Social Design Engineering Series

SDES-2023-5

How does the number of water users in a land reform
matter for irrigation water availability?

Sharofiddinov Husniddin
School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology
Scientific research Institute for hydraulic engineering and melioration “TajikNIIGiM”, Republic of
Tajikistan

Moinul Islam
School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology

Koji Kotani
School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology
Urban Institute, Kyushu University
College of Business, Rikkyo University

September 15, 2023

School of Economics and Management
Research Institute for Future Design
Kochi University of Technology
KUT-SDE working papers are preliminary research documents published by the School of Economics and Management jointly with the ResearchCenter for Social Design Engineering at Kochi University of Technology. To facilitate prompt distribution, they have not been formally reviewed
and edited. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment and may be revised. The views and interpretations expressedin these papers are those of the author(s). It is expected that most working papers will be published in some other form.

How does the number of water users in a land reform
matter for irrigation water availability?
Sharofiddinov Husniddin*,† Moinul Islam*,‡ Koji Kotani*,‡,§,¶,||
September 15, 2023

Abstract
Land reforms have been reported to impact agriculture, economic performances and indicators of countries along with water users and allocations. However, little is known about how
land fragmentation (consolidation) in land-reform processes affects water availability. This
research investigates a question “how the number of water users is related with irrigation water allocation in land reforms,” hypothesizing that an increase in the number of water users
through land fragmentation poses negative threats on the water allocation through a mediationof irrigation types. We conduct empirical analyses for irrigation water demand and availability, utilizing panel data for 25 years from 13 districts in Sugd province, Tajikistan. Two main
results are obtained: First, the irrigated areas are main drivers that increase irrigation water
demand in comparison to any other factors, and the impact by pump irrigated areas is approximately 1.6 times as large as that by gravity irrigated areas. Second, the increasing number ofwater users under land fragmentation in Tajikistan tends to reduce irrigation water availability,
and the magnitude in reduction under pump irrigation is more significant than that under gravity irrigation. Overall, this research establishes that irrigations and the number of water users
through land reforms matter for a change in the water allocation, and the interactions particularly pose the idiosyncratic threats on the irrigation water availability. Thus, it is advisable
to reconsider ongoing land-reform policies considering possible negative externality of land
fragmentation as well as irrigation for food security and water sustainability in agriculture.

Key Words: Land reform; irrigation water; number of water users; pump irrigation; gravity
irrigation; Tajikistan* School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology†

Scientific research Institute for hydraulic engineering and melioration “TajikNIIGiM”, Republic of Tajikistan
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology§
Urban Institute, Kyushu University¶
College of Business, Rikkyo University||
Corresponding author, E-mail: kojikotani757@gmail.com‡

1

Contents
1

Introduction

3

2

Land reform and water availability in Tajikistan

63

Methodology

8

4Results14
4.1 Irrigation water demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Irrigation water availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5

Conclusion

22

2

1

1

Introduction

2

In early 1990s, a land reform in the transitioning period from centralized economy to market-

3

based economy was a top-priority agenda for many countries, such as the former-Soviet, Central

4Europe, Eastern Europe and Asian ones. The objective of such land reforms was ensuring rural

5

employment, food security and economic growth by restructuring and privatizing large state and6collective farms. The reforms have had different methods and orientations of land redistribution

7

across countries depending on historical ownership, collective farm members, land availability and8auctions. In some cases, land has been returned to the pre-collectivization owners, and conse-

9

quently, land fragmentation is reported to occur along with some side effects on water allocations

10(Swinnen, 1999, Rembold, 2003). Land reforms are generally known to impact not only agriculture11

but also economic growth in countries spanning agricultural development, crop diversification, oc-

12

cupational choices, technological advancements and demographics through a change in the number

13

of land users and allocations (Lerman, 2008, Hartvigsen, 2014, Ciaian et al., 2018, Adamopoulos

14

and Restuccia, 2020, Wang et al., 2020). In particular, the land fragmentation through agricultural

15

reforms in these countries is expected to have significantly affected water users and water avail-16

ability. This paper addresses relationship between a number of water users and irrigation water

17

availability (IWA) in land-reform fragmentation processes.

18

In the last few decades, land reforms have been studied in social science and interdisciplinary

19

studies, using various methods of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Specifically, these20

researches focus on examining land reforms’ performances by implementing case-method studies,21

modeling methods, policy reviews, quantitative approaches, scoping studies and socio-ecological22

analyses, identifying the causalities and relationships with economic growth, agricultural produc-

23

tivity, diversification, employment and rural development (Lerman, 1998, Swinnen, 1999, Rem-24

bold, 2003, Vitikainen, 2004, Margaret and Patricia, 2006, Ghatak and Roy, 2007, Deininger et al.,252009). In literature, two common concepts associated with the land reforms are land consoli-

26

dation and land fragmentation. Land consolidation generally involves the redistribution of land

27

titles from individuals to groups and/or communities at large and considered one of instruments to3

28

ensure sustainable land management and reducing agricultural production costs (Crecente et al.,29

2002, Haldrup, 2015, Hartvigsen, 2015, Jiang et al., 2022). Land fragmentation generally involves

30

the redistribution of land titles from a group or a community to individuals and considered one of

31

instruments to allow individual land ownership through finely partitioning the areas (Gorton, 2001,

32

Pottier, 2006, Sklenicka, 2016, Ntihinyurwa et al., 2019).

