relevant.
Under the presidency of Russia, G20 could redirect the vector of agricultural development and
assistance to quite a different optimal for us track.
My expectations with respect to the G8/G20 initiatives to ensure food security, with a focus on
increasing agricultural production and solving the problems associated with malnutrition, which affect
the population of the CIS and Central Asia countries as well as Kyrgyzstan, are as follows:
What are the main challenges facing the Eurasian countries, in terms of improving the food
security situation?
1. Increase the targeted investments in agriculture and rural development.
2. Strengthening and supporting the local distribution networks.
3. Regulation of the food market, the protection and promotion of rural producers, especially
small ones.
4. Transparency.
5. Regional cooperation, conflict settlement and their outbreak minimization.
6. Creation and development of cross-border trade.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 34 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
7. Diversification of agricultural production and the development of farmer cooperatives,
especially among small-scale farmers.
Does the current policy promote food security in the country?
No, it does not.
Speaking about the domestic agricultural policy, according to the National Programme for the
Sustainable Development of the country, it is unlikely that the food security situation in Kyrgyzstan
will significantly improve in the near future. The agrarian part of the new program is mainly focused
on large-scale projects, such as development and irrigation. As a result, the implementation of these
projects will be protracted and the construction costs will increase significantly. And the
environmental consequences will reap later. The terms of discussion of the program were very short
and the wide-ranging discussions have failed. The promised loans and fuel and lubricants / seeds do
not reach small farmers / true producers. The MAWR actions are aimed at lobbying the interests of
large producers. As a result, farmers are forced out of the market, they are losing their lands and sell
property and are forced to migrate to cities in search of jobs.
The share of food imports in 1990-1999 was about 40%, while today due to the liberalization of the
market and lack of self-designed agricultural policy, it is already 60%. This means that food security is
at risk. The lack of a clear system of distribution / marketing of food and raw materials is disorienting
producers. A significant negative role has been played by the creation of agricultural corporation - a
prototype of procurement office allegedly engaged in the centralized procurement of agricultural
products from allegedly "fragmented" small farmers. In place of the development of farm processing
and marketing cooperatives as well as the farmers' markets, local farm products and surplus
marketing networks, the slogans of small private farms losses has been strenuously promoted. At the
same time, global experience shows that there are countries with developed agriculture, where the
average farm size amounts to 1-2 hectares per family. What to do in a country where only 6% of the
area is suitable for agriculture and the average size of land shares in the southern villages amounts to
10-12 decares of land per person. The current precarious food security situation is based on
painstaking and ungrateful work of villagers, mostly the elderly, and if there is a growth in the number
of livestock population or volume of food production, it is due primarily to investment of labour
migrants. A share of large producers in the total volume of production, in my view, is insignificant. The
positive things that have been created with the assistance of international donors and investors do not
have the support and continuation. Investments in agriculture have been reduced to the supply of
tractors and seed / fuel and lubricants. The country lacks an effective long-term program to address
poverty and ensure food security.
What results are expected by those responsible for decision-making at the regional level, from the
G8/G20 initiatives in respect of food security?
I do not consider myself a decision maker and especially at the regional level, but I believe that
countries in Central Asia have not only common roots and history, but also common problems. In
order to ensure food security in Central Asia, it is necessary to solve some common problems, such as:





High level of groundwater and soil salinity;
Aral Sea problems;
Inefficient use of water resources;
Harmonization of legislation in the field of agriculture;
Development of cross-border trade.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 35 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
40. Botir Dosov, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
In the continuation of my comments on 19.06.2013 to the question: What would/should the decision
makers from the Eurasian region expect from the G8/G20 initiatives in relation to food security issues?, I
want to add the following:
Specific suggestions:
1. Actions within G8/G20 initiatives, such as the Global Food Crisis Response Program (GFRP),
should be extended in the direction of the Eurasian region. As we can see, the purpose of this
program is to: (i) reduce the negative impact of high and volatile food prices on the poor; (ii) to
assist the governments in the development of sustainable policies that mitigate the adverse
impact of food prices; (iii) support the development of agricultural productivity and markets.
As noted, our colleagues in their comments, goals of GFRP coincide with the priorities of the
necessary actions and problems of food security (FS) in the region. In the allocation of funds
GFRP, the countries developed Cooperation Frameworks received more funds than countries
where such documents are not available.
2. One of the main objectives of Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) is to
implement the commitments of Pittsburg leaders in 2009, in the direction of supporting FS
initiatives in low-income countries. GAFSP program must also be out-scaled in the Eurasian
region.
3. Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) should also actively operate in the Eurasian
region to improve the quality of data management in assistance to projects and programs
implemented in the region.
4. The participation of the Eurasian region in global agricultural programs for wheat, rice, maize,
etc., should transform from pilot projects into wide sector scale program for better impact on
FS.
