the status and challenges of food security in central asia

7/28/2019 The status and challenges of food security in Central Asia

1/29

1

THE STATUS AND CHALLENGES OF FOOD SECURITY IN

CENTRALASIA

Food and Agriculture Organization

Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia

This paper provides an overview of the current food security situation in the Central Asia in the

context of the overall trend towards higher food prices. It was prepared by David Sedik,

Guljahan Kurbanova and Gabor Szentpali, as background material for the third Central Asia

Regional Risk Assessment (CARRA) Meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, 14-15 April 2011.

The views presented in this paper are those of the Authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews and position of the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.

Budapest, April 2011


2/29

2

Table of contents

THE STATUS AND CHALLENGES OF FOOD SECURITY IN CENTRAL ASIA................................................... ....................... 1

Table of contents ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Overall macroeconomic situation in CA countries ............................................................................................. 5

Kazakhstan...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Kyrgyzstan ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Tajikistan ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Turkmenistan.................................................................................................................................................. 6

Uzbekistan ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

The Status of Food Security in Central Asia ....................................................................................................... 7

Transitory Food Security ................................................................................................................................ 7

Chronic Food Insecurity in Central Asia .......................................................................................................78

Food Accessibility and Poverty ....................................................................................................................... 9

Food price volatility ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Food Availability based on cereal production ..................................................................................................10

Cereal Production in the Central Asian Importing Countries .......................................................................10

Food Consumption ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Import Requirements ...............................................................................................................................1415

Wheat production and export opportunities in the CIS -3 ..............................................................................15

Export opportunities for the main players in the Region .................................................................................16

Policy responses in CA and neighbouring countries ........................................................................................17

Main food security risks in CA countries ..........................................................................................................19

Recommendations and follow up actions ........................................................................................................21

Follow up actions on further cooperation ...................................................................................................2122

References ........................................................................................................................................................24

Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................25


3/29

3

Acronyms

ADB - Asian Development Bank

CA - Central Asia

CIMMYT - Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maz y Trigo (Spanish:

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; Mexico

CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States

EDB - East Asian Development Bank

ECA - Eastern and Central Europe

EBRD - European Bank of

EFSA - Emergency Food Security Assessment

EURASIANET - EurasiaNet Information Agency

FDI - Foreign Direct Investment

FSU - Former Soviet UnionGDP - Gross Domestic Product

GIEWS - Global Information and Early Warning System

GNI - Gross National Income

ICAC - International Cotton Advisory Committee

ICARDA - International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

IDPs - Internally Displaced People

IMF - International Monetary Found

JICA - Japan International Cooperation AgencyLIFDCs - Low income food deficit countries

NCHS - National Center for Health Statistics

MDG - Millennium Development Goals

NTBs - Non-tariff barriers to trade

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

UNEP - United Nations Environment Program

UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund

USAID - United States Agency for International Development

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

OPEC - Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

TICA - Turkish International Cooperation Agency

WHO - World Health Organization

WFP - World Food Programme

WTO - World Trade Organization


4/29

4

Abstract

Since 2007 several shocks have made food security in Central Asia (CA) more fragile. First, there

was a food price crisis, which was followed by the global economic crisis; there have also been

natural disasters and social conflicts. These things together mean we need to pay more attention to

reviewing the current food security trends in the sub region. There are also growing concerns

surrounding increasing market volatility, which has been reinforced since July 2010 when cerealprices particularly wheat and maize increased due to drought and wild fires in Russia,

extremely high temperatures in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and excess rain in Canada and the United

States. The global situation has been complicated by floods in Australia and low levels of

precipitation in China and CA since autumn 2010.

These events, along with weather fluctuations, climate change and human-induced threats to

food supply and access emphasise that food security is not always certain. The consequences of the

food crisis, macroeconomic instability, climate conditions and uncoordinated policy responses, as

well as continuing fears over national, regional and global food market turmoil require urgent

cooperation and coordination between UN agencies and other international organizations. This

should help to mitigate risks and assist the countries of CA.

This paper reviews food security issues in CA countries in the context of production, trade, and

consumption of food and agricultural products that impact food prices and that are reflected in

global trends. We view these factors against the backdrop of the persistent impact of environmental

aspects, weather conditions and country specifics.

Introduction

In July-August 2010 speculation about a possible food crisis in Central Asia began to appear in the

press. These fears escalated due to an expected global decline in cereal production in the main

countries that export to Central Asian countries and UNDP and Euraisanet (Ben Slay, David

Trilling)1

also expressed warnings on this issue. The Economic Research Service of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)and the

International Grains Councilhave argued that the situation is not so complicated.2

These conjectures were partly a reaction to the expected decline in grain harvests in Russia (-38

percent), Kazakhstan (-40 percent), and Ukraine (-14.4 percent). The FAO food price index

increased from 185 in August 2010 to 236 in February 20113, partly as a result of these lower

harvest figures in the CIS countries.

The main concern surrounding food security in Central Asian countries is based on the

understanding that Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan face relatively high levels of poverty,

and all five of the countries are vulnerable to earthquakes, floods, land degradation, scarcity of

water, and as a consequence of these, low agricultural productivity. FAO blames the current

increased volatility of world commodity prices primarily on volatility among suppliers prices. This

volatility is caused firstly, by extreme weather events and a dependence on new exporting zones.Secondly, over the past 30 years there has been a decreased reliance on national stockholding and

more emphasis has been put on international trade. Trends since August 2010 show that ad hoc

barriers to trade may cause such uncertainty in the market that traders bid up prices.

The implication of these trends requires that we focus on more efficient monitoring, mitigation and

1Slay, B. 2010. Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan face food crises. Central Asia; Trilling, D. 2010. Food Crisis Next Challenge for

Kyrgyzstan?2International Food Policy Research Institute. September 2010, www.ifpri.org

3FAO. Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). Price Bulletin. December 2010.


5/29

5

prevention of disasters and shocks.

In view of these factors, this paper seeks to assess how food insecurity manifests itself in Central

Asian countries in two senses; namely, transitory food insecurity and chronic food insecurity.

Considering both types of food insecurity requires a comprehensive approach which takes into

account overall macroeconomic conditions.

Overall macroeconomic situation in CA countries

The overall macroeconomic situation in CA countries has significantly improved since 2000. Even

the global financial crises have not greatly affected these countries. However, economic growth and

improved economic stability have not contributed to a great extent to improving peoples quality of

life, food security and nutrition. Four countries in the region still qualify as low income and food

deficit countries (LIFDCs) due to the structure of their economies and income distribution. Thisemphasizes once more that poverty remains a major cause of food insecurity in Central Asia.

TABLE 1:GDPGROWTH IN CACOUNTRIES,2006-2011

2006 2007 2008 2009Estimation

2010

Projection

2011Kazakhstan 10.7 8.9 3.2 1.2 5.4 5.1

Kyrgyz Republic 3.1 8.5 8.4 2.3 -3.5 7.1

Tajikistan 7 7.8 7.9 3.4 5.5 5

Turkmenistan 11.4 11.6 10.5 6.1 9.4 11.5

Uzbekistan 7.5 9.5 9 8.1 8 7

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2010

Food security and nutrition depend on the agricultural sectors ability to supply products, as well as

on employment and income levels. The agricultural output in this group of countries has steadily

increased since 2000. Poor development, monocultural production and the misuse of land and water

during the Soviet years have resulted in low productivity in the sector, as well as in weakinfrastructure, logistics and marketing systems.

