Turkmen Cotton Farmers Frustrated by Mechanized Harvesting Delays and Losses
In Turkmenistan’s Lebap region, tenant farmers are expressing growing frustration over delayed payments and crop losses linked to the government’s push for mechanized cotton harvesting. While the use of combine harvesters is intended to boost efficiency, many farmers say the reality on the ground is causing financial hardship and lower yields. Delayed Payments Compound Financial Pressure In the Chokhbetde village council of Halach district, farmers were told they would not be paid for cotton harvested by combine machines until the entire campaign is complete. All revenues first go to the State Association for Agricultural Technical Services, Turkmenobakhyzmat, which owns the harvesters. Because accounting is based on the season overall rather than by individual field or tenant, farmers are expected to wait for payment. This delay is particularly painful for rural communities that rely on regular cash flow. A tenant farmer from Mashpaya village noted that pickers brought in from urban areas must be paid every ten days, and the payment postponement makes this increasingly difficult. The core complaint, however, is with the quality of mechanized harvesting itself. “Because the combines are poorly adjusted, 10-15% of the cotton ends up on the ground and must be collected by hand,” the Mashpaya farmer said. “Government employees are brought in for this, and they also need to be paid on time.” Beyond the immediate spillage, poorly calibrated machinery damages the plants: drums crush unopened cotton bolls, preventing them from maturing and leading to permanent yield losses. “Two Shifts” and Self-Funded Repairs Concerns about machinery use and maintenance are longstanding. During preparations for the summer grain harvest in Lebap, each combine at local Obahyzmat units was assigned two operators to run in alternating shifts. However, operators were required to fund maintenance and repairs themselves, even for foreign-made equipment such as John Deere and Case combines. The association only supplied tires, promising that repair costs would be reimbursed after the harvest as part of output-based wages and bonuses. In practice, combine crews absorbed heavy expenses. A machine operator from Bayramaly district described frequent technical failures: broken cutter bars, damaged threshing drum pulleys, faulty bearings, and worn connecting rods. “My colleague and I have already borrowed and spent 15,000 manats each, $4,300 at the official exchange rate, or $769 on the black market, just on spare parts,” he said. While some parts are now being produced locally, a repair facility in Turkmenabat has reportedly exceeded production targets for farm machinery components, these improvements have yet to reach most farmers. For now, the burden of keeping equipment running falls largely on the operators and tenant farmers themselves, with financial relief promised only at the end of the harvest season.