General suggestions:
1. Within the initiatives of G8/G20 on FS and related programs technical and financial assistance
should be provided to the countries of the Eurasian region, to develop comprehensive and
fundamental documents on FS, such as the Cooperation Frameworks. Actions in this direction
could be coordinated by Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS) and within the platform
facilitating and developing by ECFS.
2. Having such high level national and regional frameworks in the region gives grounds to attract
and increase financial and technical assistance through initiatives of G8/G20 on FS for the
countries of the region. In addition, the availability of such a platform will help to avoid
duplication and fragmentation of actions within G8/G20 initiatives on FS and increase its
effectiveness and improve impacts.
3. The countries of the Eurasian region are common and have long-standing tradition of
cooperation and closeness between peoples. This allows to propose that collective actions in
FS will increase the effectiveness of the measures to be undertaken. To do this, the creation of
the Eurasian Council on FS for out and up-scaling G8/G20 initiatives on FS in the region and
the implementation of targeted programs.
41. Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra India, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour
Dear Colleagues,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 36 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
The attached materials are presenting some issues and priorities for food security in Eurasian
territories.
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/sites/ecfs/files/resources/Eurasian_FS_BBMishra_India.docx
With Regards,
Professor B.B.Mishra, BAU, Sabour, India
42. Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
Dear colleagues!
We live in an era of globalization. At present, every sensible man starts to think globally and
"planetary".
In this regard, the Eurasian network makes the first steps in formulating initiatives designed to
address the issue of food security in the Eurasian region, taking into account the future.
Politically and geographically, the region is divided into Europe and Asia. On the eve of the global
challenges raised by our colleagues-experts, the food security issues are common to all of us. We are
all about getting close to a common denominator. We all occupy approximately the same position.
That's all I am very happy about.
I once again express my gratitude to all those who raise this initiative and try to unite us in order to
solve this important problem of mankind - the problem of food security. I think that the question of
unification should follow a bottom-up scheme, i.e., starting with agricultural fields (farmers), the
further scheme would be as follows: district-area-country-countries of the region. According to the
hydrological principle: water user farmers, receiving irrigation water from one channel of third order,
should join on the bases of the fact that they obtain their irrigation water from a second-order channel,
further through the main channel and at the end they all will be combined according to the principle
that water is obtained from a single water source (a river). Such associations of farmers based on the
river principle join the associations of farmers of a large river basin (for example, the farmers'
associations of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins). These associations of farmers would cover
several countries of the region. They should make proposals to their heads of state on the issues of
inter-state cooperation and integration / association for the solution of urgent current and future
common issues / problems of food security of the whole region.
It will be very difficult, but for the sake of the future we have to go in that direction, and in the
interests of mankind and in order to ensure food security it is worthwhile to work hard.
Dr. Matraim Zhusupov, Kyrgyzstan, agriculture and water resources expert
43. Dr. Alexander Makeev, Russian Federation, Eurasian Center for Food Security
Dear Prof. Bipin Bihari Mishra,
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 37 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Thank you for your comprehensive and synthetic approach, and especially for stressing the role of soil
in increasing Food Security.
I am happy to ensure you that many of your points relates to the theme of the next e-consultation, that
will address the role of regional and global partnerships (like new Global Soil Partnership initiative) in
improving land and water management in Eurasian region.
The current e-consultation will gradually merge to that next one and we will have an opportunity to
discuss your interesting points in full.
Yours,
Alexander Makeev
44. Dr. Botir Dosor, Uzbekistan, CACAARI
Dear on-line consultation’s team,
I would like to thank you for the organization and moderation of the consultation on issues of food
security in the Eurasian region. We found out the opinions of our colleagues from other countries in
the region that are very similar, which indicates the critical importance of the topics discussed and the
need to strengthen the platform for developing and implementing further measures to enhance the
initiatives of the "Group of Eight" / "Group of Twenty" of the region. It is important for us to know that
views, ideas and recommendations voiced by participants in the consultation will be reflected in the
discussions of the forthcoming International Conference.
Sincerely
Dr. Botir Dosov, Technical Adviser to the Association of Research Associations of Central Asia and the
Caucasus (CACAARI)
45. Lery Gigineishvili, Georgia, Georgian Farmers’ House
Hello everyone,
I share a common state of mind. It is true that this is the first step towards the challenges of our time,
which turned out to our community!
Lery Gigineishvili, Director of the Georgian Farmers’ House
An Academic of the International Academy of Informatization
46. Prof. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Kyrgyzstan, FAO
Dear Lery,
I totally share your point of view. Indeed, it will become the most serious challenge really soon! Other
serious challenges, even taken together, will pale beside it. Consequences will be unpredictable.
Though I don't want to be so pessimistic.
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 38 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Sincerely,
Professor Y.Abdurasulov
www.fao.org/fsnforum/ecfs/en
– 39 –
fsn-moderator@fao.org