EVELIN JÜRGENSON

VIIS VIIMAST KAITSMIST

TIIA DRENKHAN INTERACTION BETWEEN LARGE PINE WEEVIL (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS L.) PATHOGENIC AND SAPROTROPHIC FUNGI AND VIRUSES HARILIKU MÄNNIKÄRSAKA (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS L.) SEOS PATOGEENSETE JA SAPROTROOFSETE SEENTE NING VIIRUSTEGA Dotsent Kaljo Voolma, dotsent Ivar Sibul, Risto Aarne Olavi Kasanen (Helsingi Ülikool, Soome)

19. juuni 2017 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT, SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION PLOT AND LAND FRAGMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORM IN :THE LAND

SEYED MAHYAR MIRMAJLESSI ASSESSMENT OF VERTICILLIUM DAHLIAE KLEB. AND SOIL FUNGAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH STRAWBERRY FIELDS MULLA PATOGEENI VERTICILLIUM DAHLIAE KLEB. JA MULLA SEENEKOOSLUSTE ISELOOMUSTAMINE MAASIKAPÕLDUDEL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA: Vanemteadur Evelin Loit, professor Marika Mänd INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT, SPEED OF 20. juuni 2017 IMPLEMENTATION AND LAND PLOT FRAGMENTATION PILLE MEINSON HIGH-FREQUENCY MEASUREMENTS-A NEW APPROACH IN LIMNOLOGY PIDEVMÕÕTMISED-UUS LÄHENEMINE LIMNOLOOGIAS Juhtivteadur Peeter Nõges, teadur Alo Laas MAAREFORMI ELLUVIIMINE EESTIS: INSTITUTSIONAALNE 5. september 2017 KORRALDUS, ELLUVIIMISE KIIRUS JA MAADE TÜKELDATUS

RAIVO KALLE CHANGE IN ESTONIAN NATURAL RESOURCE USE: THE CASE OF WILD FOOD PLANTS EESTI LOODUSLIKE RESSURSSIDE KASUTAMISE MUUTUS: LOODUSLIKE TOIDUTAIMEDE NÄITEL Professor Tiiu Kull, Dr Renata Sõukand, Dr Rajindra K Puri (Kenti Ülikool, Suurbritannia) EVELIN JÜRGENSON 5. september 2017

REIMO LUTTER GROWTH DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGY OF MIDTERM HYBRID ASPEN AND SILVER BIRCH PLANTATIONS ON FORMER AGRICULTURAL LANDS KESKEALISTE HÜBRIIDHAAVA- JA ARUKASEISTANDIKE KASVUKÄIK JA A Thesis ÖKOLOOGIA ENDISTEL PÕLLUMAJANDUSMAADEL for applying the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering Sciences Professor Hardi Tullus, vanemteadur Arvo Tullus ( Ülikool) 15. september 2017 Väitekiri ISSN 2382-7076 filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks tehnikateaduse erialal ISBN 978-9949-569-96-0 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-569-97-7 (pdf)

Trükitud taastoodetud paberile looduslike trükivärvidega © Kuma Print Tartu 2017 Eesti Maaülikooli doktoritööd

Doctoral Thesis of the Estonian University of Life Sciences

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND

REFORM IN ESTONIA: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT, SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION AND LAND PLOT GROWTH DEVELOPMENTFRAGMENTATION AND ECOLOGY OF MIDTERM HYBRID ASPEN AND SILVER BIRCH PLANTATIONS ON FORMER AGRICULTURAL LANDS

MAAREFORMI ELLUVIIMI NE EESTIS: KESKEALISTEINSTITUTSIONAALNE HÜBRIIDHAAVA- JA KO ARUKASEISTANDIKERRALDUS, KASVUKÄIKELLUVIIMISE NING KIIRUSÖKOLOOGIA JA MAADE ENDISTEL PÕLLUMAJANDUSMAADELTÜKELDATUS

EVELIN JÜRGENSON REIMO LUTTER

A Thesis for applying thefor thedegree degree of Doctor of Doctor of Philosophy of Philosophy in Engineering in Forestry Sciences

Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks metsanduse erialal

Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks tehnikateaduse erialal

Tartu 2017

Tartu 2017

Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering Estonian University of Life Sciences

According to verdict No 6-14/12-3 of June 22, 2017, the PhD Committee for Engineering Science of the Estonian University of Life Sciences has accepted this thesis for the defence of Degree of Doctoral of Philosophy in Engineering Sciences.

