...To be clear, the intention of the article was not to single out JV Silverleafe, LLC in particular, but to demonstrate through examples the inherent weaknesses in the privatization process, which is clearly designed to benefit private corporate operators, of which JV Silverleafe, LLC is but one of 97 in total. While not all of the grievances mentioned in the article apply specifically to JV Silverleafe, LLC, there can be no doubt that the privatization process provides little or no protection for farmers, and in many cases has allowed private companies (clusters) to take advantage of coercive practices facilitated by local administrations (hokimiyats)...

Most clusters, including JV Silverleafe, LLC, have profited from the transfer of farmers’ land via ‘voluntary’ land lease terminations for which there is no legal requirement to pay compensation to farmers for the loss of their land. Monitoring by Uzbek Forum shows that abusive practices are rampant throughout the cotton sector and have led to rising unemployment and poverty in rural communities...

You dispute that JV Silverleafe, LLC was part of “a process that has seen the direct transfer of control . . . of land to clusters”, as stated in the article. The statement is in fact correct and I appreciate your confirmation that cotton production in Pakhtakor district is under the control of JV Silverleafe, LLC either through direct farming on 2,0000 hectares of land transferred to the company by the Uzbek government or through contract farming, whereby farmers on 9,700 hectares of land deliver cotton to JV Silverleafe, LLC. JV Silverleafe, LLC does not require title of these 9,700 hectares of land to have control because, as you point out in your letter, JV Silverleafe, LLC was “guaranteed contracts” for cotton production in accordance with a Cabinet of Ministers decree. In other words, farmers in Pakhtakor district are obliged to deliver cotton to JV Silverleafe, LLC which amounts to a monopolistic level of control over the use of land...