What Role Do Economic Conferences Play in Uzbekistan’s Development?

Back in November, I travelled to Samarkand to attend the Uzbekistan Economic Forum. I had been to the ancient city nearly a dozen times, but this was my first professional event there. The Uzbekistan Economic Forum did not suddenly convince everyone that Uzbekistan is a special country. But it did show that Uzbekistan was becoming a more normal one.

Not everyone in Uzbekistan was happy with the conference. Some journalists and bloggers questioned why Uzbekistan’s government needed to convene yet another major and costly event. Others wondered if the return on investment would be worth it. Concerningly, the costs of the forum were not disclosed. Clearly, the organisers could have done a better job in publicly communicating the rationale for such a large event and why such conferences matter. To me, there are three reasons why they do.

First, Uzbekistan needs to foster regular dialogue with businesses partners, investors, and lenders who are independent from the government. Such actors are accountable to their shareholders, are subject to intense international media scrutiny, and must follow varied regulations around governance and sustainibility. Therefore, they can audit Uzbekistan’s achievements and shortcomings more honestly, generating important information for local media and civil society.

A country whose debt burden is equal to 40 percent of its economic output must be open to scrutiny of its economic policies and institutions. The forum’s thoughtful programme presented the opportunity for such scrutiny, with topics ranging from political reforms to economic inclusivity. The organizers brought in people who could ask tough questions (including former CNN and Bloomberg journalists) as chairpersons for the panel discussions. Senior representatives from the IMF, IFC, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Asian Development Bank, Asian Infrastructure and Investments Bank, regional central bankers, financiers, investors, and many consultants featured on these panels.

There was a time when frankness came at a cost. In May 2003, panelists from the EBRD, which was leading Uzbekistan through its protracted post-communist transition, spoke truthfully about the country’s economic and political shortcomings at the Annual Meeting in Tashkent. By 2005, EBRD war hardly making any loans in Uzbekistan and by 2007 it had exited the country altogether, unable to operate in an environment in which the authorities demanded deference. It was not until a decade later that EBRD returned to Uzbekistan. Today, the bank has 65 active projects with over EUR 2 billion in total portfolio value. With that much at stake, it is reasonable to expect that the EBRD and peer institutions will continue to speak up, especially as its activists continue to push the bank to live-up to its pro-democracy mandate.

Second, Uzbekistan needs a platform to prove its bureaucratic capacity, as it seeks to stay the course of increasingly difficult structural reforms. In contrast to heavily protocolled political events with predetermined outcomes such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, participants of economic forums in Uzbekistan are more demanding, represent diverse stakeholders, and care about performance dynamics. The newly formed Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of Labor and Poverty Reduction, and the Ministry of Justice—which oversee social policy—face new challenges every day. The nominally independent Central Bank and the judiciary are undergoing significant changes with unclear outcomes. They will all need to prove that they can uphold Uzbekistan’s domestic and international commitments and pay the bills.

At the same time, reform-minded public administrators themselves need businesses, civil society groups, and international professionals to get their president's attention in the highly centralized system. In Uzbekistan, the presidential administration can be reactive, prioritizing issues in response to media coverage, expert commentary, formal reports, and face-to-face meetings. It is no secret that certain business leaders may enjoy better access to the president that many ministers do not have. So, it is good when investors are both long-term thinkers and legally bound to seek clean deals. These investors and reform-minded public administrators can form coalitions as part of two-level game through which domestic reformers in transition economies find the means with which to amplify their voices.  

Alongside many countries “stuck in transition,” the Uzbek government continues to face challenges outlined by the IMF in its 2014 review marking 25 years after the end of communism in Europe. Uzbekistan needs to reign in its exorbitant public expenditures, improve the business climate, enable market competition, enforce state divestment, and ensure rule of law. It was reassuring that almost all keynote speakers in Samarkand said the same. By the end of the first day (most discussions can be watched freely online), it was clear that there was broad consensus about what needs to happen to enable prosperity.

The Uzbek ministers and senior officials speaking at the conference shared this consensus and acknowledged problems. Some even joked, earning sincere laughter from the diverse audience. Importantly, the conference was held in Uzbek and English — this was more than political symbolism. Russia’s war on Ukraine has had varied effects on the Uzbek economy. These have been mostly negative (e.g. reduced financial inflows and increased social policy burden), though there have been a few silver linings (e.g. capital relocation, higher commodity prices, and parallel exports). After independence, Uzbekistan, like other post-Soviet states, pursued legislative and regulatory harmonisation with Moscow. But the country’s bureaucracy is starting to look beyond Russia. The use of the Uzbek language helps the central government connect to a wider swath of society. The use of English, meanwhile, represents a search for a wider cooperation with foreign countries.

Finally, these conferences help set expectations—and there are many expectations being set. That Uzbekistan will privatise the promised 1,000 more state-owned enterprises. That utility and energy prices will be liberalized. That the economic growth will be increasingly supported by foreign direct investment rather than direct borrowing. That more will be done to empower and separate the judiciary from the executive branches. That the Oliy Majlis, Uzbekistan’s legislature, will pass new competition law and that it will be signed. That Uzbek GDP will rise to USD 100 billion by 2026 and USD 160 billion by 2030. That the country embraces a free market economy, trusting that its people can achieve more with less state intervention. Whether Uzbekistan meets these high expectations is something that can be assessed when it is time to gather for another forum.