The five Central Asian countries occupy an enormous area of which 15 percent represents arable

land and 70 percent of is cultivated. Almost one quarter of the arable land is irrigated. The total

area of grazing land is about 200 million hectares.4

Physical features and climatic conditions

include varying average annual temperatures, scarce and unstable precipitation and significant

evaporation (continental climate). Summers are typically hot and dry, and winters are mild with

little snow, although some years see heavy snowfall over a short space of time. Hot and dry winds

and sand storms are typical in valleys. The landscape is of a mix of mountains, deserts and steppes.

The following types of agro zone are present in Central Asia:

Irrigated lowlands Lowland semi-arid natural pastures Dry lowlands Highlands (including pasture and valley croplands) Deserts

The agricultural sector and food trade is characterized in each country as follows:

4Asymbekov, E. Cooperation in the Central Asian agriculture: current state and outlooks. Kyrgyz Research Institute


6/29

6

Kazakhstan

Agriculture contributed 4.99 percent of GDP in 2009 and agriculture provided 14.2 percent of

employment in the same year. The value of food exports increased to USD 2.76 million in 2008.

The value of food imports increased to USD 2.24 million in 2008. Between 2005 and 2008, imports

increased by 32.6%. The main agricultural imports are: centrifugal raw sugar, barley, chicken meat,

sunflower oil, pastry, barley, refined sugar, non-alcoholic beverages and apples. The main

agricultural exports are: wheat, wheat flour, barley, wheat bran, watermelons, sunflower cake,

cotton lint, dry onions, rapeseed and malt.

Kyrgyzstan

Agriculture contributed 29 percent of GDP in 2009 and 22 percent of the labour force was

employed in agriculture in the same year. The value of food exports increased to USD 158 million

in 2008. The value of food imports increased to USD 435 million in 2008. Imports of food

decreased to 10.69 percent of total imports in 2008. The main agricultural imports are: wheat, wheat

flour, refined sugar, non-alcoholic beverages and chicken meat. The main agricultural exports are:

grapes, beans, animal hides, beef products, cotton lint and apricots.

Tajikistan

Agriculture contributed 24 percent to GDP in 2009 and 30 percent of the labour force was

employed in agriculture in the same year. The value of food exports increased to USD 101 million

in 2008. The average growth rate of exports was 18.7 percent between 2005 and 2008. Imports of

food increased to 7.15 percent of all imports in 2008. At the same time the value of food imports

increased to USD 341 million in 2008. On average growth rates increased to 9.4 percent for 2005-

2008. Imports of food decreased to 10.43 percent of all imports in 2008. The main agricultural

imports are: wheat flour, wheat, refined sugar and potatoes. The main agricultural exports are:

cotton lint, tomatoes, onions, dried fruit and fruit juice.

Turkmenistan

Agriculture contributed 20 percent to GDP in 2009, which was a decrease. In 2009, 33 percent of

the labour force worked in agriculture. The value of food exports increased to USD 8 million in

2008. In the period 2005-2008 exports grew an average of 4.2 percent. The value of food imports

increased to USD 288 million in 2008. In the period 2005-2008 imports grew by an average of 38.4

percent. The main agricultural imports are: wheat, wheat flour, chocolate, margarine, centrifugal

raw sugar, confectionery sugar, chicken meat, barley and pastry. The main agricultural exports are:

cotton lint, cotton seed, cotton linter, cotton waste, cottonseed oil, degreased wool, sheep skins with

wool, apples, cucumbers and gherkins, and distilled alcoholic beverages.

Uzbekistan

Agriculture contributed approximately 28 percent to GDP in 2009 and 31 percent of the labourforce is estimated to work in agriculture. The value of food exports increased to USD 239 million in

2008. The share of food exports in total merchandise exports decreased by 2.06 percent in 2008.

The value of food imports increased to USD 703 million in 2008. Imports grew an average of 28

percent between 2005 and 2008. Imports of food decreased to 9.36 percent of all imports in 2008.

The main agricultural imports are: wheat flour, wheat, refined sugar, bran of wheat and malt. The

main agricultural exports are: cotton lint, grapes, cake of cottonseed, fresh fruit and cotton linter.

In CA the share of dietary energy supplied by cereals appears to have remained relatively stable at

50 percent and so food security is dependent largely on cereal production, mainly wheat.


7/29

7

The Status of Food Security in Central Asia

FAO defines two types of food insecurity; classified according to duration and causes; these are:

Chronic insecurity Transitory insecurity

Transitory food insecurity can be seasonal (cyclical) and temporary. Temporary transitory foodinsecurity results from short-term shocks and sharp fluctuations in food supply or access to food. It

continues for a short time because the shortage of food is only temporary. Both types of transitory

food insecurity require preparedness and risk mitigation.

Both types of food insecurity are measured by dietary energy intake from staple food. Cereals make

up about 50 percent of staple foods, although this differs from country to country and among

populations within the countries. Food is mostly easily available even in Tajikistan. Rather, the

main problem is more the quality of peoples diets, their purchasing power distribution, and access

to food for all the groups within the populations.

Transitory Food Security

Transitory food insecurity appears from time to time in CA countries as a result of natural events,

economic shocks and market fluctuation. In 2007, a harsh winter and insignificant stocks in

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan led to the deterioration of the food security situation in the countries. The

global financial crisis affected Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan in 2009 due to declining

remittances and rising unemployment in Russia and Kazakhstan. In January 2010 localized

earthquakes and floods in Tajikistan affected remote populations who used up all their seeds as

food. Finally, in Kyrgyzstan, social unrest in April 2010 and ethnic conflicts in the southern part of

the country hurt vulnerable groups, IDPs and damaged the overall macroeconomic situation by

slowing down economic growth and increasing unemployment.

BOX1:UNDERNOURISHMENT AND FOOD SECURITY SITUATION IN CACOUNTRIES

Kazakhstan. In the period 1990-1992 less than five percent of the population was undernourished(less than a million). The corresponding figures for 2005-2007 were the same.

Kyrgyzstan. In the period 1990-1992 about 17 percent of the population was undernourished

(800,000 people). The corresponding figures for 2005-2007 were 10 percent or 600,000 people.

Tajikistan. In the period 1990-1992 around 34 percent of people were undernourished (1.8 million

people). The corresponding figures for 2005-2007 were 30 percent or 2 million people.

Turkmenistan. In the period 1990-1992 nine percent of the population was undernourished

(300,000 people). The corresponding figures for 2005-2007 were six percent or 300,000 people.

Uzbekistan. In the period 1990-1992 five percent of the population was undernourished (1.1

million people). The corresponding figures for 2005-2007 were 11 percent or 3 million people.

SOURCE:FAO, WWW.COUNTRIBRIEFS.FAO.ORG,2010

Chronic Food Insecurity in Central Asia

Chronic food insecurity appears mainly through another dimension of food security which is food

utilization, which includes nutrition. Nutrition is the provision of the active elements of foods that

are necessary to support the bodys function. They comprise proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins,

minerals and trace elements.. Developments, which have resulted in more extensive availability of

dietary calories, are reflected in the quantity of food consumed. Food consumption expressed in


8/29

8

kilocalories (kcal) per capita per day is a key variable used for measuring and evaluating the

evolution of both the global and regional food situations.

A more appropriate term for this variable would be national average apparent food consumption

since the data comes from national Food Balance Sheets rather than from food consumption

surveys. Analysis of FAOSTAT data shows that dietary energy measured in kilocalories per capita

per day has been steadily increasing on a worldwide basis. Between the mid 1960s and the late

1990s the calories per capita increased globally by approximately 450 kcal and by over 600 kcal indeveloping countries This change has not, however, been equal across all regions.