33

A group of studies have shown positive impact of land fragmentation in land reforms on some34

economic performances and indicators (Lerman and Sedik, 2008, Deininger et al., 2009). Lerman

35(2008) studies the impact of land reforms on agricultural growth and productivity using time series

36

analysis, identifying that countries with a land reform tend to have a high agricultural efficiency.

37

Lerman and Sedik (2009) examine agricultural productivity in relation to land sizes via economet-

38

ric analysis and find that small-sized farms are more productive than large-sized corporate farms in

39

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Nguyen (2012) analyzes the impact of the land tenure in a land reform40

on agricultural productivity by taking a sample of 320 farms from Northern Uplands of Vietnam,

41

finding that land productivity tends to increase when chemical fertilizer use is reduced in the reform

42

process. Ciaian et al. (2018) investigate relationship between land fragmentation and production

43

diversification by interviewing farm households in Albania, and identify that land fragmentation

44

promotes the diversification of agricultural productions. Ntihinyurwa et al. (2019) conduct litera-45

ture reviews on land fragmentation and consolidation issues, claiming that each type of the land

46

reforms can have positive or negative impact, depending on local political, socioeconomic and47

environmental conditions.

48

Another group of literature has shown some negative impact of land reforms on economic

49

performances and indicators, especially when land is fragmented due to policy changes or de-

50

velopment processes (Gorton, 2001, Niroula and Thapa, 2007, Pavsakarnis and Maliene, 2010,51

Manjunatha et al., 2013, Hiironen and Riekkinen, 2016, Postek et al., 2019, Wang et al., 2021).

52

Rahman and Rahman (2009) study relationship between land fragmentation and rice production

53

using farm level survey data, and demonstrate that land fragmentation reduces rice production in

54

Bangladesh. Nhundu and Mushunje (2010) examine the effect of a fast-track policy with land4

55

fragmentation in Zimbabwe using gross margin analysis, identifying a decline in not only irriga-

56

tion funding but also crop production and increasing conflicts in shared irrigation infrastructures.

57

Hartvigsen (2014) studies the impact of a land reform in Central and Eastern Europe by develop-

58

ing some conceptual framework for economic growth, finding that land fragmentation tends to be

59

further advanced with rural and agricultural development. He also suggests that such a tendency

60

should be considered to formulate land-reform policies for avoiding the adverse effects. Jürgenson

61(2016) conduct a comparative analysis of the land reform in Estonia based on archival maps us-

62

ing geographic information system, identifying that the land reform in post-1990 has higher land63

fragmentation than that in pre-1940. He concludes that the fragmentation in post-1990 constrains

64

agricultural production and rural development. Wang et al. (2020) evaluate the impact of land65

fragmentation on irrigation management by conducting a questionnaire survey with 3895 house-

66

holds in China and reveal that the fragmentation is negatively associated with irrigation collective

67

actions.

68

Previous studies have primarily focused on examining whether the goals of land reforms, such69

as rural employment, food security and economic growth, are achieved or not. However, little

70

is known about how land fragmentation (consolidation) in land-reform processes affects water71

availability or about externality of land reforms on water allocations. Given this paucity in the72

literature, we examine how the land reform influences an irrigation water allocation through a tem-

73

poral change in the number of water users by taking a case of Tajikistan land reforms. To this end,74

we conduct empirical analyses to address the relationship between the number of water users and75

irrigation water demand (IWD) as well as IWA in a land reform, utilizing the panel data for 25

76

years from 13 districts of Sugd province. This research seeks to pose answer a question: How is77

the number of water users related with irrigation water allocation in land reforms? Specifically, it is78

hypothesized that an increase in the number of water users through land fragmentation poses neg-

79

ative threats on the irrigation water allocation through a mediation of irrigation types. Answering80

the question and hypothesis shall be useful for the development of land policies on irrigation water81

allocations in not only Tajikistan but also other nations facing similar contexts in consideration to5

82

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

83

2

Land reform and water availability in Tajikistan

84

The agricultural sector is one of the leading sectors in the economy of Tajikistan, forming about

85

24 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employing about 46 % of the working population

86(World Bank, 2021). The agricultural sector is the largest water user in the country, which ac-

87

counts for around 90 % of extracted water resources. More than 80 % of agricultural production

88

is produced in irrigated land (NDS, 2013). The critical factor in the country’s socio-economic de-89velopment is the agricultural sector contributing to the national development strategy for 2030 and90

the national development program for 2016 to 2020. Sustainable development of agricultural and91

irrigation sectors plays an essential role in economic growth, social development, food security,

92

poverty reduction and prevention of migration through employment in the country.

