WELCOME TO IWPR'S REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA, No. 622, July 23, 2010

TURKMENISTAN’S DUBIOUS HARVEST CLAIMS  Officials report high grain production 
but farmers say that is impossible given the current state of agriculture.  By 
IWPR Central Asia

COMMENT

COMMON MARKET TO TRANSFORM KAZAKSTAN  Agreeing customs arrangements with Russia 
and Belarus just the first step towards greater economic viability.  By 
Vyacheslav Dodonov 

INTERVIEW

CUSTOMS DEAL BRINGS KAZAKS CLOSER TO RUSSIA  Joining customs union with Russia 
and Belarus means good as well as bad changes for Kazak businesses, economic 
expert argues.  By Saule Mukhametrakhimova

**** NEW 
************************************************************************************

VACANCIES AVAILABLE: http://iwpr.net/what-we-do/vacancies  

**** IWPR RESOURCES 
******************************************************************

CENTRAL ASIA PROGRAMME HOME: http://www.iwpr.net/programme/central-asia 

IWPR COMMENT: IWPR COMMENT: http://iwpr.net/report-news/editorial-comment 

BECOME A FAN OF IWPR ON FACEBOOK
http://facebook.com/InstituteforWarandPeaceReporting 

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER 
http://twitter.com/iwpr 

**** http://iwpr.net/ **********************************************************

RSS FEEDS: http://iwpr.net/syndication/builder 

DONATE TO IWPR: http://iwpr.net/donate 

**** http://iwpr.net/ **********************************************************

TURKMENISTAN’S DUBIOUS HARVEST CLAIMS

Officials report high grain production but farmers say that is impossible given 
the current state of agriculture.

By IWPR Central Asia

The Turkmen authorities’ upbeat claims for this year’s grain harvest are not 
shared by farmers and agricultural experts. They say that because of numerous 
difficulties facing the farming sector, the true figure is likely to be much 
lower.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting on July 9, Turkmen president Gurbanguly 
Berdymuhammedov reported that at the conclusion of the annual grain harvest, 
farmers had gathered enough to satisfy domestic demand.

At somewhere over 1.4 million tons, the official harvest figure fell short of 
the target of 1.6 million, the Russian news agency RIA Novosti. It was 
nevertheless hailed as a success, as it was 200,000 tons more than the figure 
announced for last year.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Turkmenistan found itself dependant on 
grain imports, as its agriculture was largely given over to cotton production.

The harvest traditionally ends with great fanfare, with Galla Bairamy, a 
national holiday established in 1998, the year the harvest first topped one 
million tons, allowing the Turkmen leadership to announce that the country was 
now self-sufficient in grain.

The festivities held around the country on July 18 combined agricultural 
exhibits, food stalls and awards ceremonies for the most successful farmers.

Meanwhile, the state-run media put out stories saying that the harvest success 
was thanks to agricultural reforms pursued by President Berdymuhammedov since 
he came to power in 2007, following the death of his predecessor Saparmurat 
Niazov. The reforms included paying farmers more for produce sold to the state, 
offering them better loan facilities and improving social infrastructure in the 
countryside.

But farming experts say the reforms have so far had little impact on the 
fundamental obstacles that prevent more efficient production.

Under Niazov, the large Soviet-era collective farms were dismantled and 
replaced by small private farm holdings. But Farmers say the old ways persist, 
and the state continues to decide where grain is to be sown, set production 
quotas for farmers and buy up crops at prices too low to create any incentive.

“It’s impossible for a farmer to earn money for himself because of the 
contracts imposed by the state,” said one farmer. “It’s just notional that 
farms are held privately, while in reality we are forced to sell all our 
harvest to the state for next to nothing, without keeping anything back in 
reserve for our own needs.”

Government quotas are the same for all regions of Turkmenistan, regardless of 
differences in climate, soil quality and the availability of irrigation water 
in this arid country.

The state does provide farmers with seed and fertiliser, which relieves them of 
some of their cashflow problems in spring. But a farmer from Balkan, a western 
region, complained that these inputs were often sub-standard quality, with damp 
seed that did not produce seedlings.

Another farmer, from Dashoguz in the north, complained that it was almost 
impossible to meet government targets there because this part of the country 
was short of water.

An expert in the agricultural industry said the result of all these 
shortcomings was that a more accurate figure for this year’s production was 
likely to be under 800,000 tons, or half the amount the government was claiming.