Nutrition in CA countries is lower than the 2007 average for other parts of ECA Region. It is 35

percent lower than the ten year average for the transition countries of ECA in Tajikistan, 25 percent

lower in Kyrgyzstan and 20 percent lower in Uzbekistan. Based on these figures nutrition levels

create a concern about whether or not the MDG 1 target for 2015 can be achieved. (see annex)

Households achieve food security when they have year-round access to the amount and variety of

safe foods their members need to lead active and healthy lives. At the household level, food security

refers to the ability of the household to secure, either from its own production or through purchases,

adequate amounts and varieties of food.

Low quality of life and poverty (which are closely related) cause the scenario in which foodinsecurity can occur. This can seriously limit accessibility to nutritious food, including food with

high quality protein, an adequate micronutrient content and bioavailability, macro-minerals, trace

elements and essential fatty acids. Adequate nutrition is essential for growth, good health and

physical and cognitive development, and will only result from a diverse diet that includes staple

starchy foods, vegetables, fruits and animal-source foods. Nutrition is affected not only by food

availability and access but also by disease, sanitation including access to safe drinking water

and the availability of preventive health services.

TABLE 2:NUTRITION STATUS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES,2008

Country

infantswith

low

birthweight

Under

fivemortality

rate

2008

rate of population

under five (2003-2008)householdsconsuming

iodized

salt

GNI/

capitaunder-

weightedsuffering

from

stunting

suffering

from

wasting

% % % % % % USD

Kazakhstan 6 30 4 17 5 92 6,140

Kyrgyzstan 5 38 3 18 3 76 740

Tajikistan 10 64 18 39 7 49 600

Turkmenistan 4 48 11 19 7 87 2,840

Uzbekistan 5 38 5 19 4 53 910Source: UNICEF, Statistics, Nutrition; www.unicef.org

By FAO observations the share of population with chronic energy deficiency is 6.9 among adult

woman on overage in the sub region with the highest one in Turkmenistan. The share of children

under nourishment is 8.6 percent and 7.8 percent among male and female groups accordingly

(Annex 4). The highest shares of underweight children are found in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

Thus, the nutrition status in CA countries is a subject of concern with possible deterioration because

of increasing of food prices.


9/29

9

Food Accessibility and Poverty

Achieving food and nutrition security is at the forefront of the development objectives of the

Central Asian countries. Since independence, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,

and Uzbekistan have undergone a series of transitions from centrally planned economies to market-

oriented systems. Despite great efforts by these countries, and the advice of international and

bilateral development agencies, policy reform has been frustratingly slow, agricultural productivityand performance have been declining, and food insecurity and malnutrition remain high. Poverty

also has an uneven spatial distribution in Central Asia.

Income levels vary considerably in the CA countries. Since 2000 one can see the tremendous

increase of income per capita in Kazakhstan and very low improvement in the other countries, in

particular in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Another indicator of food security is the share of household

expenditure used on food.. According to World Bank information, in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan this

share is almost 80 percent, in Kyrgyzstan it is 58 percent, and in Kazakhstan it is 42 percent,

whereas in developed countries it is between 15 and 30 percent.

Poverty remains a largely rural phenomenon. In Tajikistan around 70 percent of poor people live in

rural areas and about 60 percent of the total population lives in rural areas across the CA region.

This situation is largely the result of slow growth in the agricultural and non farming rural sectors.Therefore, improvements in agricultural productivity aimed at small-scale farmers will benefit the

rural poor first in CA countries, where agriculture employs about 30 percent of population. The

economic growth that has been observed since 2000 has not translated into higher agricultural

yields and improved productivity. Increased agricultural productivity enables farmers to grow more

food, which translates into better diets and, under market conditions that offer a level playing field,

into higher farm incomes. With more money, farmers are more likely to diversify production and

grow higher-value crops, benefiting not only themselves but the economy as a whole.

Food price volatility

Prices declined at the end of 2009 but started to rise in the second half of 2010. One of the reasons

for the price increase was volatility and speculation. Another reason is under-investment inagriculture, which has lead to a decrease in productivity, a lack of price transmission from

producers and sudden government interventions in export markets. Price signals can play a very

important role by drawing attention to market distortions, imbalances and volatility. Unfortunately,

sometimes these signals lead to panic and speculation. Weather conditions and climate change

impacts also need to be taken into account.

Increases in international prices have made the LIFDCs import bills more expensive and made their

populations more vulnerable (particularly poor households). In Kyrgyzstan the average price of

wheat flour, which was stable in 2009, increased by 35% in September 2010 compared to its June

level, due to a fluctuation in the wheat price on the international markets. Prices of bread, which are

not regulated by the Government, have followed the same trend. Food prices have also been

impacted by higher fuel prices and lower domestic wheat production. In January 2011 prices for

wheat and wheat flour remained at high levels, as did the prices for meat, milk and eggs. In themain ethnic conflict zone, Osh, the wheat flour price increased by 20 percent. The country faces

difficulties due to slowing economic growth, higher unemployment and reduced remittances that

have resulted in lower household incomes. (Annex 8)

In Tajikistan, prices of wheat flour, in October 2010, were 37 percent higher than they were in June.

Prices continue to increase, although the 2010 wheat harvest was above average. The country

depends heavily on wheat imports from Kazakhstan,5

where wheat flour and bread prices have also

5FAO. Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). Price Bulletin. December 2010.


10/29

10

increased. (Appendix 9, page 31) The increases are also related torising costs of exports of inputs

from Russia, which in the end contribute to increase of food prices (see annex). The use of

agricultural inputs has continuously declined since independence. Fertilizers, agro-chemicals,

machinery and fuel are mostly imported at international prices. Most farm machinery and irrigation

equipment, such as pumps and pipes are in a dilapidated condition and most machinery has passed

its usual life expectancy, being at least 18 years old. The tractors that are used are mostly those

inherited at the break-up of the Soviet regime. Larger farm businesses maintain them bycannibalising units or obtaining spare parts from Russia. The consequence of this is that the Soviet-

style cultivation practices of multi-pass land preparation are still followed, although they are poorly

executed, and high sowing rates are intended to compensate for sub-standard practices.

Bank credits are unavailable to the small farmers due to high interest rates and bad debts prevent the

uptake of seasonal agricultural loans. Corruption within the lending bodies is allegedly a significant

feature and risks are involved, as insurance policies do not cover the cost of the borrower, while

substantial guarantees are required by the lender.

In Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan wheat flour and bread prices are regulated and controlled by state

authorities. However, information from these two countries is very limited, and price information is

not available.

Food Availability based on cereal production

Cereal Production in the Central Asian Importing Countries

Out of the five countries in CA only Kazakhstan is able to meet its own cereal needs (mainly

wheat). The other four countries depend heavily on imported cereals. The proportion of imported

cereal made up by wheat varies from 34 percent (in Kazakhstan) to 97 percent (in Tajikistan). The

figure is 80, 82, and 95 percent respectively in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.

Although in 2010 weather conditions in Central Asian countries (except Kazakhstan) were

favourable for crop production, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan experienced declines in production (each

country to a different extent, in comparison with the five years average). This is mainly due to

weakness in the agricultural input supply systems and the reduced purchasing power of farmers. InUzbekistan, there has been a slight increase in cereal production, which is seven percent above the

average level of the five-year average. Turkmenistan experienced significantly increased cereal

production: 30 percent above the average for the two previous years and 24.8 percent above the

previous years production.