93

Following the economic reform to increase agricultural output based on the rational use of94

natural resources in mountainous areas, such as land and water resources, Tajikistan’s government

95

has started a land reform since 1995. To develop high-income and profitable farm production,

96

freedom of product prices, liberty to plant crops and ensuring food security, in 1996 president

97

decree was enacted. The agricultural reform program from 2012 to 2020 aimed to strengthen

98

agricultural production and improve the export environment (Babu and Akramov, 2022). Along99

with the land reform, the former collective and state farms were reorganized and agricultural land100

was redistributed to households, individuals or groups of farms and agricultural enterprises. As

101

a result, the number of land users in irrigated land had increased from 11 500 in 1996 to 187 220

102

in 2020 (SCLMG, 2020). Accordingly, the irrigation sector has also been gradually transferred103

to the self-sufficiency principle by introducing irrigation service fees. Irrigation water supply at104

the off-farm level is the responsibility of the Agency for Land Reclamation and Irrigation (ALRI)

105

and its district departments. To ensure water conservation, efficient operation and maintenance of106

the on-farm irrigation system, the Water User Associations (WUAs) were established. However,

6

107

the volume of annual supplied irrigation water in Tajikistan has decreased from 8 billion m3 to 4

108

billion m3 over the last 25 years wherein the irrigated land area remains unchanged (ALRI, 2020).

109

In addition, irrigation water management organizations have been facing several problems, such as

110

debts, electricity, wages and operation-maintenance costs in the systems.

111

The water-sector reform program in Tajikistan from 2016 to 2025, which was approved by112

the government on December 30, 2015, aims to introduce advanced and sustainable institutional

113

and legal mechanisms for water management. The main goals are to sustain water supply, to114

achieve economically and environmentally sustainable water allocations under the integrated re-115

source management. To achieve these goals, the government has initiated amendments in legal

116

frameworks and implemented development programs as well as institutional changes. According

117

to the Tajikistan’s Water Code, water resource is the state property. Ensuring sustainable manage-

118

ment and rational use of water resources is regulated by the water legislation of the Republic of

119

Tajikistan (Water Code, 2020). Specifically, the authorities of the recognized state bodies are in

120

charge of regulating water allocation, water usage plans, water supply and development of new

121

irrigated land (Water Code, 2020). It implies that Tajikistan’s water allocation with its supply and122

demand is not driven by the market. Rather, it is the responsibility of the state organizations in123

Tajikistan.

124

Despite the governmental efforts on implementing a series of state-funded programs and strate-

125

gies, subsidies, substantial amount of loans and grants in both agriculture and water sectors, the126

quality of irrigation services in Tajikistan has been declining. Due to the severe economic condi-

127

tions, the implemented reforms tend to focus only on short-run economic performances without128

considering medium- and long-run sustainable irrigation water supply at individual and society lev-

129

els. Consequently, irrigation service providers face various problems with respect to water supply

130

shortage, operation, maintenance of the irrigation system, collection of irrigation service fees and131

accumulation of the debts. For instance, the WUAs still face challenges on financial, technical, op-132

erational and management capacity to fulfill their responsibilities (Sehring, 2007, Balasubramanya133

et al., 2016, Shenhav et al., 2019). Development of the appropriate irrigation system and land

7

134

reforms according to a temporal change in the number of water users are necessary and urgent.

135

To this end, it is essential to study and understand the externality of land reforms on the irriga-

136

tion water allocation, especially when the number of water users change over time in the reform

137

processes.

138

3

Methodology

139

The study areas include 13 districts of Sugd province, which are located in the northern part140

of Tajikistan (figure 1). These areas are considered continental with relatively cold winters and141

dry-hot summers. The annual average precipitation in these areas varies from 150 mm to 300 mm

142

and the maximum temperature in summer reaches to 47 °C. Due to limited precipitation in the veg-

143

etation period, the irrigation facilities are important to maintain soil moisture and create favorable

144

conditions for full potential of agricultural crops production. Irrigated areas in the Sugd province145

are around 290 000 ha including more than 60 % of pump irrigation facilities and remaining areas146

are gravity irrigation facilities. Pump stations were constructed during the Soviet period to irrigate

147

mountainous and hilly areas and lift water several times as cascades. In 2020, an irrigated area per148

capita accounted for 0.1 ha in Sugd province, which is the smallest among Central Asian countries.

149

However, one third of the Tajikistan’s irrigated land belongs to this province, contributing to 40 %150of the country’s agricultural production.

151

During the land reform from 1996 to 2020, the state and the collective farms were reorganized152

as well as distributed to individual small-sized farms in Sugd province. Figure 2(a) presents that153

the number of irrigation water users has increased from 1500 to 60 000 in this period. The irriga-

154

tion and drainage systems, which were constructed during the Soviet period under the assumption

155

that farming is conducted in the large-sized plots, remain unchanged after the land fragmentation.

156

Therefore, the increase in a number of irrigation water users creates challenges to the irrigation

157

water facilities. For instance, figure 2(b) demonstrates that IWA has decreased from 2.8 billion m3

158

to 1.5 billion m3 from 1996 to 2020. On the other hand, IWD has increased from 1.7 billion m3 to8

Figure 1: Study areas in Tajikistan9(a) Number of water users(b) Irrigation water demand and irrigation water availability

Figure 2: Changes in the number of water users, IWD and IWA from 1996 to 2020 in Sugd province

159

2.5 billion m3 during the period.

160

Figure 3 illustrates the land fragmentation in the reform process in B. Gafurov district of Sugd

161

province from 2007 to 2020. For instance, figure 3(a) shows that 650 ha consisted of 74 plots with162

an average size of 8.7 ha, being part of one collective farm in 2007. Figure 3(b) visualizes that the163

area becomes so fragmented in the reform process with an increase in the number of plots up to164

917 with an average size of 0.7 ha in 2020. At the same time, figure 3(c) suggest that irrigation

165

systems have unchanged including main canals, distribution canals and water intakes during the

166

reform period. While each plot had direct access to a water intake point in 2007, it is sharply

167

declined in 2020 and only 25 plots currently have access to a water intake point. Overall, it is168

evident that the plot sizes become approximately 12 times as small as those in the pre-land reform

169

period under the same irrigation systems.