Opponents: Juhana Hiironen, PhD Department of Built Environment Aalto University

Prof. Velta Parsova, PhD Department of Land Management and Geodesy Latvia University of Agriculture

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Siim Maasikamäe, PhD Department of Geomatics Estonian University of Life Sciences

Defence of this thesis: Estonian University of Life Sciences, room 1A5, Kreutzwaldi 5, Tartu on October 27, 2017 at 12.00.

The English in the current thesis was revised by Marguerite Oetjen and the Estonian by Külli Kolde.

Publication of the thesis is supported by Estonian University of Life Sciences.

Evelin Jürgenson, 2017 ISSN 2382-7076 ISBN 978-9949-569-96-0 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-569-97-7 (pdf)

CONTENTS Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering Estonian University of Life Sciences LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS...... 7 INTRODUCTION...... 8 According to verdict No 6-14/12-3 of June 22, 2017, the PhD 1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 11 Committee for Engineering Science of the Estonian University of Life Sciences has accepted this thesis for the defence of Degree of Doctoral 1.1. The concept of land reform...... 11 of Philosophy in Engineering Sciences. 1.2. Land reform implementation in Central and Eastern European countries...... 14 1.3. Historical overview (pre-1990s) of land reforms in Estonia. 18 Opponents: Juhana Hiironen, PhD 1.4. Implementation of the land reform in Estonia post-1991..... 22 Department of Built Environment 1.5. Land reform implementation and land fragmentation...... 26 Aalto University 2. AIMS OF THE STUDY...... 30

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS...... 32 Prof. Velta Parsova, PhD 3.1. Study areas...... 32 Department of Land Management and Geodesy 3.2. Methods used...... 37 Latvia University of Agriculture 3.3. Data...... 44 4. RESULTS...... 48 Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Siim Maasikamäe, PhD 4.1. Institutional arrangements for the implementation of the Department of Geomatics land reform in Estonia...... 48 Estonian University of Life Sciences 4.2. The outcome of the land reform implementation on state level...... 53

4.3. Speed of the implementation of land reform on the level Defence of this thesis: Estonian University of Life Sciences, room 1A5, of and ...... 62 Kreutzwaldi 5, Tartu on October 27, 2017 at 12.00. 4.4. Case study for municipalities in the of Tartu according to the implementation of the land reform...... 69 The English in the current thesis was revised by Marguerite Oetjen and 4.4.1. Land use and the results of the land reform in four the Estonian by Külli Kolde. quick and four slow municipalities in the county of Publication of the thesis is supported by Estonian University of Life Tartu...... 70 Sciences. 4.4.2. The land reform implementation in three quick and three slow municipalities in the county of Tartu...... 75 4.4.3. Overview of the unreformed land plots in the Evelin Jürgenson, 2017 of in 2009...... 80 ISSN 2382-7076 4.5. Model of the implementation of land reform ISBN 978-9949-569-96-0 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-569-97-7 (pdf) in Estonia...... 81 4.6. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the implementation of the land reform...... 88 5

5. DISCUSSION...... 93 5.1. Institutional arrangement for implementation of the land reform and outcome of land reform...... 93 5.2. Speed and model of the implementation of land reform in Estonia...... 97 5.3. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the implementation of the land reform...... 104 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 110 REFERENCES...... 117 SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN...... 126 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 133 ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS...... 135 CURRICULUM VITAE...... 180 ELULOOKIRJELDUS...... 184 LIST OF PUBLICATION...... 188

6 LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS

The present thesis is based on the following publications, which are referred to by Roman numerals. The papers are reproduced with the kind permissions of the publishers.

I Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S. 2009. Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities – Results of Preliminary Study. In Rural Development 2009 (Vol. 4, pp. 121-127). Kaunas: Lithuanian University of Agriculture.

II Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S. 2010. The Impact of Land Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Municipalities. VAGOS, 86, 65-70.

III Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S. 2011. Land Reform Implementation in Estonia: Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics between Municipali- ties. In Rural Development 2011 (pp. 440-445).

IV Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E. 2014. The Typology of Property Formation in Course of Land Reform in Estonia. In Research for Rural Development 2014 (Vol. 2, pp. 283-288). Jelgava: Latvia University of Agriculture.

V Jürgenson, E. 2016. Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land consolidation in Estonia. Land Use Policy 57, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.030.

Contributions of the authors to the papers was as follows: Original idea Data Data Preparation of Paper and structure collection analysis the manuscript I EJ, SM EJ EJ, SM EJ, SM II EJ, SM EJ SM EJ, HH, SM III EJ EJ EJ, HH EJ, HH, SM IV SM SM EJ, SM EJ, SM V EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ–Evelin Jürgenson; HH–Helena Hass; SM–Siim Maasikamäe

7 7

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of land reform has existed over the centuries in many countries. Properly understanding the concept depends upon what activity we call land reform. It could mean radical change in land relations, for instance, land nationalisation: ownership belonged to private persons but the state takes over ownership. It could be the opposite: state land ownership is given over to private hands. Sometimes, land consolidation is referred to as land reform as well. During land consolidation, only land borders are reshaped, without affecting ownership. The process of land reform can vary: land nationalisation, land restitution, land privatisation, etc. Therefore, the concept of land reform can be confusing without knowledge of specific activities.

Central and Eastern European countries, including Estonia, have faced remarkable socio-economic changes since obtaining independence in the 1990s. One priority for many countries was the implementation of land reform. The objectives and results have varied. Even the Baltic countries, despite similar history, have implemented land reform differently, accenting different aspects of reform. Estonia has chosen a complex process, implementing various activities all at one time and involving a wide range of entitled persons.

Implementation of land reform in Estonia, which is nearing completion, has been an essential step toward achieving secure land ownership; it is not possible to reverse this process and repair the mistakes. Further, implementation of the land reform does not mean the end of land governance: several issues still require attention and control. Study of the governance of the process of land reform allows the formulation of essential implications and can promote better understanding of the process. In turn, better understanding of the process could help in countries (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, etc.) that are considering the implementation of land reform.

This study focuses on the issues concerning the post-1990s land reform in Estonia. Firstly, the institutional arrangement for the implementation of land reform is analyzed. Secondly, the speed of implementation of the land reform on the municipality level is addressed, focusing primarily on rural municipalities. Conditions of the implementation of land reform,