Table 3: Cereals Production in CA Countries (2001-2010, thousand tones)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Kazakhstan 100 100 92.6 77.2 86.6 104 126 120/2 130 99.3

Kyrgyzstan 100 98.7 91 95.2 90.3 83.8 79.5 84.6 104 87

Tajikistan 100 138 171 184 185 195 200 179 240 193

Turkmenistan 100 117 132 137 139 96 104 60 64 79

Uzbekistan 100 152 171 166 183 186 194 187 203 206

Total 100 110 109 99 116 124 141 132 144 114

Figures from the table above show that in total the production of cereals fluctuated between 23.3

million and 33.9 million tonnes during the period 2001-2009 (45 percent) due to weather conditions

and stability in the region. The trend in crop production levels varies, with Uzbekistan and

Tajikistan experiencing a with significant improvement.. Kazakhstan is a main exporter and


11/29

11

supplier of wheat and has increased the planted area by almost 42 percent in total. However, the

wheat yield has declined by 30 percent over the last ten years.

Although the total 2010 cereal production in CA countries has been estimated to be about equal to

the average for the decade, a tendency to fluctuate could be observed during the last years of the

decade (2001-2010), in particular since 2007.

Kazakhstans share of the total cereal production of the sub region averages 60 percent, although itaccounts for only 15 percent of the total population of the sub region. This allows Kazakhstan to act

as a wheat basket for the neighbouring countries.

Kyrgyzstans total cereal production for 2010 was affected by a delay in sowing caused by a long

and cold winter and social unrest, particularly in the southern part of the country. It is estimated that

production was 1.5 million tonnes, which is the average level for the last five years. The country

has accumulated a high level of stocks, which guarantees an adequate food supply for the

population. However, due to the low quality of this wheat, imports may increase slightly.

Kyrgyzstan imports a major part of the wheat it uses for food consumption from Kazakhstan,

despite the fact that the latters own wheat production has been declining.

Over the last decade cereal production in Tajikistan steadily increased and reached its peak in 2009.

In 2010 cereal output dropped from the previous years record level by around 20 percent as a resultof floods in early spring, and a rainy summer. Production is currently 880,000 tonnes, which is

slightly lower (four percent), than the average annual level in the 2005-2009 period. Tajikistan is

highly dependent on imported cereals, especially wheat. Wheat imports in 2009/10 were about

850,000 tonnes. This is expected to increase (by eight percent) in 2010/11, reflecting declining

domestic output.

Over the last decade the situation in cereals production has been much improved in Turkmenistan

and Uzbekistan. They have both been able to produce larger cereal yields (mainly wheat in 2010);

both countries increased the area planted with wheat despite irrigation problems. Uzbekistan

produced its largest harvest of cereals in general and wheat in particular in 2010 (7.1 million and

6.8 million tonnes accordingly). Uzbekistan achieved the highest wheat yield in the region, largely

due the fact that input supply was subsidised by the government. However, both of these countries

also need to import wheat, mainly for food consumption.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are the countries which cause most concern. They are the poorest

countries of the FSU republics and have relatively high levels of poverty compared to other states in

the region. Even cereal production has declined since last years bumper harvest, although both

countries have been able to accumulate a sufficient stockpile.

However, the overall trends of production, import and carryover stocks in the four importing

countries point to tensions for 2010 and 2011 (see Figure 1): decreasing production and stocks are

combined with increasing imports and import bills. The availability of cereals may be limited due to

lower production, depleted stocks and increasing import bills.

FIGURE 1: DYNAMICS OF WHEAT PRODUCTION, IMPORT AND CARRY-OVER STOCKS IN LIFDC OF CA, 2001-2010,

2001=100%


12/29

12

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dynamics of Wheat Producton, Import and Carry- Over Stocks in LIFDC of

CA, 2001-2010, 2001=100 %

ProductionImport

Stocks

SOURCE:AUTHORS ESTIMATIONS BASED ON NATIONAL STATISTICS BULLETINS,USDA,FAO/GIEWS,2010

This years decline in cereal production in the main exporting countries in the region has impacted

the two poorest countries of FSU (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) which rely on Kazakhstan to import

between 95 and 96 percent of wheat. During the last decade Kazakhstan produced between 60

percent (the lowest level in 2006) and 80 percent (the highest level in 2009) of all the cereals

produced in CA. In 2010 this figure was 75 percent. Therefore, Kazakhstans role as a supplier is

extremely important to its neighbours. At the same time the dynamics of cereal production in

Kazakhstan is very volatile and was characterized by sharp ups and downs during the decade,

mainly due to weather conditions and sensitive agricultural productivity heavily based on natural

factors rather than agro-technology.

Figure 2: Dynamics of Cereal Stocks in Central Asian Countries, 2001-2010, thousand tonnes

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Kazakhstan

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan mainly focuses on high quality wheat as the natural conditions in the country are more

favourable for growing wheat varieties that are high in protein and gluten. These are in high

demand in neighbouring countries, where quality is a real problem because the quality of seeds is

poor and climatic conditions are not ideal.


13/29

13

Food Consumption

Production trends cannot provide the whole picture, and should be complemented with data on how

much countries need for food consumption and other domestic needs. It should be noted that the

overall volume of production does not mean that all the wheat (or any other grain) that is produced

is sufficient for food as quality can vary greatly. In Central Asia, except in Kazakhstan, the quality

of wheat is low so they need to import good quality wheat for consumption. Other domestic uses,such as for livestock feed, are also important because livestock production depends on the

availability of cereals. For example, in Kyrgyzstan about 50 percent of the wheat crop is used as

feed (this varies by territory). Since the CA countries produce low quality wheat (around 82-83

percent) the majority of it is used as feed. The figure below shows how much the local production

in Central Asia satisfies domestic needs.

FIGURE 3:CA:COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION,FOOD CONSUMPTION, AND DOMESTIC NEEDS IN CEREALS,2010/11(MY)

The chart clearly shows that in four out from five countries cereal production is less than domestic

needs and it is much less than required for consumption as food. The other four countries

dependence on imports is a result of insufficient production and the low quality of domestically

produced wheat. Import dependence varies from country to country and is between 43 percent and

69 percent. Moreover, imports are derived from three CIS countries: Kazakhstan, Russia, and

Ukraine (KRU or CIS-3).

Table 4: Comparison of Food Consumption, Domestic Use6 and Import of Cereals in CA Countries, 2010,

%

Country

Food

Consumption,

to DomesticUse,

%

Import

dependency:

import to foodconsumption,

%

Import received from

KRU/ CIS-3

(Kazakhstan, Russia,Ukraine),

%

Import received

fromKazakhstan,

%

Kyrgyzstan 67 43 95.6 93.6

Tajikistan 71 69 98.5 94.5

6Domestic use includes food needs, feed, seed and others.


14/29

14

Turkmenistan 48.7 50 100 48.4

Uzbekistan 48.5 45 98.2 97.9

The countries listed in the table are LIDFCs that depend heavily on imports from neighbouring CIS

countries (CIS-3: Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, Annex 3). The share of wheat

imported from non-CIS countries is very small and comes mostly from Iran and Turkey. Figures

show that three countries cover more than 90 percent of their wheat needs (for food) by importing itfrom Kazakhstan. Therefore, the CA wheat market is not diversified in terms of exporting countries

which puts import opportunities at risk. In actual fact, this scenario makes regional trade in wheat

and other cereals very sensitive and quite risky as it depends on only a few players.

