Interplay between structural change in Central Asian agriculture and institutional scarcity of land and water: evidence from Tajikistan

Abstract

This contribution focuses on the interaction between structural change in agriculture and the availability of key natural resources -land and water. The relationship is not unidimensional; therefore, we propose three dimensions of resource-induced structural change. The first dimension describes the links between the two critical input factors into agricultural production, namely land and water. To systematize this perspective, we use the concept of linking patterns that depict direct and indirect intersectoral linkages from a property rights perspective. Second, we examinee the dimension of how structural change in agriculture can be triggered by scarcity of natural resources. The third dimension describes structural change that may lead to overuse and scarcity. In this regard, we introduce resource scarcity not only as physical but most important as institutional scarcity. To illustrate these dimensions, we have chosen a case in Central Asia, where the availability and the control of access and withdrawal rights to land and water is of utmost importance for the agricultural sector. Tajikistan faces physical and institutional scarcity in arable land. The institutional scarcity is due to the non-transparent and costly processes that need to be followed to gain land rights. Likewise there is sufficient supply in water, in Tajikistan, but the de-facto access rights to water are limited for some groups. For instance, the post-socialist irrigation infrastructure is now inappropriate to serve all small-scale users on a canal. In the future, land use change due to a predicted increase of major investors, will have additional impact on the de-facto water rights. We conclude that a solid study not only on the physical but also on the institutional relations of agriculture to natural resources is important to come to reliable predictions of structural change in agriculture. We also show that structural change in agriculture may have wider implications for rural society that go beyond the agricultural sector.

Small-Scale Irrigation Self-Governance in a Mountain Region of Tajikistan

“…In this regard, the irrigation regime promotes community cohesion and supports the survival of individual households under challenging social and ecological conditions. Shirgin's arrangement can be seen as an example that stands in contrast to cases presented by Stucker et al (2012) and Theesfeld and Kl€ umper (2016) from the Fergana Basin and western Tajikistan, respectively, where cooperation between and within communities was shown to be rather 17,19,21,23,25,27,29 May 1,3,5,7,9,11,15,17,19 2 9-11 AM 9-11 PM 3 11 AM-1 PM 11 PM-1 AM 4 1-3 PM 1-3 AM 5 3-5 PM 3-5 AM 6 5-7 PM 5-7 AM B 1 7-9 AM 7-9 PM April 18,20,22,24,26,28,30 May 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18, 20 2 9-11 AM 9-11 PM 3 11 AM-1 PM 11 PM-1 AM 4 1-3 PM 1-3 AM 5 3-5 PM 3-5 AM 6 5-7 PM 5-7 AM ambivalent and difficult. One reason for Shirgin's success is that water access rights are not contested there.…”

The Land–Water–Food Nexus: Expanding the Social–Ecological System Framework to Link Land and Water Governance

“…For instance, in the lowlands, cotton production was introduced during the Soviet period and is still produced on 20% of the agricultural land, although, officially, such planned production schemes have been abolished. Only over the last five years has food production, especially diversified vegetable production, increased [30,31]. Many of the rural households are subsistence farmers depending on the so-called kitchen gardens attached to their houses.…”

“…Collective management can be either formalized, e.g., in water user associations (WUA), or informally organized within one community. Between the gate and the on-farm canals, forms of collective action initiatives are generally responsible for water supply [31]. Each farmer is now accountable to himself/herself for the maintenance and management of the secondary and on-farm irrigation canals.…”

“…Thus, we include only cotton as a crop variable, since cotton production in Tajikistan is still assumed to be "semi-voluntary" and many obligations to grow cotton exist [46]. Cotton in particular is sensitive to volatile water supply and calls for a very reliable and on-time water supply during the cropping season, otherwise, production losses are likely [31]. Farmers involved in cotton growing are expected to be more willing to contribute to irrigation management and cooperation in water allocation.…”