8 8

INTRODUCTION as well as regulations that affect it, have been different in rural and urban areas. Rural municipalities cover a larger portion of the landscape, thus The phenomenon of land reform has existed over the centuries in many they reflect the situation for greater part of Estonia. Thirdly, land countries. Properly understanding the concept depends upon what fragmentation on the plot level as a result of the implementation on the activity we call land reform. It could mean radical change in land land reform is introduced. The few published materials about Estonian relations, for instance, land nationalisation: ownership belonged to land reform have been scattered so far. This study of the implementation private persons but the state takes over ownership. It could be the of land reform in Estonia offers a comprehensive approach. opposite: state land ownership is given over to private hands. Sometimes, land consolidation is referred to as land reform as well. The author has been working in the field of land reform for a number During land consolidation, only land borders are reshaped, without of years. She started in 1995 in small town government where her main affecting ownership. The process of land reform can vary: land task was implementation of land reform. In 2000, she moved on to the nationalisation, land restitution, land privatisation, etc. Therefore, the state authority, continuing to work on implementation of land reform concept of land reform can be confusing without knowledge of specific until 2016. The practical experience is valuable to understand and give activities. sense to the implementation of land reform in Estonia; the process has been quite complicated and complex. Central and Eastern European countries, including Estonia, have faced remarkable socio-economic changes since obtaining independence in The majority of the results summarized in this thesis have already been the 1990s. One priority for many countries was the implementation of published in pre-reviewed scientific journals or proceedings (cf. Papers land reform. The objectives and results have varied. Even the Baltic I-V). This thesis refers to the summarized papers when appropriate. countries, despite similar history, have implemented land reform However, the present thesis includes many complementary details that differently, accenting different aspects of reform. Estonia has chosen a were not included in the publications, mostly due to limits of length of complex process, implementing various activities all at one time and the publication set by publishers. These details may be useful, since they involving a wide range of entitled persons. support the achieved results and may enhance understanding of different aspects of the study. Implementation of land reform in Estonia, which is nearing completion, has been an essential step toward achieving secure land ownership; it is The thesis consists of six chapters, 28 figures and 27 tables. An overview not possible to reverse this process and repair the mistakes. Further, of the content of chapters follows. implementation of the land reform does not mean the end of land governance: several issues still require attention and control. Study of Chapter 1 addresses the concept of the land reform. The meaning of the governance of the process of land reform allows the formulation of land reform can vary, thus an overview is given. Also addressed, a essential implications and can promote better understanding of the different approach to land reform which evolved in Central and Eastern process. In turn, better understanding of the process could help in European countries: specifically, the chapter includes a more detailed countries (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, etc.) that are considering the review of the implementation of the land reform in Latvia and Lithuania. implementation of land reform. The historical overview of land reform in Estonia describes the process that took place before the present land reform (pre-1990s), followed by This study focuses on the issues concerning the post-1990s land reform addressing the recent approach to Estonian land reform. The last section in Estonia. Firstly, the institutional arrangement for the implementation treats the land fragmentation issues caused by the implementation of of land reform is analyzed. Secondly, the speed of implementation of the land reform. land reform on the municipality level is addressed, focusing primarily on rural municipalities. Conditions of the implementation of land reform,

8 9 9

Chapter 2 states the main aims of the present study and recapitulates related research topics for achieving the aims.

Chapter 3 gives an overview of the used materials and methods. The present thesis is based largely on the results of the papers I-V; the summary of used material and methods is given here.

Chapter 4 describes the results of the study. The first section deals with the institutional arrangement for the implementation of the land reform in Estonia. The second section presents the outcome of the land reform implementation at the state level. The vast part of the work has been done by municipalities located within counties. The discussion of land reform implementation on the municipal level has been complemented with case studies of quick and slow municipalities from the county of Tartu. Results are presented: the focus is on land fragmentation on the plot level.

Chapter 5 contains a discussion of this study. Firstly, the institutional arrangement for the implementation of land reform is argued. The aims, approaches and outcomes of land reform are addressed. Secondly, the speed of the implementation of land reform on the municipal level is treated, as municipalities have been important actors in relation to the implementation of the process. The scheme of the implementation of land reform is presented and the reason for the slack in implementation of land reform is brought out. Thirdly, the circumstances that caused the land fragmentation on the plot level are introduced.

Chapter 6 contains a general summary of this study, pointing out the most important results, problems and recommendations for the future of land administration and governance, and for the development of policy for land issues.