For the last decade Chinas trade role with CA has increased although it is still limited, and imports

from China do not include wheat or wheat flour (the main staple food in CA). Although China tries

to use Kyrgyzstan, a member of WTO, as a transit route for re-export, there are risks related to the

import of low quality foodstuffs, including rice, because no CA countries have an efficient food

safety control system.

In general the overall production of wheat is sufficient to cover domestic needs in the sub region.

However, the picture differs from country to country: Tajikistan is able to cover only 31 percent of

its food consumption needs, while the other three countries cover around 50 percent (Kyrgyzstan 57percent, Turkmenistan 50 percent and Uzbekistan 55 percent). All the countries try to maintain their

own stocks as a security against possible shocks. Available data suggest that the stocks increased by

almost 69 percent between 2001 and 2009. However, next year they are expected to decline by

around 16-17 percent due to increasing wheat prices.

FIGURE 4:DYNAMICS OF CARRYOVER STOCKS IN LIFDCS OF CENTRAL ASIA,2001-2010

Sources: Authors estimation based on information from National Statistics Agencies of the countries,

2001-2010

Import Requirements

As outlined above, four Central Asian countries rely on imported cereals, and mainly wheat, to

supplement their own production in order to satisfy food demand. Traditionally and geographically

these countries import mainly from Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine.

Table 5: CA: Import of grains to CIS-4 countries in 2009/10 MY, thousand tonnes


15/29

15

Countries Grains Wheat Rice

Kyrgyzstan 361 354 6.2

Tajikistan 884 872 5.3

Turkmenistan 81 81 12.4

Uzbekistan 1,703 1,673 4.6

Total 3,029 2,980 28.5

Wheat is the most imported grain commodity used to satisfy food needs. Therefore, increasing

international wheat prices push up domestic prices of both wheat flour and bread.

The largest portion (about 60 percent) of imported wheat goes to Uzbekistan, the second largest

importer is Tajikistan with 29 percent and the third is Kyrgyzstan with almost 12 percent. In

2009/10 marketing year (MY) the imported wheat came from Kazakhstan (96.5 percent), Russia (3

percent) and other countries (0.82 percent). Our forecast shows that almost the same composition is

expected for 2010/11 MY: namely- 94.7 percent, 0.73 percent, and 4.4 percent accordingly.

FIGURE 5:THE STRUCTURE OF WHEAT IMPORT FROM KAZAKHSTAN BY CACOUNTRIES IN 2010, PERCENT

SOURCE: BARRIERS TO TRADE IN CIS GRAIN MARKETS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR LIFDCS OF THE REGION, FAO/

UKRAGROCONSULT,JAN 2010, DRAFT

Wheat production and export opportunities in the CIS -3

Over the last ten years wheat production has increased in the main exporting countries in the region;

namely, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However extreme weather conditions in 2010 have

significantly affected crop production in all three of these countries. A winter cereal growing season

is on the way, and it is still difficult to give a preliminary estimation, although officially all three

countries are planning to increase cereal production in 2011. However, last years droughts havealready affected winter crops by causing low soil moisture during the planting season. A cold

winter and frosts have also raised concerns. In a best case scenario we can expect an increase of

about 20 percent.

The overall picture of dynamics in three main exporters in CIS is characterized by fluctuations.

These are due to the fact that CIS countries are highly dependent on weather conditions and natural

resources rather than agro-technological factors. Their capacity to produce different cereals

including wheat which is the main export product is still limited and mainly based on expansion

of the planted area and low yields.


16/29

16

Table 6: Dynamics of Cereal Production in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine, 2005-2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Average 2005-

2009

Kazakhstan 13,674 16,383 19,941 18,975 20,579 15,638 17,910

Russia 76,330 36,623 80,362 106,290 96,069 63,711 87,135

Ukraine 37,444 34,143 27,858 47,336 45,080 39,855 38,372Total 127,448 87,149 128,161 172,601 161,728 119,204 143,417

Sources: Agreemarket, UkrConsult, issues for 2010

These figures show that 2010 production is 15.5 percent lower than the five-year average. There has

also been volatility and fluctuation in cereal production during the last five years. The 95 percent

variation in the range gives an idea of the instability which characterizes cereal production in the

main exporting countries of the Region.

TABLE 7WHEAT EXPORT FROM CIS-3(KZ,RU,UA)2010/11MY(JULY 2010-JUNE 2011, PROJECTION)

Country 2010/11 tsnd tonnesShare of export in 2010/11% in CIS-3

export

Kazakhstan 6,500 40

Russia 3,500 22

Ukraine 5,500 38

Total 15,500 100

SOURCES: NATIONAL STATISTICS AGENCIES OF KAZAKHSTAN, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AND UKRAINE, SOVECON,

AGROMARKETING ISSUES FOR NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2010.

Export opportunities for the main players in the RegionKazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine remain the main suppliers of cereals for their neighbouring

importing countries because they have the capacity to produce the volume that is needed and

because transportation and other related costs are much lower when compared to imports from the

EU or any other region. It is extremely important to take energy prices into account as they

contribute significantly to costs. USDA predicts that wheat exports from Russia, Ukraine, and

Kazakhstan will increase by 50 percent by 2019, and the region could lead the world in wheat

exports by the end of the decade.

The growing importance of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan as world wheat suppliers raises

concerns about the reliability of their supply and policy responses to weather-related shortfalls,

especially if they react to such shortfalls with policies that restrict exports. For example, when

world wheat prices spiked during 2006-08, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan tried to contain thegrowth in domestic wheat prices by restricting, or even banning, exports.

There is uncertainty surrounding the degree to which these three former Soviet countries will

increase their wheat exports. Export growth requires costly improvements in the infrastructure

needed to store, transport, and export grain. Policies that favour expansion in domestic livestock

sectors could increase internal demand for feed wheat, reducing the surplus available for trade.

Variable weather and possible export restrictions in low-production years could diminish the

regions export reliability. However, uncertainties are likely to mitigate, though not reverse, the

growing importance of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan as global providers of wheat.


17/29

17

Policy responses in CA and neighbouring countries

It should be mentioned that any signals of decreasing agricultural output, particularly relating to

cereals, results in policy responses both in exporting and importing countries. In its 2010 Food

Outlook Report, FAO issued a warning to the international community to prepare for harder times

unless production of major food crops increases significantly in 2011. (Food Outlook, FAO,

November 2010, http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/index.htm). Food import bills for the worldspoorest countries were predicted to rise by 11 percent in 2010 and by 20 percent for low-income

food-deficit countries. Prices for most agricultural commodities increased during the second half of

2010, due to a number of factors, including unexpected shortfalls in supply caused by unfavourable

weather events, policy responses by some exporting countries, and fluctuations in currency markets.

International prices may rise even more if production in 2011 does not increase significantly,especially for maize, soybeans and wheat.

As a result of extreme weather conditions which to a decline of crop production, especially cereals,

Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine have started to introduce some measures to protect their

populations, with little concern for the food security of their trading partners (Table 8). While such

measures can be effective in controlling prices in the short run, they are expensive in terms of

scarce budgetary resources and can distort food markets. Price controls can lead to rationing and

reduced incentives for producers. Income transfers lead to less distortions in food prices than

subsidies, and they can be targeted on the poor and vulnerable, whereas non-selective blanket

subsidies and price controls benefit the rich and poor equally.