170

This study uses panel data from 1996 to 2020 that consist of IWD, IWA, number of water

171

users, gravity irrigated areas, pump irrigated areas and payment fraction in Sugd province, Tajik-

172

istan (See table 1 for the description of the variables). Out of the 15 administrative bodies in

173

Sugd province, 13 farming districts are selected as cross-sectional units, because agricultural and174

irrigation activities are carried out in these districts. We apply the panel-data regression models

175

to investigate the relationship between the number of water users in the land reform and IWD as
10

(a) Land plots in 2007(b) Land plots in 2020(c) Irrigation system from 2007 to 2020

Figure 3: Comparison of land plot sizes between 2007 and 2020. Source: Google earth images for
B. Gafurov district

11

Table 1: Description of the variables
Variables

Units

Description

IWD

Thousand cubic meters per year

IWA

Thousand cubic meters per year

Waterusers
Gravityareas
Pumpareas
Paymentfraction

Number of water users
Hectares per year
Hectares per year
% of collected payment

Irrigation water demand (IWD) calculated
by crop types and area
Irrigation water availability (IWA),
volume of received irrigation water
Number of farmers in irrigated land
Gravity irrigated areas
Pump irrigated areas
Percentage of collected irrigation
service fees

176

well as IWA along with irrigation areas. In the analyses, both time-specific factors and regional

177

differences are considered. To control time-specific factors, we consider year-fixed effects in the178

regression models, such as deterioration and rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, agricultural179

practices, policies and institutional changes which may affect IWD and IWA by including year-

180

fixed dummy variables. To control the regional differences, we consider the regional-fixed effects,

181such as geography, climate and demography by including region-fixed dummy variables.

182

Figure 4 displays a conceptual framework for our empirical analysis, being developed on the183basis of the fact that IWD and IWA in Tajikistan are not driven by markets but controlled by the184

government. Specifically, the variables except IWD and IWA in the framework are determined

185

by the central agencies, and water users respond to the changes in the variables through IWD

186

and IWA. Therefore, an empirical framework for market demand and supply in economic theory

187

cannot be directly applied to our study on water allocations in Tajikistan. Given this state of affairs,

188

the conceptual framework is believed to be one of the comprehensive views for understanding the189

complex relations among different factors, variables and interactions that affect IWD and IWA in

190

the study. The panel-data regressions shall estimate parameters βiK s for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and K =191{IWD, IWA} in figure 4, each of which corresponds to the relationship between IWD (or IWA)

192

and a key variable, after the effects of all other independent variables are netted out (Wooldridge,

1932010). In particular, we focus on reporting the relationships “how IWD and IWA are related to the194

number of water users and irrigation types” that correspond to β2K , β3K , β5K , β6K according to the12Figure 4: A conceptual framework that describes the relationships between the variables (the number of water users, irrigation types, irrigation service fees, the interactions, time and regional specific factors) and irrigation water demand (IWD) or irrigation water availability (IWA) by βiK s for
K = {IWD, IWA} and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively
.

13

195

research question and hypothesis. The regression specifications are expressed as
YitK = β0K + β1K WUit + β2K GAit + β3K PAit + β4K PFit

196

(1)

+ β5K WUit · GAit + β6K WUit · PAit + εK
it197

where subscripts i = 1, . . . , 13 and t = 1996, 1997, . . . , 2020 denote the district and year, re-198

spectively, YitK indicates a dependent variable where YitIWD = IWDit and YitIWA = IWAit for199

K = {IWD, IWA}, WUit , GAit , PAit , PFit , WUit · GAit and WUit · PAit represent the number

200

of water users, gravity irrigated areas, pump irrigated areas, payment fraction and the correspond-

201

ing interaction terms, respectively, and ϵK
it is an error term in district i and at year t.

202

The conceptual framework in figure 4 and regression specifications in equation (1) enable us to203

identify the key determinants for addressing the research question and hypothesis in our study. To

204this end, we proceed with taking the following steps for estimating the parameters. First, we apply

205

panel unit root tests for our variables to confirm that they are stationary at the level or not by the206

Levin-Lin-Chu test (Levin et al., 2002), indicating that they are stationary. Second, we apply the207

Hausman test (Hausman, 1978) to determine whether a fixed-effects or random-effects model is

208

appropriate for this analysis, suggesting the fixed-effects model. Third, we estimate four different

209

regression models for robustness check: Model 1 includes only the number of water users along

210

with an intercept as independent variables. Model 2 includes the number of water users, irrigation

211

types and irrigation service fees along with an intercept. In models 3 and 4, we additionally212

introduce the interaction terms between the number of water users and irrigation types along with

213

year-fixed and region-fixed dummy variables.