10 10

Chapter 2 states the main aims of the present study and recapitulates 1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE related research topics for achieving the aims. 1.1. The concept of land reform Chapter 3 gives an overview of the used materials and methods. The present thesis is based largely on the results of the papers I-V; the Land reform is a complex issue (Powelson, 1987) and can vary with summary of used material and methods is given here. region and state. A number of authors (Adams, 2000, 1995; El- Ghonemy, 2003; Sikor and Müller, 2009) have presented concepts of Chapter 4 describes the results of the study. The first section deals with land reform carried out at various times in various places. Defining the the institutional arrangement for the implementation of the land reform concept of land reform in a universal way is somewhat complicated. in Estonia. The second section presents the outcome of the land reform However, the following definitions are in use: implementation at the state level. The vast part of the work has been  Encyclopaedia Britannica (Tuma, 2012): “Land reform, a done by municipalities located within counties. The discussion of land purposive change in the way in which agricultural land is held or owned, the reform implementation on the municipal level has been complemented methods of cultivation that are employed, or the relation of agriculture to the with case studies of quick and slow municipalities from the county of rest of the economy. Reforms such as these may be proclaimed by a Tartu. Results are presented: the focus is on land fragmentation on the government, by interested groups, or by revolution. Historically, land reform plot level. meant reform of the tenure system or redistribution of the land ownership rights. In recent decades the concept has been broadened in recognition of the Chapter 5 contains a discussion of this study. Firstly, the institutional strategic role of land and agriculture in development. Reform is usually arrangement for the implementation of land reform is argued. The aims, introduced by government initiative or in response to internal and external approaches and outcomes of land reform are addressed. Secondly, the pressures, to resolve or prevent an economic, social, or political crisis.“ speed of the implementation of land reform on the municipal level is  FAO (2003):“Land reform – is the generic term for modification in the treated, as municipalities have been important actors in relation to the legal and institutional framework governing land policy. Land reform is implementation of the process. The scheme of the implementation of intended to implement changes in land policy, economic and social land reform is presented and the reason for the slack in implementation environment. The most common types of land reform are probably those of land reform is brought out. Thirdly, the circumstances that caused the dealing with reallocations of land and those redistributing legal rights of land fragmentation on the plot level are introduced. ownership. Land reform is invariably a part of agrarian reform.”  Land reform Chapter 6 contains a general summary of this study, pointing out the Adams (2000): “ is generally accepted to mean the most important results, problems and recommendations for the future redistribution and/or confirmation of rights in land for the benefit of the of land administration and governance, and for the development of poor”. policy for land issues. Land reform may include multiple interventions. The World Bank (2005) lists a number of possibilities:  individualization or privatization of land rights;  formal recognition of rights based on occupation and use;  conversion of rights from one legal system to another;  introduction of a land registration system or conversion of the documentation of rights from one form of registration to another;  introduction or strengthening of land valuation and taxation system;

10 11 11

 development or enhancement of land use planning and regulation, including land consolidation and reordering;  development or enhancement of dispute resolution systems;  changes in organisational structure and/or procedures.

Accordingly, the meaning and content of the land reform can vary depending upon circumstances. Nichols (1993) has visualised examples of the types of land reforms (cf. Figure 1), distinguishing land tenure reform and land use reform. Some land reform has legal/political orientation; others are legal/administrative. Incentives may be direct or indirect. One land reform process can include numerous activities.

Figure 1. A framework for land reform with examples (Nichols, 1993).

Land reform is usually initiated by the state. Adams (2000) has presented three principal types of state intervention. Firstly, legally imposed controls and prohibitions, meaning direct intervention, such as nationalisation, collectivisation, restitution and redistribution, etc. Secondly, inducements or “market-assisted” incentives afforded by the state for social and economical reasons. New property rights will be established, for instance, the privatisation of state farms and collectives, the redistribution of state-owned land, etc. Thirdly, land tenure reform that means a planned change in the terms and conditions on which land is held, used and transacted.

12 12

 development or enhancement of land use planning and regulation, including Sikor and Müller (2009) have brought out three main approaches to land land consolidation and reordering; reform which are likely to occur wherever the process is undertaken.  development or enhancement of dispute resolution systems; Firstly, redistributive land reform: redistribution of land from large  changes in organisational structure and/or procedures. landowners to landless people, tenants and smallholders. Secondly, land registration and land titling, which is currently the most common Accordingly, the meaning and content of the land reform can vary approach to land reform in Saharan Africa, for example. Thirdly, post- depending upon circumstances. Nichols (1993) has visualised examples totalitarian land distribution, the aim of which is to return land of the types of land reforms (cf. Figure 1), distinguishing land tenure ownership to previous (pre-totalitarian) owners. reform and land use reform. Some land reform has legal/political orientation; others are legal/administrative. Incentives may be direct or It is also possible to distinguish approaches of land reform according to indirect. One land reform process can include numerous activities. geographical location, as Adams (1995) has done. The major objective of land reform in Asia and the Middle East was to break up feudal estates and prevent the advance of the communist revolution. He named this approach as “land for the tiller”. Redistribution of estates is the case in Latin America, where the monopoly of land ownership stemmed from colonial rule. Redistribution of white-owned land has taken place in Africa. Finally, de-collectivisation has occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern .

Land reforms can be state- or community-led. State-led land reform is planned by the national government; it is a top-down approach that is implemented by administrative divisions through the existing bureaucratic style. Community-led land reform uses a “bottom-up” approach with the community playing an important role in arranging actual land use (Sikor and Müller, 2009). There are other classifications as well. For example, negotiated land reform is based on voluntary land transfer where buyers and sellers negotiate over the transactions Figure 1. A framework for land reform with examples (Nichols, 1993). (Deininger, 1999). Negotiated land reform is also referred to as market- friendly, market-assisted or civil society demand-driven land reform (El- Land reform is usually initiated by the state. Adams (2000) has presented Ghonemy, 1999). In academic discussions of possible approaches to three principal types of state intervention. Firstly, legally imposed land reform, it is clear that different approaches have positive and controls and prohibitions, meaning direct intervention, such as negative aspects. Further, the same approach can give various results in nationalisation, collectivisation, restitution and redistribution, etc. different circumstances (Powelson, 1987). Secondly, inducements or “market-assisted” incentives afforded by the state for social and economical reasons. New property rights will be Quite often, the term land reform signifies agrarian reform. For instance, established, for instance, the privatisation of state farms and collectives, the documents and papers from World Bank (Deininger, 2003; The the redistribution of state-owned land, etc. Thirdly, land tenure reform World Bank, 2007) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the that means a planned change in the terms and conditions on which land United Nations (FAO) (Cox et al., 2003; FAO, 2003) treat most land is held, used and transacted. reform as agrarian reform. Furthermore, many authors (Deininger and Binswanger, 1999; Dyer, 2004; Powelson, 1987) approach the land

12 13 13 reform issue from an agricultural viewpoint; similar studies have been conducted in the context of Eastern and Central European countries (Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013; Mathijs, 1997; Sabates-Wheeler, 2002; Swinnen, 1999; Swinnen and Mathijs, 1997; Unwin, 1997; van Dijk, 2007, 2003a). At the same time, the theoretical framework (approach) for handling implementation of land reform in a broader way is quite poor. Anaafo (2013) states: “…, I argue that efforts to land reform approaches are not mutually exclusive and that it is time to examine reforms in a contextualised and systemic manner.” He encourages opening up the debate to other academic and land policy researchers. Sikor and Müller (2009) support Anaafo’s position, stating that land reform is included in a range of academic and professional disciplines: agricultural economics, development studies, geography, social anthropology, and sociology. Being multidisciplinary, land reform needs collaboration by experts from diverse backgrounds while: “It seeks to help to establish a new tableau for the empirical analysis of land reform by bringing together case studies that not only originate from diverse geographical setting, but are also informed by multiple disciplinary perspectives.”

The implementation of land reform in the broader context is an intensely political matter and an extraordinarily difficult task. Most land reforms in the 20th century have occurred under extraordinary circumstances, for example, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in 1991 as part of a process of systemic change (Bell, 1990; Griffin et al., 2002). The political aspect is only one face in this complex process; additionally there are economic, social and technical interests. Therefore, it is possible to approach the related issues from different perspectives as well as to explore various aspects of the process itself.