Table 8: Policy measures in Exporting Countries, 2007-2010

Countries Export restrictions Taxation State Support (subsidies) Price regulation

Kazakhstan

Limits on buckwheat

and oilseeds

n/a

Subsidies on

transportation; Subsidies

on transportation to

grain and flour exporters

Through

interventions.Bans on export to

Uzbekistan sinceOctober 5, 2010

Russia

Export bans on wheat,

barley, maize,

buckwheat

n/a

Subsidies to regions

faced drought,

subsidies to farmers

through soft loans

Specialregulation on

basic products if

prices increase

above 20 percent

Ukraine

Export quotas on

wheat, barley, maize;

Foreign contractregistration

VAT

refund on

grain

exportstopped

Subsidies on fertilize

supply though not fully

implemented

n/a

Customs

Union:

Belarus/

Kazakhstan/

Russia

Import restrictions on

cereals stopped until

June 30, 2011 n/a n/a n/a

Joint agricultural

policy between Russia


18/29

18

and Belarus

Sources: Intefax issues for 2010, Agri News weekly issues of July- December 2010.

The composition of subsidies and other trade measures in the exporting countries is heavily

weighted toward direct production rather than investments which could contribute to increasing

agricultural yields.

In response to increasing prices, importing countries have taken some policy measures, such as

eliminating import duties (Kyrgyzstan), using food stocks (Tajikistan), and controlling prices using

administrative measures (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) or market interventions (Kazakhstan). The

latter is used only by Kazakhstan, which has accumulated a high level of carry-over stocks. In many

cases, governments have relied on existing policy measures. The policy responses made can be

grouped into four broad categories; namely, targeting consumption, trade, production, and price

regulation respectively (see Table 9). These measures appear to have had no any long term effect.

Unfortunately, in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan any measures face financing problems and require

external funding, which could result in having to serve external debt in the future. This also applies

to other safety nets such as food and nutrition programmes. These two countries still do not have

strong institutionalized safety net measures.

TABLE 9:POLICY MEASURES IN IMPORTING CACOUNTRIES

Countries Export restrictions TaxationState Support

(subsidies)Price regulation

Kyrgyzstan n/a n/a

Subsidies on soft

loans to farmers but

very limited

n/a

Tajikistan Export quotas n/aSubsidies to regions

faced by floods

through

interventions

Turkmenistan

Export quotas,

licensing and stateorders

soft taxation

to smallfarmers

Subsidies on

agricultural inputs on staple food

Uzbekistan Export quotas n/aSubsidies on

agricultural inputs

on selected staple

food

In importing countries, trade measures and subsidies are not supplemented by measures aimed at

expanding investments and creating enabling business environments. Moreover, subsidies and food

price controls do not always help the most vulnerable or poor populations, because they are not

targeted on those who are most in need of help.

The non-WTO members in the region (Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) have tried to use

export and import restrictions and taxes, whereas WTO member countries (Kyrgyzstan) mainly

used NTBs or price controls in trying to protect their population. Under the WTOs classificationfor agriculture support, several measures are allowed which are included in the so-called green

box. This refers to supporting non-distorting measures in trade and markets which cannot involveprice support. Green box mechanisms can include support to research, education and training;

extension services, marketing activities and other similar initiatives. In the Central Asian countries

such mechanisms are rarely discussed or implemented.

While high food prices can negatively impact the food security of vulnerable households, they can

also create incentives and opportunities for small holders and farmers to develop agricultural

production and non-agricultural activities in rural areas. The current situation calls for continued


19/29

19

responses from governments and the international community: policies need to be adjusted and

programmes need to be put in place to address negative impacts and tap into new opportunities.

This situation creates challenges in terms of achieving the Millennium Development Goals,

particularly MDG1 of reducing poverty and hunger. However, higher food prices affect countries

differently depending on whether they are net exporters or net importers of food. Net exporters of

food will benefit and experience higher terms of trade and more income. Net importers of food will

face lower terms of trade and will have to pay a larger food import bill, which will affect their tradebalances and the strength of their currencies.

In the long run, high food prices are not only expected to increase agricultural incomes, but also to

lead to increased investments in the agricultural sector. This will lead to productivity increases and

will also have some indirect effects on non-agricultural rural income (e.g. trade and services). The

size of this multiplier effect will of course depend on the share of the the increased agricultural

profits which are ultimately invested and spent in rural areas.

Main food security risks in CA countries

Overall, food security in the countries of Central Asia is improving. However, there are still threats

related to fragile economies and other internal and external factors. The level of poverty has

significantly decreased in these countries. However, three countries (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and

Uzbekistan) remain the poorest countries in the ECA and CIS regions. For those countries in the

sub region that depend heavily on imported staple foods, any sharp fluctuations of internal or

external conditions increase the risk of food insecurity. Although the agricultural sector has been

characterized by stable upward trends over the last ten years, it is still very fragile and only

Kazakhstan is able to meet its own food requirements.

Productivity of crop production is still low and highly dependent on scarce resources of water and

fertilizers.

Table 10: Matrix on Food Security Potential Risks in CA Countries

Type of Risk Factor

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Access Poverty - X X - X

Food prices volatility

Market

volatility and

fluctuation

X X X X X

Malnourishment PPP/ Income - X X X X


20/29

20

Import DependencyLimited local

production- X X X X

Climate Change &

Weather Conditions

& natural resources

Frequent

weatherfluctuation,

water scarcity

X X X X X

Weak social food

safety net

Fiscal situation

and shortage of

emergency

reserves

- X X - -

Financial constrains

& macroeconomic

conditions

High interest

rate, limited

access to

financial

resources

- X X - -

The volatility of international markets and local agricultural production increases risks relating to

food supply. In addition, the sector is vulnerable to any fluctuations in climate change and weather

conditions. Dependency on imports means that the countries are very much linked to global market

fluctuations, which can put food prices under pressure. The countries do not cooperate on trade

issues which may create problems for food supply.

The observations in this paper and related analyses show that CA countries face seven main risks

(see table above; not each of these risks is applicable to every country). However, overall three

main risks can be identified namely, market volatility, climate and natural conditions, and food

import dependency.There is an immediate need to examine the possibility of the countries in the region cooperating on

trade arrangements in order to enhance the free flow of food and agricultural commodities.

Cooperating on building joint monitoring systems on weather and climate change that will predict

any sharp declines in crop production may also contribute to improving preparedness for climate

disasters. Information- sharing on agricultural and food production, including prices, throughout the

region will help farmers and trading companies deal with local or countrywide food shortages.

Cross-sectoral cooperation on all these matters will help to identify the impact of food availability

and accessibility on the nutrition and health of the population.

In the current environment, it is very important that the international community assist and advise

governments not to implement inappropriate panic policies that may have welfare consequences

far larger than the welfare losses resulting directly from the shocks themselves. In 2007-08, somecountries imposed trade restrictions and price controls in response to rising food prices. Such

policies redistributed income away from rural food producers to urban consumers (who tend to be

richer). The net social impact may be even larger when considering the impact of such policies on

production incentives and the likely spill- over impacts of restrictive trade policies on neighbouring

countries. Additionally, it is important that policy responses do not conflict with the key longer-

term reform agenda. For example, many of the restrictive trade and price controls that governments

in the region adopted in response to the food price increases in 2007 have not been reversed and

together with lower food prices, these policies could further increase the poverty gap between urban

and rural areas. Unfortunately, some of such policy response measures have been already been


21/29

21

repeated since August 2010.

