Land Reform and Land Relations in Rural Russia By Valery Patsiorkovsky, David O´Brien, Stephen K. Wergen Presented by: Linda Mankovecká, IBAC 2010/2011

Keywords Farming enterprise Rural household Household plot – area, estate, parcel Privatisation

Introduction Fall of Communism in Russia – privatisation (as society and economy moved away from the principles of Marxism) By the end of the 1990´s Russias economy was more private than not Primary goal of privatization – to transfer land from the state to private citizens The study focuses on the impact of Land Reform in Russia on land relations and land use within rural population

Legislation Legislative foundation for LR in Russia – adopted during Several decrees were issued – initiated the process of creating institutions to support a market economy in agriculture 1,2 million km ² (60% of total agricultural land) – privatised during Distribution of land – share certificate system

11,9 million land shares were issued – majority was distributed to private owners (members of collective and state farms, pensioners, social service workers, teachers and medical personell) 70,8% - land used by large enterprises for rent 25,6% - land invested as a physical capital of the large enterprise – no control over that land 3,8% - people who retain the control over the land they have received Low usage of agricultural land

2001 – President Putin signed the new Land Code – brought clarity to land relations by establishing certain rights (expected to increase land transfers) 2001 – President Putin signed the new Land Code – brought clarity to land relations by establishing certain rights (expected to increase land transfers) 1.Right to own and transfer private property 2.Right to lease land However, there still remains a great deal of confusion among all land users (industry, agriculture, households) - Rejection of the new Land Code by some regions

Regions´ own land laws and land markets e. g.: in the Land Law of Saratov there are determinations of minimum and maximum sizes for land to be classiffied for private agricultural use By 2002 there were four categories of regions according to their responses to LR and privatisation 1.Places where regional law doesn´t recognise land as private property – strong legal barriers to the purchase or sale of land (even prohibition)

2.Regions where 40 – 49% of agricultural land has been privatised 3.Regions where 50 – 59% of agricultural land has been privatised 4.Regions where 60% or more of agricultural land has been privatised

Change in land use – survey data 2 surveys were taken in various Russian villages Three villages (in Rostov, Belgorod and Tver regions) were surveyed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2003 and 800 households were interviewed in 2001 A.Belgorod – Vengerovka, Veseloe, Zasosno, Kazaskoe, Streletskoe B.Volgograd – Dubrinka, Dubovsky, Katovsky, Mikhailovskaya C.Krasnodar – Kartushina Balka, Novoivanovskoe, Razdolnoe, Shkurinskaya D.Novgorod – Berezovik, Borovenka, Melnitsy, Ozerki E.Rostov – Latonovo F.Tver – Bolshoe, Sviattsovo G.Chuvash – Vurmankasy-Munsut, Mikhailovka, Tuvsi, Churachiki

From these survey data, certain patterns/trends were evident: 1.Only a very small % (1,3) of households reported buying or selling land – although this was the goal of the reformers in Moscow The majority of changes involved new types of formal and informal land rental arrangements - FRA – local village administrations using a portion of the land of the households - IRA – one household rents land from another household usually in return for some portion of the food produced on that land

2.throuhghout rural Russia - smaller number of households controlls/owns slightly larger plots 3.An increase in formally leasing land for agriculture use by households (56,3% in 1993 and 75,9% in 2003) Unique aspects of land relations – instead of eschewing new opportunities presented by land reform, households found new and creative ways of combining different types of land for usage

Average size of different types of land use arrangements in 2001 RegionAverage size Private plot Formal leased land Share crop arrangements Informal leased land Total land use Belgorod Oblast0,350,130,170,431,09 Chuvash Republic0,300,20000,51 Krasnodar Krai0,260,160,031,692,15 Novgorod Oblast0,160,360,490,311,33 Volgograd Oblast0,171,610,271,843,90 Total0,250,490,85 1,79 the biggest difference occur in the categories of formal and informal leased land – reflection of regional legal institutions (Volgograd vs. Krasnodar)

Another unique aspect that comes from the survey concerns land shares (their distribution) Differences between regions in the average size and number of households with land shares: RegionAverage size of land share Number of households with land shares NumberPercentage of HHs in regional sample Belgorod Oblast Chuvash Republic Krasnodar Krai Novgorod Oblast Volgograd Oblast Total e. g.: in the Chuvas republic with high population density (74.2 p/km ² ) only 40% of Households received land shares. By contrast, Volgograd with much lower population density (23.5 p/km ² ) 69.8% of households received land shares

The third notable aspect – many households not only have enough/sufficient land, but they may actually have more land that they can effectively use (-suggestion that in some regions the disctinction between rural household land holdings and smaller private farms might be blurred -rural households took advantage of reform and obtained land for use in agricultural production)

Conclusion There has been much more change in land relations in the Russian countryside than has been previously acknowledged There has been much more change in land relations in the Russian countryside than has been previously acknowledged Rural households and individuals have responded in opportunistic way – important restructuring of land use and land ownership Rural households and individuals have responded in opportunistic way – important restructuring of land use and land ownership If macro-economic trends continue to improve and incomes continue their increase, the rural land market may be expected to become more robust and take on a great economic significance If macro-economic trends continue to improve and incomes continue their increase, the rural land market may be expected to become more robust and take on a great economic significance

Resources

Thank you for your attention