214

4

Results

215

Table 2 reports the summary statistics of the variables in our analysis, indicating that 325 (300)216

observations are collected for the IWD, IWA, gravity irrigated areas, pump irrigated areas and217

payment fraction (for the number of water users). The minimum and maximum values of the14

Table 2: Summary statistics
Variables
IWD
IWA
Waterusers
Gravityareas
Pumpareas
Paymentfraction

Obs

Mean

Median

SD

Min

Max

325
325
300
325
325
325

169 624
151 3211884
10 68613 15267

167 750
122 900
700
7485
9965
70

78 266
127 3032728
9748
10 64533

12 214
1400
7
0
0
0

370 080
587 700
14 62736 08938 027300

218

IWD (IWA) variable are 12.2 million m3 (1.4 million m3 ) and 370.1 million m3 (587.7 million

219m3 ), respectively. These differences highlight the substantial diversity in IWD (IWA) among the220

districts in our panel-data set. The number of water users ranges from 7 to 14 627 across the221

13 districts, while the mean is 1884 and the median is 700. The minimum value of 0 for the222

gravity irrigated areas (pump irrigated areas) indicates that those districts solely rely on pump

223

irrigation (gravity irrigation). Regarding the payment fraction, a minimum value of 0 indicates

224

that water users do not pay the irrigation service fees for a given year, while a maximum value

225

of 300 implies that water users paid irrigation service fees for the overdue years. Overall, the226

extensive gaps between the minimum and maximum values of the variables demonstrate that the227

Tajikistan agricultural and water systems are highly heterogeneous due to the wide range of crops

228

and diversity in geography as well as climatic conditions.

229

4.1

Irrigation water demand

230

Table 3 reports the estimated coefficients and their respective standard errors of the independent

231

variables on IWD along with their statistical significances in four regression models. Models 3 and232

4 include the marginal effects for an interpretation of the relationships between our independent

233

variables and their interactions with IWD. We find that the coefficients of gravity irrigated areas234

and pump irrigated areas on IWD are positive and statistically significant at the 1 % level in model235

2. These findings remain consistent after incorporating interaction terms between the number of236

water users and irrigation types in model 3 and a year-fixed dummy variable in model 4. We
15

237

mainly focus on reporting marginal effects in model 4 which is considered a full specification of238

our regressions. The marginal effect in model 4 indicates that IWD tend to increase by 4970 m3

239(7851 m3 ) with a one additional hectare in gravity irrigated areas (pump irrigated areas), holding

240

other independent variables fixed at their sample means. Overall, a rise in IWD is estimated to241

be 1.6 times larger in pump irrigated areas than that of gravity irrigated areas. The result can be

242

attributed to the fact that farmers tend to grow specific crops(cotton and vegetables) with high water243

requirement in pump irrigated areas due to the local geography and environment as compared to244

those in gravity irrigated areas in Tajikistan.

245

4.2

Irrigation water availability

246

Table 4 shows the estimated coefficients, marginal effects and their respective standard errors of247

the independent variables on IWA along with their statistical significances. We find that the coef-

248

ficients and marginal effects of the number of water users are statistically significant with negative249

sign at the 1 % level in a robust manner, irrespective of the models. This relationship holds true

250

even when interaction terms between the number of water users and irrigation types are included

251

in model 3 and a year-fixed dummy variable is included in model 4. In model 4, the marginal252

effect indicates that IWA tends to decrease by approximately 3246 m3 when the number of water

253

users increases by one, holding other independent variables fixed at their sample means. Over-254

all, this finding suggests that the increasing number of water users through the land fragmentation

255

processes in Tajikistan poses negative threats on the IWA.

256

In model 4, the inclusion of a year-fixed dummy variable is crucial to account for unobserved

257

factors that may vary over time during the land-reform processes. For instance, irrigation infras-

258

tructure conditions, agricultural practices, climate as well as policy and institutional modifications259

are unobserved factors that can be considered to change in a year-specific manner as year-fixed260

effects (see figure 4), and they are controlled by including the corresponding year-fixed dummy

261

variable in the analysis. We find that the coefficient and marginal effect of gravity irrigated areas262(pumps irrigated areas) exhibit statistical significances from 1 % to 5 % levels with positive sign in
16

17
300
13
0.17
No
No
0.15

162 109.8***(2063.7)

5.015***(0.659)*** significant at the 1 % level** significant at the 5 % level* significant at the 10 % level
Standard errors are in parentheses

Sample size
Number of districts
R-squared
Year-fixed dummy
Regional-fixed dummy
Hausman test (χ2 )Constant

Waterusers × Pumpareas

Waterusers × Gravityareas

Paymentfraction

Pumpareas

Gravityareas

Waterusers

Coefficient

Model 1

300
13
0.55
No
Yes
103.15***3663.1(13 631.3)

1.907***(0.539)6.537***(0.614)7.061***(1.078)−1.706(48.049)

Coefficient

Model 2

300
13
0.67
No
Yes
13.86**−7.502***(1.439)3.710***(0.603)8.757***(1.028)40.543(41.549)0.0006***(0.000 06)
0.0001**(0.000 06)
9500.7(12 487.8)

Coefficient
0.723(0.475)
4.787***(0.574)9.043***(0.994)40.543(41.549)

Marginal effectModel 3

300
13
0.73
Yes
Yes
21.63**−7.990***(1.424)3.990***(0.657)7.680***(1.028)15.84(48.264)0.0005***(0.000 06)
0.000 09
(0.000 06)
18 104.9(13 815.7)