Recommendations and follow up actions

The best strategy for improving food security is to reduce poverty through economic growth,

including agricultural productivity. Growth in agricultural and food production and the consequent

increase in employment alternatives can have a positive effect on household incomes and cancontribute to the government budget. These effects will reduce poverty in two ways. Firstly,

increases in household incomes have a direct effect on poverty and secondly, the increase in

government budgets can be used to enhance social protections system including food safety nets,

helping to bring the poor above the poverty line. In CA countries in which the rural population

represents around 50 percent of the entire population, growth in the non-agricultural economy is

necessary to absorb the surplus labour. In the region, a further reduction of over- employment in the

sector is crucial to enhancing productivity and increases in agricultural output.

Recent experience shows that these countries are still not rationally integrated though regional and

bilateral trade agreements. Trade issues play an important role in the current market situations and

create unfavourable conditions for importing countries. The rules and norms of international trade

can be applied to both WTO members and non-members and restore trust in the international

trading system with improved multilateral or plurilateral rules and agreements.

The experiences of the restrictive trade policies employed by many countries in reaction to the food

price crisis, and the increased protectionism that has been seen since 2008 and the financial crisis,

have created distrust in the global trading system and increased the cost of doing business on

international markets. A Doha Round agreement would be an important step in restoring confidence

in the trading system and in further reducing distortions that restrict trade and create more

uncertainties for farmers and traders. Although it is very tempting for countries to look inward and

limit exposure of their own consumers and producers to world market volatility in times of trouble,

one of the best ways to protect food security in a global market is to expand trade and reduce

restrictive trade policies.

However, these actions have to be carried out in parallel with long term measures such as market

interventions and improving how the market functions, the implementation of risk management

tools, enhancing rural development investments in social protection and food safety networks, and

promoting investments in the agricultural sector itself by creating enabling business environments

both for local and foreign capital. Due to the fact that food security deteriorates in the event of sharp

weather fluctuations and natural disasters it is recommended that risk monitoring on climate

change, hydro - meteo conditions as well as protection of natural resources such as land and water

be improved. Transitory food insecurity may arise in times of crisis and the countries need to

improve and in some cases set up food safety nets which operate in targeted and transparent ways.

Follow up actions on further cooperation

A. Improve market functions and avoid market distortions by facilitating regional trade andbetter integrating with global commodity markets. Farmers and national economies alike would

gain from improvements in market efficiency, which can include improved transport infrastructure,

improved market information systems, increased competition in the marketing chain, and increased

efficiency and transparency in regulatory systems. In transition countries with fledgling market

institutions, it is especially important to strengthen these institutions and let them play their role in

market adjustment. The government role is important in terms of creating an enabling environment

for new farms and agribusinesses to develop, and it should focus on improving financial services,

technical support services, information services and the like.


22/29

22

B. Develop Risk management tools for farmersFarmers face risks associated with yields and price variability that can be mitigated with good risk

management tools. Yield insurance, revenue insurance, contracting and improved access to futures

market tools can all assist farmers in managing risk. Governments can assist the private sector in

developing and offering such tools and could even use prudent incentive measures to encourage the

adoption of such risk management tools. These all require a proper information system and

monitoring capacity.

C. Enhance rural development and rural infrastructure investmentsIn CA countries around 57.7 (Annex 5, page 29) percent or more of the population lives in rural

areas, and this proportion is increasing in many cases. Rural development is not the same as

agricultural development and it needs targeted attention of its own, including the provision of rural

development support systems and social infrastructure. A rural development support system

provides rural residents and local governments with information, coordination, and technical

assistance. Social infrastructure needs will vary from place to place, but will include such things as

roads and highways, schools and child care facilities, hospitals and clinics, community centres with

libraries, internet connections and adult learning facilities. These support measures are territorial

rather than sectoral and they improve the rural business environment as well as the capacity of rural

residents to improve their own human capital, increase their economic opportunities and enhancethe quality of life in rural areas.

D. Invest in social protection or safety net measures to protect vulnerable populationsSafety net is an umbrella term that covers various programmes aimed at assisting vulnerable

population groups. It includes targeted food distribution programmes; targeted cash transfer

schemes, feeding programmes and employment schemes (FAO 2009a). The concept of social

protection or a safety net is to cushion the biggest impacts of market and financial shocks in order

to limit the long-term consequences. For example, when unemployment increases, incomes decline

and high food prices or shortages threaten households, they may dispose of valuable assets,

interrupt the education of their children or suffer malnutrition. These are but a few examples in

which the short run impacts of a crisis create long run damage to the households earning power.

Therefore, the safety net measures are temporary and targeted at mitigating the worst consequencesof a financial or food crisis.

E. Create enabling business environment and promoting investments

Increased investments have been a major driving force behind recent economic growth. In the agri-

food industry in other more economic advanced transition countries, such as the new member states

of the EU, foreign investment has been one of the main engines driving productivity growth, quality

improvements, and enhanced competitiveness. The inflow of FDI in the food industry and the

associated pressure on domestic firms to restructure will lead to important changes in the

agricultural supply chain.

The task of the government will be to provide a favourable institutional and policy environment for

stimulating more FDI. They can do this by providing a favourable institutional and regulatoryclimate for foreign investors.

F. Integrating nutrition and food security considerations into sectoral policies, programmes and

cross-sectoral partnerships

Technical support for capacity development in nutrition is essential for sustainability in food

security and nutrition. Nutrition should be integrated into development strategies, sectoral policies,

programmes and cross - sectoral partnerships with an emphasis on food-based approaches to reduce

malnutrition. This should be promoted through inter-sectoral collaboration between agriculture,

research, food technology, health and education.


23/29

23

*******

TABLE 11:MATRIX ON FOLLOW UP ACTION ON FOOD SECURITY RISK MITIGATION

Activity Country Partnership Output Outcome

Import Dependencyand

food price volatility

CA-5 FAO, EADB, WB,ADB, UNDP

Study andRegional

Discussions

Trade RegionalFacilitation and

Cooperation

Monitoring Climate

Change &

Weather

Conditions &

CA-5FAO, UNEP, WB,

UNDP

Research,

institutional

arrangements, and

publications

Information sharing

and strengthened

capacity

Land and Water CA-5FAO, ICARDA,

WB, UNDP

Implementation

of new

technologies

Improved

productivity. water

sanitation and

stabilization of land

erosion etc.

Malnourishment/

Nutrition

TJ, KG,

UZ

FAO, WFP, WHO,

UNICEF

Improved qualityand control of

food

Poverty reductionTJ, KG,

UZ

WB, ADB, FAO,

EBRD, UNDP

Rural

development and

employment

generation

Regular monitoring

of food

security for risk

mitigation

TJ, KG,

UZ,

FAO, EU, USAID,

WHO,

WFP,UNICEF,

UNDP


24/29

24

References

Slay, B. 2010. Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan face food crises. Central Asia, Available atWWW.CENTRALASIANEWSWIRE.COM/TAJIKISTAN/TAJIKISTAN-KYRGYZSTAN-FACE-FOOD-CRISES/VIEWSTORY.ASPX?ID=1286

Trilling, D. 2010. Food Crisis Next Challenge for Kyrgyzstan? Available at

WWW.EURASIANET.ORG/NODE/61637

Asymbekov, E. Cooperation in the Central Asian agriculture: current state and outlooks. Kyrgyz

Research Institute. Available at WWW.CIMERA.ORG/FILES/CP/CP4/CP4DUSHANBE_OCT02_%20EMIL%20ASYMBEKOV.PDF

IMF. October 2010.World Economic Outlook. Available atWWW.IMF.ORG/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/WEO/2010/02/PDF/TEXT.PDF

FAO. 2008. An introduction to basic concepts of food security. Available atWWW.FAO.ORG/DOCREP/013/AL936E/AL936E00.PDF

FAO/WFP. December 2010. Crop and food security assessment mission to Kyrgyzstan. Rome.WWW.FAO.ORG/DOCREP/013/AL970E/AL970E00.HTM

FAO. 2010. The state of food and agriculture 2010-11, Women in agriculture.

