Experts warn land sales to foreign-linked entities may put Uzbekistan’s future at risk

In several districts of Syrdarya region, large tracts of farmland previously managed by local farmers are being reclaimed and put up for auction. Reports indicate that potential buyers are likely to be foreign investors. Kun.uz spoke with economist Otabek Bakirov and agribusiness expert Kamoliddin Ikromov to explore the potential consequences of this trend.

Large-scale land consolidation raises concerns

Kamoliddin Ikromov, head of the Agribusiness Association, highlighted that districts such as Khovos, Guliston, Oqoltin, and Qorgontepa are seeing a wave of land consolidation. “Authorities are not only reclaiming land but also aggregating vacant and reserve plots into lots too large for local farmers to acquire. For example, a single lot of 1,000 hectares may be sold cheaply to a foreign investor at about 8 million UZS per hectare. Meanwhile, in the same district, a local farmer may have paid 80–400 million UZS for just one hectare. Who benefits from creating such oversized lots that local farmers cannot afford? What’s the underlying rationale?”

He warned that such practices could eventually jeopardize local agriculture. “If these lands are leased long-term to investors, there is a risk that local farming could disappear in the area.”

Legal framework and rights of farmers

Journalist Shokir Sharipov asked what the economic implications might be.

Otabek Bakirov explained that the situation depends on how the law functions. “Last year, the president issued a decree allowing five districts to conduct a legal experiment: 80 percent of farmers’ land would be returned to the state reserve, while the remaining 20 percent could be purchased by the farmers at 50 percent of the normative value. The plan is to eventually expand this experiment nationwide. But questions immediately arose.

“First, farmers have long operated under inheritable lease agreements. Why should they give up lands already under lease and then purchase 20 percent anew?

“Second, if large amounts of land are aggregated into reserves, what should be the maximum and minimum lot sizes? Oversized lots are problematic because they exclude potential buyers, especially local investors who lack the resources of large foreign companies. Local farmers have already invested in production and crops. Equity in lot sizes is essential.”

Bakirov emphasized that even if foreign investors bring advanced technology, it is crucial that Uzbekistan retain operational control over leased lands. “This is not about opposing investors. They can collaborate with local partners. Similar regulations exist even in EU countries with liberal land laws. The point is maintaining national oversight and operational authority.”

Lessons from abroad

Ikromov cited examples from Kazakhstan and African nations. Kazakhstan initially allowed foreign investors in agriculture but later restricted their access after public backlash. Similarly, in some African countries, foreign companies transferred land rights to their home states, effectively bypassing local control. Long-term leases did not prevent local communities from losing access.

Bakirov added that Uzbekistan has faced similar issues domestically in recent years, citing privatized cement plants and gas storage facilities whose ownership has shifted offshore, often beyond the state’s oversight. “We have legal gaps that still exist. Decision-makers must consider the long-term consequences – 10, 20, even 50 years ahead – not just immediate gains.

Security and sovereignty considerations

Ikromov raised security concerns, pointing to strategic locations such as the Kamchik Pass. Bakirov agreed, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding not only national resources but also local communities. He warned that large-scale foreign land ownership could create social and political tensions in the future, including price manipulation of agricultural products, conflicts with local farmers, and potential appeals to international bodies.

Economic and social consequences

Both experts stressed that economic growth cannot occur where property rights are insecure. Bakirov noted that investors often seek influence through local officials, potentially fostering corruption. Meanwhile, local farmers face systemic risks, including delayed payments for crops, high-interest bank loans, and unstable subsidies. Ikromov stressed that oversized lots also affect commodity prices, potentially making basic crops unaffordable for local producers.

Policy recommendations

The experts called for clear legislation ensuring farmers’ rights, proper oversight of foreign investments, and equitable land lot sizes. Subsidies, taxes, and incentives should be structured to support local production without unnecessary interference, allowing farmers to pay off debts and continue operations sustainably.

Bakirov concluded, “Economic development, food security, and environmental sustainability all depend on legally protected property rights. If farmers’ rights are ignored in favor of oversized foreign investments, both economic and social stability are at risk. Policymakers must consider the long-term consequences of today’s land policies.”