Coefficient−1.123(0.691)4.970***(0.619)7.851***(0.995)15.284(48.264)

Marginal effectModel 4

Table 3: Estimation of the panel regression for the irrigation water demand (IWD) in Sugd province

18
300
13
0.15
No
No
0.16

159 521.3***(3064.1)−6.975***(0.979)*** significant at the 1 % level** significant at the 5 % level* significant at the 10 % level
Standard errors are in parentheses

Sample size
Number of districts
R-squared
Year-fixed dummy
Regional-fixed dummy
Hausman test (χ2 )Constant

Waterusers × Pumpareas

Waterusers × Gravityareas

Paymentfraction

Pumpareas

Gravityareas

Waterusers

Coefficient

Model 1

300
13
0.16
No
Yes
26.24***

180 156.9***(27 230.9)−7.173***(1.076)1.000(1.228)−3.023(2.154)125.417(95.988)

Coefficient

Model 2

300
13
0.32
No
Yes
8.48*

3.535
(3.039)−2.394*(1.273)4.773**(2.172)224.888**(87.739)−0.000 08(0.000 13)−0.0008***(0.000 12)
112 377.1***(26 370.3)

Coefficient−8.199***(1.004)−2.548**(1.213)
3.225(2.099)224.888**(87.739)

Marginal effectModel 3

300
13
0.63
Yes
Yes
36.35***

11.600***(2.460)4.540***(1.140)5.390***(1.780)109.170(83.460)−0.0004***(0.0001)−0.0008***(0.0001)
83 885.2***(23 890.8)

Coefficient−3.246***(1.195)3.807***(1.072)
3.874**(1.721)109.171(83.460)

Marginal effectModel 4

Table 4: Estimation of the panel regression for the irrigation water availability (IWA) in Sugd provinceFigure 5: Predicted irrigation water availability (IWA) over the gravity and pump irrigated areas

263

model 4. Focusing on the marginal effect in model 4, the result implies that IWA tend to increase264

approximately by 3810 m3 (3870 m3 ) with an additional hectare in gravity irrigated areas (pump265

irrigated areas), holding other independent variables fixed at their sample means.

266

The interaction terms between the number of water users and irrigation types in models 3 and267

4 are identified to be significant in a coherent manner, playing a crucial role in characterizing IWA.

268

To quantitatively demonstrate these interactions, we have considered three scenarios and plotted269

the effects of the number of water users at different levels under varying proportions of irrigation

270

types (holding other independent variables at their sample mean) based on the estimated results in

271

model 4 of table 4. Scenario 1 assumes that 35 % is the gravity irrigated area and 65 % is the pump272

irrigated area. Scenario 2 assumes that 65 % is the gravity irrigated area and 35 % is the pump273

irrigated area. In scenario 3, we set an equal distribution of areas between the two irrigation types.

274

Figure 5 shows the predicted IWAs over the number of water users under the three scenarios,

275

demonstrating that the slopes are idiosyncratic by a mix of irrigation types. By comparing the276

slopes across the different scenarios, it becomes evident that increasing the proportion of pump

19

277

irrigated areas leads to steeper slopes. This suggests that the magnitude in reduction of IWA

278

through an increase in water users under pump irrigated areas is more significant than under gravity

279

irrigated areas.

280

We summarize the estimation results associated with IWD and IWA in tables 3 and 4 and281

provide the answers to our research question (how is the number of water users related with irri-282

gation water allocation in land reforms?) and hypothesis (an increase in the number of water users

283

through land fragmentation poses negative threats on the water allocation through a mediation of284

irrigation types) in the introduction. As indicated in our conceptual framework in figure 4, it is285

found that IWD and IWA are characterized by the number of water users, irrigation types and their286

interactions as the main determinants in economically and statistically significant manners. The

287

main difference between the two regressions is that the number of water users does not play a sig-

288

nificant role in explaining IWD, while it emerges as an important predictor through an interaction

289

with irrigation areas for IWA. Our research establishes that the increasing number of water users

290

along with irrigation types through the land-fragmentation processes pose negative threats on ir-

291

rigation water allocation in Tajikistan. While literature has identified both positive and negative292

impacts of land fragmentation on agricultural production and rural development (Lerman, 2008,

293

Robinson et al., 2008, Lerman and Sedik, 2009, Hartvigsen, 2014, Jürgenson, 2016, Postek et al.,294

2019, Wang et al., 2020, 2021), our results appear to be on the “negative-impact” side.

295

Land fragmentation is an ongoing global event driven by market forces, such as population

296

growth, or governmental decisions. Irrespective of driving forces behind land fragmentation, this297

research suggests that the decisions of land fragmentation must be carefully implemented along

298

with the number of water users. Our negative-impact result shall be explained by whether or not299

an irrigation infrastructure or environment is suitable for the plot scales under land fragmentation

300

that characterize farmers’ empowerment for water management, enabling individuals and organi-301

zations to effectively supervise and monitor the water allocation. In Tajikistan, we must admit

302

that the current irrigation infrastructure and environment are not sufficiently suitable to allow an

303

increase of water users through land fragmentation for maintaining water allocations, and nobody

20

304

expected that such negative result would be realized when land fragmentation was adopted and305

started as a national policy. In other words, an increase in water users through land fragmentation

306

exacerbates IWA, as demonstrated in this research, depending on infrastructures and environments.