He said that to keep the population supplied with the staple bread, the 
government regularly imports grain from neighbouring Kazakstan, and this 
higher-quality flour is on sale at almost every market in Turkmenistan.

A former collective farm head in the southern Ahal region who gave his name as 
Oraz was similarly sceptical.

“All the information that the country has achieved independence in food 
production is wishful thinking on the part of the authorities,” he said.

This farmer said pressure to complete the harvest meant that the end date was 
ordained from above, rather than being extended for as long as necessary to 
ensure the crop was ripe. As a result, the crop was often cut before it was 
ready, and would rot in storage, further depleting grain reserves.

Despite claims of high production, and the addition of imports from Kazakstan, 
bread shortages are not uncommon outside the capital Ashgabat. In the 
provinces, people often have to queue for hours before the bakeries open. 
People from villages near Ashgabat travel into the city just to buy bread.

(The names of interviewees have been withheld out of concern for their 
security.) 

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central 
Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the 
European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and 
Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no 
way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign 
Ministry of Norway.


COMMENT

COMMON MARKET TO TRANSFORM KAZAKSTAN

Agreeing customs arrangements with Russia and Belarus just the first step 
towards greater economic viability.

By Vyacheslav Dodonov 

When the presidents of Russia, Kazakstan and Belarus signed off on common 
customs procedures on July 5, it was a major step towards activating the 
trilateral customs union that came into being at the beginning of this year. 

Within Kazakstan, there is a need to depoliticise the question of customs union 
membership and judge it solely by the hard facts and probable effects, rather 
than by unfounded statements by a narrow class of businessmen or politicians 
pursuing their own ends. That means looking at the implications for the various 
actors – consumers as well as producers – in the wider context of globalisation.

In its final form, the customs union envisages an end to customs barriers 
between member states, common duties on imports from third countries, and a 
shared trade policy.

For Kazakstan, accession to the union will have complex, diverse and 
multi-faceted effects. These will be variously positive or negative for 
different social groups and corporate entities. This is logical given that 
their economic interests differ – for example, consumers and producers have 
completely opposing interests when it comes to pricing.

As Russian and Belarusian companies gain easier access to the Kazakstan market, 
domestic companies will clearly face greater competition, and local producers 
will be at a disadvantage, particularly those in the food and light industrial 
sectors. But what is bad for producers may be good for the consumer, as 
competition will bring lower prices.

Take another problem – increasing duties to the Russian level will make imports 
more expensive for Kazakstan, for example cars, which Kazakstan imports but 
does not make, unlike Russia.

But it is important to realise that customs union arrangements are reached 
through compromise, so a rise in import duties for Kazakstan will be 
compensated for by reductions in other areas. For instances, transit charges 
for Kazak goods passing through Russia will go down, while agricultural produce 
from Kazakstan will gain wider access to the Russian market.

Regional integration is now a rising trend around the world. There are now 34 
regional trade agreements including 14 customs unions spread across all 
continents. It is an essential part of globalisation, driven by the need to 
make national economies more competitive and stable in an environment of 
increasing global instability.

In all such arrangements, wherever they may be, elements of national economic 
sovereignty are delegated to a supra-national institution.

Until the Russia-Kazakstan-Belarus union has really made some headway, it will 
be impossible to quantify the advantages of membership. For now, one figure 
worth noting is that the actual customs revenues Kazakstan will get will be 
much higher than they would logically be if they were directly proportional to 
its share of all imports from outside the customs union. That reflects the 
measures taken to compensate it for higher duties on imports within the union.

There may be fears that higher import duties for items coming from outside the 
union will fuel domestic inflation by bumping up retail prices. But this is 
only part of the story. One must not forget that duties on items from Russia 
and Belarus will generally be lower, and since these include foodstuffs, they 
account for a high proportion of the average consumer basket.

There is thus little need to fear that the customs union itself will result in 
inflation. What is more likely is that prices will go up as the economy grows 
and the standard of living rises, assuming that Kazakstan’s exports benefit 
from healthier global commodities markets.

In short, the overall balance sheet looks positive. Kazakstan’s entry to a 
common customs zone will reduce the cost of trading with fellow-members – an 
important factor given that Russia is its biggest trading partner. Stronger 
trade will stimulate economic growth, as ahs happened in other customs unions.