United Nations. 2010. The MDGs in Europe and Central Asia. New York and Geneva. Available atHTTP://WWW.UNECE.ORG/COMMISSION/MDGS/2010_MDG_OPTIMIZED.PDF

World Bank PovcalNet, Online Poverty Analysis Tool. Available atHTTP://WEB.WORLDBANK.ORG/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTPROGRAMS/EXTPOVRES/EXTPO

VCALNET/0,,CONTENTMDK:21867101~PAGEPK:64168427~PIPK:64168435~THESITEPK:5280443,00.HTML

FAO. Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). Price Bulletin. December 2010.

Available at HTTP://WWW.FAO.ORG/GIEWS/COUNTRYBRIEF/

FAO. October 2009. Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to Tajikistan. Special Report.

Rome

FAO/ UkrAgroConsult. January 2010. Barriers to Trade in CIS Grain Markets and their

implications for LIFDCs of the region. Draft paper

FAO REU. May 2010. The impact of the Economic and Financial Crises on Agriculture and Food

Security in Europe and Central Asia: a Compendium. Budapest


25/29

25

Annexes

Annex 1. FAO Activities in CA countries

Activity CountryPartnershi

pOutput Outcome

Crop

production

and

protection

All CA

countries

ICARDA,

CIMMYT

ICAC ECO

TICA

Report on CAAwareness Raising

on Rotterdam and

Stockholm

Conventions, training

and networking

Improved awareness and

capacity

Conservation

Agriculture

for irrigated

Area

Kazakhstan

Turkmenista

n

Uzbekistan

ICARDA

ICAC

Conference,

consultation and

supervision of

projects on

improvement of

productivity and

sustainability

Promotion of a new

technology for sustainability

and protection of ecosystem

Animal

Health/

Trans

boundary

Disease

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan-

Workshop, meetings,

consultations,

Improved veterinary services

and reduction of brucellosis

in humans. Adopted

agriculture laws and

certification; building of

diagnostic capacity of the

state veterinary services

Fishery andaquaculture

Kyrgyzstan,

Tajikistan,

Uzbekistan

-

Sector review studies

and strategy for

fishery and

aquaculture for KG,

TJ, UZ

Strategies for Fisheries and

Aquaculture Sector

Development in KZ ,

conception on aquaculture

and capture fisheries

development in UZ, Strategy

for Fisheries and Aquaculture

Development for poverty

Alleviation in TJ

Agriculture

and

food security

programmes

CA Region

ADB, WB,

EBRD,

IDB,

OPEC, EU

Fostering public-

private partnership

Capacity building on

formulation of investment

projects

Forestry

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

UNECE,

TICA,EU, JICA

workshops and

meetings, studies

Legislation development

Improved local communitylivelihood

Information

System

on Food

Security

Kyrgyzstan

TajikistanEU

Training,

publications,

networking

Setting up of monitoring

system for decision makers


26/29

26

Land and

Water

WB,

Interstate

Committee

Software CROPWAT Capacity Development

ANNEX

2:E

CONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION,

AGRICULTURAL SHARE OF ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION AND FEMALE

SHARE OF ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE IN AGRICULTURE IN 1980,1995 AND 2010

Economically active population

CountriesTotal

(thousands)

Agricultural share

(% of total)

Females economically

active in agriculture

(%)

1995 2010 1995 2010 1995 2010

Central Asia 21,059 29,095 27.6 20.5 42.4 41.0

Kazakhstan 7,773 8,427 19.7 13.8 30.4 24.4

Kyrgyzstan 1,885 2,547 28.9 20.8 37.7 29.8

Tajikistan1,678

2,89637.4

27.452.2

53.0

Turkmenistan 1,635 2,437 35.4 29.7 51.6 53.0

Uzbekistan 8,088 12,788 31.2 21.4 46.2 43.5

SOURCE:THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2010-11,WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE,FAO,2010

Annex 3: Share of households in rural areas that are female-headed, most recent and earliest

observations and total agricultural holders and female share of agricultural holders, most recent

observations

Share of rural households

that are female headedAgricultural holders

% Thousands % of total

Most recent

observation

Earliest

observationTotal Female Share

Central Asia 17.6 - - -

Kazakhstan 22.0 23.4 - -

Kyrgyzstan 18.0 - 246,901 12.3

Tajikistan - - - -

Turkmenistan 18.6 - - -

Uzbekistan 11.6 - - -

Source: The state of food and agriculture 2010-11, Women in agriculture, FAO, 2010


27/29

27

ANNEX 4:SHARE OF ADULT POPULATION WITH CHRONIC ENERGY DEFICIENCY (CED- BODY MASS INDEX LESS THAN 18.5) BY

SEX AND SHARE OF CHILDREN UNDERWEIGHT BY SEX, RESIDENCE AND HOUSEHOLD WEALTH QUINTILE, MOST RECENT

OBSERVATIONS

Share of adult population

with CED(% of total)

Share of children underweight

(% of total)

By sex By residenceBy household

wealth quintile

Women Men Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Richest

Central Asia 6.9 - 8.6 7.8 7.4 8.4 9.6 5.2

Kazakhstan 7.4 - 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Kyrgyzstan 4.2 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Tajikistan - - 18.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 22.0 14.0

Turkmenistan 9.9 - 12.0 10.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 5.0

Uzbekistan 5.9 3.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 3.0SOURCE:THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2010-11,WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE,FAO,2010

Annex 5: Total population, female share of population and rural share of population in 1980, 1995 and

2010

total

(thousands)

Female share

(% of total)

Rural share

(% of total)

1980 1995 2010 1980 1995 2010 1980 1995 2010

World 4,428,081 5,713,069 6,908,685 49.7 49.6 49.6 60.9 55.3 49.4

Countries in

developing regions3,299,983 4,538,389 5,671,456 49.0 49.1 49.2 70.7 62.4 54.7

Asia excludingJapan 2,450,128 3,322,591 4,039,744 48.6 48.7 48.7 64.9 57.4 50.7

Central Asia - 53,399 61,349 - 50.8 50.9 - 57.0 57.7

Kazakhstan - 15,926 15,753 - 51.7 52.4 - 44.1 41.5

Kyrgyzstan - 4,592 5,550 - 50.8 50.6 - 63.7 63.4

Tajikistan - 5,775 7,075 - 50.0 50.6 - 71.1 73.5

Turkmenistan - 4,187 5,177 - 50.6 50.7 - 54.7 50.5

Uzbekistan - 22,919 27,794 - 50.4 50.3 - 61.6 63.1

Source: The state of food and agriculture 2010-11, Women in agriculture, FAO, 2010


28/29

28

ANNEX 6.FAOHUNGER MAP

UZB, TUR, KYR

TAJ

UZB, TUR, KYR

TAJ

Annex 7. Comparison of Import Requirements Dynamics in CIS, 1998-2008


29/29

ANNEX 8.RETAIL PRICES OF WHEAT FLOUR IN TAJIKISTAN,2008-2010

Annex 9. Wheat Flour and Bread Prices in Kyrgyzstan, national average and by locations, 2009-2011

the status and challenges of food security in central asia

Documents