307

In particular, the negative impact shall be even worsened by particular environments, especially,308

semi-arid and arid regions, such as Tajikistan, where water is a bottleneck for not only agriculture309

but also many other economic activities.

310

Our research suggests some possible policy recommendations to improve irrigation water allo-

311

cations through land-reform processes. One is to consolidate small-scale farms at the level of for-312

mer collectivization parcels where at least one parcel should be shared by several farmers through313

creating community collaborative management, especially when a proper irrigation infrastructure314(or an environment) for land fragmentation is not available. If they grow one type of crops in each315

parcel collectively, water availability, production, water supervision and monitoring will improve316

by land consolidation even in the absence of the proper infrastructure and environment. Another317

is to newly adopt a technically efficient and proper irrigation distribution system, such as a piped

318

distribution system (PDS) for small-scale farms, when land fragmentation is moving forward or319

unavoidable due to the pressure from population growth or the general public. The PDS is reported

320

to reduce the costs of land acquisition, operation, maintenance, supervision, water losses due to321

evaporation, seepage as well as water logging issues, and consequently, accurate volumetric irri-

322

gation water supply can be ensured. However, we must note that adopting such a system comes

323

with a huge financial burden on the budget of developing nations. Given such a financial chal-324

lenge, it is advisable to reassess the trade-off between promoting land consolidation and adopting

325

a new irrigation infrastructure to accommodate small-sized plots. This reassessment should also

326

consider the interaction between the number of water users and irrigation types for food security

327

and sustainability in agricultural sectors, as demonstrated in this paper.

21

328

5

Conclusion

329

This study examines how the number of water users in land reforms is related to irrigation

330

water in Tajikistan, hypothesizing that an increase in the number of water users through land frag-331

mentation poses negative threats on water allocation through a mediation of irrigation types. We

332

utilize panel data from 1996 to 2020 from 13 districts of Sugd province, collecting secondary data333

on IWD, IWA, gravity irrigated areas, pump irrigated areas and payment fraction. The analyses re-334veal that the irrigation type is a key determinant for IWD as compared to any other factors, and the335

impact under pump irrigated areas is approximately 1.6 times as large as that by gravity irrigated336

areas. The finding also shows that the increasing number of water users through land fragmenta-

337

tion in Tajikistan tends to reduce IWA, and the magnitude in reduction under pump irrigated areas338

is more significant than that under gravity irrigated areas. Overall, this research establishes that ir-

339

rigation types and the number of water users through land reforms matter for a change in irrigation

340

water allocations, and the interactions particularly pose the idiosyncratic threats on IWA. Our result

341

implies that the decision of land fragmentation should be carefully evaluated and implemented in342

consideration to possible negative impacts on water availability along with an increasing number343

of water users, and the negative impact shall be highly dependent on infrastructure, i.e., irrigation

344

types, as well as environment.

345

We note some limitations of our study and directions for future research. First, in this research,

346

IWD is calculated with available information (mainly, crop types and areas), which is considered347

the best approximation we can make in the context of Tajikistan. However, future studies shall be348

able to collect and use a good-quality IWD data that incorporates irrigation system losses and other349

minute factors. Second, this research does not address the detailed processes of why the magni-

350

tude in IWA reduction under pump irrigation is more significant than that under gravity irrigation,

351

when the number of water users increases. To clarify the details, future studies should consider

352

water-use efficiency (or water balance) in regard to the farm-plot sizes and technical conditions

353

under each irrigation type. To this end, water modeling approach with field measurements shall354

be recommended. Third, this research employs the secondary data without fully integrating the
22

355

analysis with geoinformation. However, in future, it is desirable to collect primary data at each356

plot level and to conduct geoinformation system analysis with the data in a unified manner that357

enables us to clarify the details of water allocations. Finally, we admit that our research may have358

some other limitations, however, it is our belief that this study is one of the important first attempts

359

to understand a relationship between the number of water users and IWA in land-reform processes,

360

and further studies on the same issue will ensue in future.

23

References
Adamopoulos, T. and Restuccia, D. (2020). Land reform and productivity: A quantitative analysis
with micro data. American economic journal: Macroeconomics, 12:1–39.
ALRI (2020). Annual reports from 1996 to 2020. Technical report, Agency for Land Reclamation
and Irrigation under the government of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Babu, S. and Akramov, K. (2022). Agrarian reforms and food policy process in Tajikistan. Central
Asian journal of water research, 8:27–48.
Balasubramanya, S., Buisson, M., Saikia, P., MacDonald, K., Aslamy, S., Horbulyk, T., Hannah,
C., Yakubov, M., and Platonov, A. (2016). Impact of water users associations on water and land
productivity, equity and food security in Tajikistan. Technical report, United States Agency forInternational Development.
Ciaian, P., Guri, F., Rajcaniova, M., Drabik, D., and Palomaergio, S. (2018). Land fragmentationand production diversification: A case study from rural Albania. Land use policy, 76:589–599.
Crecente, R., Alvarez, C., and Fra, U. (2002). Economic, social and environmental impact of landconsolidation in Galicia. Land use policy, 19:135–147.
Deininger, K., Jin, S., and Nagarajan, H. (2009). Land reforms, poverty reduction, and economic
growth: Evidence from India. Journal of development studies, 45:496–521.
Ghatak, M. and Roy, S. (2007). Land reform and agricultural productivity in India: A review ofthe evidence. Oxford review of economic policy, 23:251–269.
Gorton, M. (2001). Agricultural land reform in Moldova. Land use policy, 18:269–279.
Haldrup, N. (2015). Agreement based land consolidation - in perspective of new modes of governance. Land use policy, 46:163–177.
Hartvigsen, M. (2014). Land reform and land fragmentation in Central and Eastern Europe. Landuse policy, 36:330–341.
Hartvigsen, M. (2015). Experiences with land consolidation and land banking in Central andEastern Europe after 1989. FAO Land Tenure Working Paper No. 26.
Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46:1251–1271.
Hiironen, J. and Riekkinen, K. (2016). Agricultural impacts and profitability of land consolidations. Land use policy, 55:309–317.
Jiang, Y., Tang, Y., Long, H., and Deng, W. (2022). Land consolidation: A comparative research
between Europe and China. Land use policy, 112:105790.
Jürgenson, E. (2016). Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land consolidation in Estonia. Land use policy, 57:34–43.