And most important of all, the main advantage for Kazakstan that being in a 
common market which will make its economy look more inviting to investors. Its 
market is not currently big enough to attract large manufacturing firms. And it 
needs this kind of investment if it is to diversify from its current reliance 
on the extraction and export of oil and metals.

As part of a market of 170 million consumers, Kazakstan could realistically 
move towards high-end manufacturing driven by foreign investment.

Vyacheslav Dodonov is senior researcher at the Kazakstan Institute for 
Strategic Studies.

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central 
Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the 
European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and 
Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no 
way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign 
Ministry of Norway.


INTERVIEW

CUSTOMS DEAL BRINGS KAZAKS CLOSER TO RUSSIA

Joining customs union with Russia and Belarus means good as well as bad changes 
for Kazak businesses, economic expert argues. 

By Saule Mukhametrakhimova

Leaders of Russia, Kazakstan and Belarus signed a statement on July 5 
introducing a single customs regime for all three countries, a significant step 
towards creating a common market for a combined population of some 170 million 
people by the end of 2012. 

The deal was signed at a meeting in the Kazak capital Astana on July 5 by 
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, Kazakstan’s leader Nursultan Nazarbaev and 
their Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko. The three countries have 
been in a customs union since the beginning of the year, following a final 
agreement signed by the three leaders in November.

The July meeting took place on the sidelines of a summit of the Eurasian 
Economic Community, EurAsEC, a wider grouping that also includes Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Ukraine and Armenia. During the summit, Kyrgyz and Tajik officials 
expressed an interest in joining the customs union.

IWPR asked Galina Nakhmanovich, an economist with the Almaty-based Institute of 
Political Solutions, to explain the significance of the new customs rules for 
Kazakstan.

IWPR: What’s the significance for Kazakstan? What specifically has changed?

Nakhmanovich: The entry into force of the customs code will have a profound 
effect on the way business is done in Kazakstan… whether it’s large exporters 
of raw materials or a small and medium-sized commercial firms operating only on 
the domestic market. The specific nature of Kazakstan’s economy – its 
orientation towards raw materials exports, its underdeveloped processing 
industries, the low level of domestic consumption, and its remoteness from 
markets in the developed world in terms of transport – makes it particularly 
vulnerable to things like this.

For a transitional period when certain existing standards continue in force for 
some member countries, the changes will not be so visible. But later on, if the 
customs union project works out, there will be radical changes.

IWPR: Kazakstan’s accession to the customs union has been criticised by various 
political and business groups inside the country, who say it won’t benefit the 
country. Are their criticisms justified?

Nakhmanovich: The constructive criticisms mainly concern the numerous 
unresolved legal issues, above all the mechanics of trade regulation. Such 
criticism mostly comes from those who are practically involved in running 
businesses, and above all those working on the logistics side. Kazakstan’s 
businessmen have an interest in rules for transporting, promoting and selling 
goods, capital and labour that are as understandable, transparent and simple as 
possible. Many of their comments are valuable and should be looked at by the 
customs union commission.

There’s also criticism from certain commercial circles which don’t want to 
change current ways of doing business and are therefore trying to fight back by 
exploiting the lack of public awareness.

The customs union also has its political opponents, above all among the 
“national patriots”, who want to gain political capital by resisting it and 
using various scaremongering slogans to the effect that Kazakstan is falling 
under the Russian yoke, that it’s becoming Russia’s back yard for raw 
materials, or that the customs union is a road back to the USSR.

IWPR: One of the concerns expressed by critics of the customs union is that 
Russia will use its dominant economic position to ensure that the customs 
union’s rules are more advantageous to it. The most commonly cited example is 
that car import duties will rise to Russian levels, which will benefit Russian 
manufacturers but hit consumers in Kazakstan. Are these concerns justified?

Nakhmanovich: It’s impossible to say for sure that Russia is the only one 
dictating its own rules for the customs union…. Each country has its own, 
long-established customs practices.

So far, some of the issues have been resolved by introducing a transitional 
phase during which customs duties on some categories of goods, for example car 
imports to Kazakstan and Belarus. At the same time, Kazakstan has made 
concessions by cancelling the old simplified procedures for individuals 
importing up to 2,000 tons of consumer goods.

IWPR: This will obviously have an impact on small traders. What are the 
implications of this new rule for this kind of trade?

Nakhmanovich: Abolishing this import regulation and introducing new rules for 
individuals effectively changes the entire business of local shuttle-trading. 
It’s still hard to say what impact it will have on their income, expenditure 
and costs. One thing that is clear is that it will change the logistics of 
their business.