Uzbekistan is seeking a dialogue with the world. We can quibble about the optics of such conferences, but they do serve to build trust and generate credibility. There was a time when economic conferences in Uzbekistan had long titles, glorified the present, and discussed the future in only abstract terms. Back then, the desired outcome was applause—those conferences played no role in the country’s economic development. In Samarkand, a different kind of conference took place.

Photo: Uzbekistan Economic Forum

Can 'Unitisation' of Oil and Gas Fields Power Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf?

In March, the Saudi Energy Minister met with his Kuwaiti counterpart to sign an agreement for the joint development of a shared offshore gas field. The Dorra field lies about 50 miles off the coast at the border between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and is around the same distance from Iran’s southwestern shores. The field could produce 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 84,000 barrels of condensate per day.

Shortly after the Saudi-Kuwaiti declaration, Iran’s Foreign Ministry swiftly expressed its dismay and said that any step for the joint development of the field—called the “Arash” field in Iran—must be carried out in cooperation between the three countries. In a surprising response, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait invited Iran to hold negotiations to determine the eastern limit of the joint, energy-rich, offshore area. While the proposed talks have yet to take place, the Dorra-Arash field is a clear example of how an area of contestation has the potential to be turned into an area for cooperation, if the political and security environment of the region allows.  

As key regional players move towards de-escalation and dialogue, evidenced by the end of the intra-GCC conflicts as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’ diplomatic engagements with Iran, it is worth considering potential for regional energy diplomacy. The shared oil and gas fields in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman are largely untapped areas for bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Iran and Qatar share the largest gas reserve in the world and Iran shares a further two-dozen oil and gas fields in the Persian Gulf with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Iraq. There are also numerous fields shared among the GCC states and Iraq. To move the energy produced by these fields, regional countries have long mulled pipelines projects, such as one between Iran and Oman, as well as talks for the re-exportation of Iranian gas as Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) by Qatar and Oman.  

But most of the shared fields amongst the Persian Gulf states are either inactive or are disputed. In the absence of cooperation agreements, countries have mainly opted to develop and extract the reserves on their own. Disputes over median lines, extraction rights, and varying concessions have often led to tensions between regional states.

Iran has disputed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia’s claims on the Dorra-Arash field since it was discovered in the 1960s. At the time, maritime boundaries in the Persian Gulf were poorly defined and bordering countries did not pay much attention to them. This was also the case for the South Pars-North Dome field—the shared gas field between Iran and Qatar—as the median line between the two countries had been negotiated before the gas field’s discovery in 1971. When Iran and Qatar determined their boundaries two years prior, the predominant factor underlying the delimitation was equidistance.  

Because of the fact that the boundaries continue to be poorly defined, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have each asserted their sovereignty on the Dorra-Arash field by awarding overlapping concessions throughout the past five decades. By the year 2000, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had reached an agreement on the corresponding offshore zones where their concessions could be awarded. In retaliation for its exclusion in the negotiations, Iran deployed drilling equipment to the field the following year. A cycle of actions and retaliations that have largely continued to date, rendering the field underdeveloped on the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iranian sides altogether.

The output from the Dorra-Arash field will have an “inconsequential” impact on today’s global gas and LNG markets in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and rising global demands, as Wayne Ackerman argues. This is primarily because the three countries will need to use the outputs to satisfy their own domestic energy demands. But inconsequential as it might be, the output from the field is significant in both adding to the global gas reserves and establishing an area for inclusive multilateral cooperation in the region.

Economic diplomacy, if enacted through joint projects such as the development of the Dorra-Arash gas field,  could give new impetus to relations between Iran and GCC countries. The establishment of a long-term cooperation project to jointly develop the Dorra-Arash field would provide a way to measure the state of regional economic diplomacy in the region and provide Iran and its GCC neighbours to show good faith. Another possible area for cooperation is in the Salman field shared between Iran and the UAE. So far, Iran and Iraq appear the closest to putting join development plans into action. Following years of negotiations, they recently decided to form joint technical groups to develop energy ties and shared fields. 

In this context, the European, and Asian, countries and companies could step in to promote confidence-building measures between the Persian Gulf countries by proposing multilateral projects with their participation. External players, particularly those who have the capacity to mediate and work with both Iran and the GCC states, could assist the regional countries in defining their boundaries using international law, proposing win-win multilateral projects, and investing in the development of the fields.

The GCC states and Iran have largely overlooked the benefits of “unitisation,” the joint development of an oil or gas field extending across two or more territories. Unitisation would allow the GCC states and Iran, as well as external players such as European or Asian companies, to jointly develop shared fields and benefit from cost-effective solutions for extraction, processing, and export. Regional leaders should leverage energy cooperation to creating the shared incentives necessary to make regional diplomacy more durable.

Photo: Shana.ir