Starting 2022, the farm land lease agreements will be terminated with those farms which did not develop multifunctional operations. Farmers who used their land inefficiently may lose it. Yuliy Yusupov, an independent expert in economics, comments on the latest decree on agriculture.
The latest decree on agriculture raises many questions.
The title seems irreproachable: “Measures on fundamental improvement of protection of rights and interests of farmers, dekhan farms and household plot owners; on effective use of agricultural land.”
I think that protection of rights and interests of land users is the key question of the agriculture. Right now, most of the crop farm land is used by farmers. First and foremost, we need to talk about them.
What violates the rights and interests of the farmers? I think two factors play the most important role.
1. The land may be taken from the farmers arbitrarily, on any grounds. It can be done at the whim of local authorities, or by the decision of the government. The land had been already redistributed on the grounds of such decisions multiple times. It was done contrary to the long-term land lease agreements that were signed earlier. Those agreements have never been a barrier for country’s authorities.
2. Mandatory state procurement on cotton and wheat. Farmers are forced — let’s call things as they are — to grow the produce that may not be profitable, and sell it at artificially low prices to the state.
Unfortunately, in both cases, the state is the main violator of farmers’ rights and interests.
Those circumstances, as it appears to me, are the main reasons of inefficient use of land (that refers to the second part of the decree).
If the farmer does not think of himself as a land owner, but as a temporary user, he treats the land accordingly. He does not work the land properly, he does not let it recuperate. He would rather try to maximize the profit in the short term. That leads to the worsening of the land quality.
The other side of inefficient use of land is the cultivation of those crops that do not bring enough profit to the farmer. That leads to low yields since such crops are grown on the land that does not fit for it. Besides that, for completion of the procurement order (otherwise, the land will be taken away), the land is being exploited non-stop which affects the land’s productivity.
I do not oppose to cultivation of cotton or wheat. However, it should be left up to the farmer to decide what to produce, taking into account the specifics of his or her land, access to water, climate in the region, and the market prices on the agricultural supply and produce. In order to ensure that the choice of what to produce is optimal, markets of cotton and wheat need to be free from the government intervention. Only then the farmers will be able to decide what to produce.
If the government needs to buy certain amount of cotton or wheat, it should do it based on the market prices. The government needs to sign long-term procurement agreements with the farmers, and farmers must agree on them only voluntarily.
In order to increase the efficiency of land use, the following steps must be implemented:
a) to reinforce the farmers’ rights and to protect them from arbitrary land appropriation by the government;
b) to abandon the practice of mandatory governmental procurement for crops (such abandonment might be done in stages).
Certainly, there is a need to ensure that the farm land is used solely for the purpose of crop cultivation. The land must not stay unused for a long period, and must be maintained properly. Many countries have corresponding legislative provisions. However, if we are to implement similar provisions, they require precise criteria that would allow appropriation of land from farmers who misuse it. Criteria and the process of appropriation should be spelled out by the statute. The appropriation should be done only through judicial process.
However, how does the decree ensure the effective use of land?
Along with the proposals to create a system of protection of rights and interests of farmers, dekhan farms, household plot owners, there are following provisions:
– to reinforce legislative, representative, and public control of the effective use of the crop lands;
– to increase the responsibility of executive, local, municipal entities for effective use of crop lands;
– to apply strict measures, up to termination of land rights, to those land users who use the land inefficiently, who do not fully use the land capacity for crops cultivation, and who do not conduct timely cultivation operations.
The decree is silent about abandonment of mandatory procurement on cotton and wheat which is one of the main factors of inefficient land use.
Given the mentality of the government officials who are known for following the instructions too literally, the actual consequences of the executive order are hard to predict. I am afraid that it may lead to redistribution of the land which in turn will violate fragile rights of land users. Along with farmers, other subjects will be involved in land redistribution: dekhan farms and owners of household plots.
I agree that it is necessary to oversee the effective use of the land. However, such oversight must not be done in a form of mass campaign. Rather it must be done in accordance with clear legal standards and in a form of the judicial due process.
One more thing is worth mentioning. I found the wording of the executive order deeply disturbing: “To establish that, starting January 1, 2022, land lease agreements with farms that have not developed multifunctional operations will be terminated.” The executive order defines multifunctional operations not as crop production, but as “processing, storage and sale of the produce, and rendering of related services.”
I am not opposing to multifunctional operations of the farmers. What I do not understand is why the farmer would have an obligation to develop multifunctional range of operations. Why is it not enough that the farmer is involved solely in crop production? And why would he or she have a mandatory requirement to engage in supplementary operations? The answer is clear: to avoid the land appropriation. It is another legitimate excuse to violate rights of the farmers.
What I do not understand is why such an important piece of legislation was prepared behind the scenes, without being discussed widely with the public and experts.
Source: Kommersant.uz
