1. Stock-Taking of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring Results of a World Bank-FAO policy research study David Sedik FAO

2. Why a Stocktaking? Country or regionPeriodDuration (years) Land transferred (million ha) Mexico1917-9275100 Brazil1964-943011 Japan1945-5272 Korea1945-5050.5 Taiwan (Rep. of China)1949-5340.2 CEE countries1990-20001033 CIS countries1990-200010116

3. Why a Stocktaking? Though land reform can be essential for rural growth and poverty alleviation, it does not seem to have lived up to its potential Production, yields, services declined, unemployment increased – did land reform contribute to this?

4. Four case studies Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Moldova How did reforms affect farm performance and rural well-being between farm types and across countries? Farm performance measured by growth in yields, productivity, and profitability Well-being measured by subjective perceptions

5. Sources of information and data Primary – Household surveys – Farm enterprise surveys – Focus groups – Key informant interviews – Semi-structured interviews Secondary – Literature review – Official statistics – Data from other surveys and studies

6. Overview of presentation Selected comparative results – Agricultural production and land reform – Enabling environment for agriculture – Economic performance – Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural services – Households’ acceptance of land reform – Gender findings Policy implications

7. Overview of presentation Selected comparative results – Agricultural production and land reform – Enabling environment for agriculture – Economic performance – Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural services – Households’ acceptance of land reform – Gender findings Policy implications

8. Land reform not the reason for agricultural decline in the 1990s In all four countries, agricultural production and productivity began to – fall before land reform – grow after land reform

9. Moldova

10. Azerbaijan

11. Good enabling environment yet to be established in CIS countries

12. Yield and area growth drives recovery in Azerbaijan

13. Crop yield growth drives recovery in Kazakhstan

14. Crop yield and area growth drive recovery in Moldova

15. Individual farm crop yields equal to or higher in all CIS (official stats) 199019952002 Moldova Individual farms504233 Corporate farms463533 Azerbaijan Individual farms543841 Corporate farms271520 Kazakhstan Individual farms31920 Corporate farms13510

16. TFP and land productivity greater in family farms from sample NTFPLabor productivity Land productivity Moldova Family farms1765.99.910.8 Corporate farms241.716.73.3 Azerbaijan Family farms652.37,8031,762 Corporate farms1513,692840 Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.

17. TFP and land productivity greater in family farms from sample NTFPLabor productivity Land productivity Kazakhstan Family farms1784.468360 Corporate farms222.7144644 Bulgaria Family farms233.19.13.4 Corporate farms346.234.30.5 Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.

18. Rural HH subjective well-being: MD better than BG, but not as high as AZ or KZ BulgariaAzerbaijanKazakhMoldova Today Good6143114 Bad69212035 3 yr. change Better10183629 Worse3642723 Percent of households

19. High portion of income from farming in Moldova and Azerbaijan Portion of family income from agriculture

20. Rural public services deterioration worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD, KZ 1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available. 2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms. AzerbaijanMoldova Present level of household satisfaction 1) with service Before 2 TodayBefore 2 Today Electricity84.143.77379.0 Gas18.43.535.737.7 Drinking water68.966.742.538.6 Telephone25.830.235.450.8

21. Rural public services deterioration worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD, KZ 1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available. 2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms. KazakhstanBulgaria Present level of household satisfaction 1) with service Before 2 ) TodayBefore 2) Today Electricity68.186.291.971.6 Gas65.278.530.633.4 Drinking water7072.689.675.7 Telephone48.255.079.665.3

22. Land allocation resulting from land reforms is least widely accepted in Moldova % Percentage of households perceiving land allocation as fair

23. Land legislation is gender neutral but access to information, resources and power seems to disadvantage women In all four countries, female headed households – Use less land – Have lower perceived well-being – Rent out more land Qualitative interviews suggest that in all countries women as compared to men have – Less access to information and legal resources – Less access to agricultural equipment – More household responsibilities

24. Overview of presentation Selected comparative results – Agricultural production and land reform – Enabling environment for agriculture – Economic performance – Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural services – Households’ acceptance of land reform – Gender findings Policy implications

25. Implications for policy Ag production stable or grows after robust land reforms in MD, BG, AZ. This suggests that these reforms were beneficial. In CIS countries, individual sector yields equal to or higher than those in corporate farms. Land reform alone not sufficient to ensure better farm performance or better well being