24

Lerman, Z. (1998). Does land reform matter? Some experiences from the former Soviet Union.
European review of agricultural economics, 25:307–330.
Lerman, Z. (2008). Agricultural recovery in the former Soviet Union: An overview of 15 years ofland reform and farm restructuring. Post-communist economies, 20:391–412.
Lerman, Z. and Sedik, D. (2008). The economic effects of land reform in Tajikistan. Technicalreport, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Lerman, Z. and Sedik, D. (2009). Sources of agricultural productivity growth in Central Asia: Thecase of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Discussion paper No. 13.09.
Levin, A., Lin, C., and Chu, C. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample
properties. Journal of econometrics, 108:1–24.
Manjunatha, A., Anik, A., Speelman, S., and Nuppenau, E. (2013). Impact of land fragmentation,
farm size, land ownership and crop diversity on profit and efficiency of irrigated farms in India.
Land use policy, 31:397–405.
Margaret, W. and Patricia, L. (2006). Paradoxes of decentralization: Water reform and social
implications in Mexico. World development, 34:1977–1995.
NDS (2013). National development strategy up to 2030. Technical report, Republic of Tajikistan.
Nguyen, T. (2012). Land reform and farm production in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam. Asian
economic journal, 26:43–61.
Nhundu, K. and Mushunje, A. (2010). Analysis of irrigation development post fast track land
reform programme. A case study of goromonzi district, mashonaland east province, Zimbabwe.
Agricultural economists association of South Africa.
Niroula, G. and Thapa, G. (2007). Impacts of land fragmentation on input use, crop yield andproduction efficiency in the mountains of Nepal. Land degradation and development, 18:237–
248.
Ntihinyurwa, P., Vries, W., Chigbu, U., and Dukwiyimpuhwe, P. (2019). The positive impacts offarm land fragmentation in Rwanda. Land use policy, 81:565–581.
Pavsakarnis, G. and Maliene, V. (2010). Towards sustainable rural development in Central andEastern Europe: Applying land consolidation. Land use policy, 27:545–549.
Postek, P., Len, P., and Strkek, Z. (2019). The proposed indicator of fragmentation of agriculturalland. Ecological indicators, 103:581–588.
Pottier, J. (2006). Land reform for peace? Rwanda’s 2005 land law in context. Journal of agrarianchange, 6:509–537.
Rahman, S. and Rahman, M. (2009). Impact of land fragmentation and resource ownership on
productivity and efficiency: The case of rice producers in Bangladesh. Land use policy, 76:95–
103.
25

Rembold, F. (2003). Land fragmentation and its impact in Central and Eastern European countries
and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Technical report, Food agricultural organization.
Robinson, S., Higginbotham, I., Guenther, T., and Germain, A. (2008). Land reform in Tajikistan:Consequences for tenure security, agricultural productivity and land management practices:
Consequences of land reform in Tajikistan. Springer.
SCLMG (2020). Annual reports from 1996 to 2020. Technical report, State Committee on Land
Management and Geodesy, Tajikistan.
Sehring, J. (2007). Irrigation reform in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Irrigation and drainage systems,
21:277–290.
Shenhav, R., Stefanos, X., and Domullodzhanov, D. (2019). The role of water user associationsin improvingthe water for energy nexus. Technical report, Organization for security and cooperation in Europe.
Sklenicka, P. (2016). Classification of farmland ownership fragmentation as a cause of land degradation: A review on typology, consequences, and remedies. Land use policy, 57:694–701.
Swinnen, J. (1999). The political economy of land reform choices in Central and Eastern Europe.
Economics of transition, 7:637–664.
Vitikainen, A. (2004). An overview of land consolidation in Europe. Nordic journal of surveying
and real estate research, 1:25–44.
Wang, S., Li, D., Li, T., and Liu, C. (2021). Land use transitions and farm performance in China:
A perspective of land fragmentation. Land, 10:792.
Wang, Y., Zang, L., and Araral, E. (2020). The impacts of land fragmentation on irrigation collective action: Empirical test of the social-ecological system framework in China. Journal of rural
studies, 78:234–244.
Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.
World Bank (2021). Employment in agriculture. Retrived from https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS. Last checked on April 24, 2023.

26