The common customs area carries risks but offers big opportunities by providing 
access to markets in Russia and Belarus. By using its geographical advantage – 
its location between Russia and China – Kazakstan could earn a good income.

The new legal and regulatory framework, standards and regulations introduced by 
the customs union will have a significant influence on wholesale and retail 
trade…. It means the beginning of the end for shuttle trading in Kazakstan…. 
Initially it will lead to price rises for imports that used to be cheap, as the 
volume of “grey imports” will be significantly reduced.

As for the prospect of unemployment created by the customs union, this is a 
multi-faceted problem. On the one hand, the closure of flea markets will put 
traders there out of work. On the other hand, the customs union will mean new 
trade and logistical centres are needed, generating new jobs. Moreover, people 
who are laid off will not only get new jobs, but also social guarantees, for 
example, guaranteed wages, pension contributions, paid leave and so on. It is 
no secret that many of these workers are basically operating illegally, with no 
guaranteed wages and completely reliant on the integrity of their employer.

IWPR: The introduction of the customs union is just the first step towards 
establishing a common economic space among member countries. What other 
practical issues have to be solved along this road?

Nakhmanovich: All the member states view the introduction of a customs code as 
the start of a transition that will precede the full operation of the customs 
union. Common customs duties are in place, the customs code has been signed, 
and discussions are under way about the next stage of integration – developing 
a legal and regulatory framework for the common economic space.

But many issues remain unresolved – strengthening the borders of member 
countries, the time-scale for ending customs controls on the borders… 
harmonisation of member’s members’ tax legislation, and much else….

The success of the customs union project depends to a large extent on how long 
and effective the transitional phase is, since the legal ambiguities and 
confusion will prolong the process for many years and negate efforts towards 
its creation.

There are examples of how problems can be solved. As of July 6, Russian, 
Belarusian and Kazak businessmen can either use a common customs declaration 
confirming the quality of goods or continue to use their national documents 
until January 2012.

Saule Mukhametrakhimova is IWPR Central Asia editor in London

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central 
Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the 
European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and 
Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no 
way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign 
Ministry of Norway.

**** http://iwpr.net/ **********************************************************

REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA provides the international community with a unique 
insiders' perspective on the region. Using our network of local journalists, 
the service publishes news and analysis from across Central Asia on a weekly 
basis.

The service forms part of IWPR's Central Asia Project based in Almaty, Bishkek, 
Tashkent and London, which supports media development and encourages better 
local and international understanding of the region.

IWPR's Reporting Central Asia is supported by the UK Community Fund. The 
service is published online in English and Russian. 

The opinions expressed in Reporting Central Asia are those of the authors and 
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.

REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal 
Chazan; Senior Editor and Acting Central Asia Director: John MacLeod; Central 
Asia Editor: Saule Mukhametrakhimova.

IWPR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Head 
of Programmes: Sam Compton.


**** http://iwpr.net/ **********************************************************


IWPR gives voice to people at the frontlines of conflict, crisis and change. 
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, IWPR helps people in the world's most challenging 
environments have the information they need to drive positive changes in their 
lives — holding government to account, demanding constructive solutions, 
strengthening civil society and securing human rights. Amid war, dictatorship, 
and political transition, IWPR builds the level of public information and 
responsible debate. IWPR forges the skills and capacity of local journalism, 
strengthens local media institutions and engages with civil society and 
governments to ensure that information achieves impact.


IWPR - Europe, 48 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 20 7831 1030

IWPR – United States, 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, 
United States
Tel: +1 202 449 7717

1515 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10036, United States
Tel: +1 212 520 3950

Stichting IWPR Nederland, Eisenhowerlaan 77 K, 2517 KK Den Haag, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 338 9016

For further details on this project and other information services and media 
programmes, go to: http://iwpr.net/

ISSN: 1477-7924 Copyright © 2009 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting 

**** http://iwpr.net/ **********************************************************




This electronic mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the 
named recipients and may contain confidential and proprietary business 
information of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and its 
affiliates. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail.

Institute for War & Peace Reporting. 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK. 
Registered with charitable status in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 
1027201, company reg. no: 2744185); the United States under IRS Section 
501(c)(3);  The Netherlands as a charitable foundation; and South Africa under 
Section 21.

Reply via email to