1.2. Land reform implementation in Central and Eastern European countries

Central and Eastern European Countries have faced remarkable socio- economic changes since obtaining independence in the early 1990s (Csaki and Lerman, 2000; Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013; Unwin, 1997; van Dijk, 2007, 2003a). There was a relatively fast transition to a market economy in most of the countries in the region. A priority was carrying out land reform. Central and Eastern European countries have engaged

14 14 reform issue from an agricultural viewpoint; similar studies have been in their own styles of land reform with a mixture of objectives: economic conducted in the context of Eastern and Central European countries efficiency and the need to move to a market economy; raising revenue (Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013; Mathijs, 1997; Sabates-Wheeler, 2002; from state property; the restitution of land rights to former owners Swinnen, 1999; Swinnen and Mathijs, 1997; Unwin, 1997; van Dijk, (Adams, 2000; Swinnen, 1999; Swinnen and Mathijs, 1997). The land 2007, 2003a). At the same time, the theoretical framework (approach) reform measures were initiated and managed by the state and driven for handling implementation of land reform in a broader way is quite rather by political and economical objectives (Bell, 1990; Griffin et al., poor. Anaafo (2013) states: “…, I argue that efforts to land reform approaches 2002; Powelson, 1987). are not mutually exclusive and that it is time to examine reforms in a contextualised and systemic manner.” He encourages opening up the debate to other Land reform approaches vary widely by country (Giovarelli and Bledsoe, academic and land policy researchers. Sikor and Müller (2009) support 2001; Griffin et al., 2002; Hartvigsen, 2014a; Lerman et al., 2004; Sedik Anaafo’s position, stating that land reform is included in a range of and Lerman, 2008; Sikor and Müller, 2009; Swinnen, 1999; Swinnen and academic and professional disciplines: agricultural economics, Mathijs, 1997; Wegren, 1998), however, it is possible to indicate some development studies, geography, social anthropology, and sociology. general patterns. Countries tended to a) restore land ownership rights to Being multidisciplinary, land reform needs collaboration by experts from the former owners (or their successors) who had lost their land rights diverse backgrounds while: “It seeks to help to establish a new tableau for the during the collectivization process post-WWII, or b) distribute former empirical analysis of land reform by bringing together case studies that not only state-owned agricultural land to the rural population in equal shares originate from diverse geographical setting, but are also informed by multiple (Griffin et al., 2002; Hartvigsen, 2014a; Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997; disciplinary perspectives.” Swinnen, 2009). Often more than one approach has been applied simultaneously or subsequently in each country (Hartvigsen, 2014a). The implementation of land reform in the broader context is an intensely political matter and an extraordinarily difficult task. Most land reforms Hartvigsen (2014a, 2013) addressed the issue of land reform in the 20th century have occurred under extraordinary circumstances, for implementation in 25 countries in Central and Eastern Europe in example, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in 1991 as part of relation to the form of farm structures and land fragmentation. While a process of systemic change (Bell, 1990; Griffin et al., 2002). The the number of investigated countries was quite large, he divided the political aspect is only one face in this complex process; additionally Central and Eastern Europe countries into six groups: i) the Baltic states; there are economic, social and technical interests. Therefore, it is ii) Central Europe; iii) the Balkan countries (except former Yugoslavia); possible to approach the related issues from different perspectives as iv) the former Yugoslavia; v) the Western Commonwealth of well as to explore various aspects of the process itself. Independent States (CIS); vi) the Transcaucasian countries. The chosen land reform approaches among them have varied considerably. As Hartvigsen noted, “the political decisions were driven by considerations of equity and political justice, and yet there was a considerable variety in design of land 1.2. Land reform implementation in Central and Eastern reforms.” (Hartvigsen, 2013). European countries The land reform implementation after 1989 has not been smooth; more Central and Eastern European Countries have faced remarkable socio- than 20 years later, the status of land reform in Europe varies economic changes since obtaining independence in the early 1990s considerably (Hartvigsen, 2014a). In Eastern and Central Europe, (Csaki and Lerman, 2000; Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013; Unwin, 1997; van implementation has occurred very slowly (Griffin et al., 2002; Lerman, Dijk, 2007, 2003a). There was a relatively fast transition to a market 1999). Only five countries (Albania, Armenia, Latvia, , and economy in most of the countries in the region. A priority was carrying Slovenia) have declared that almost all the land is held under private, out land reform. Central and Eastern European countries have engaged individual tenure (Griffin et al., 2002). Most countries are still in the

14 15 15 process, and a few have still not taken any significant steps (Hartvigsen, 2014a).

The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), with their similar history, started to implement land reform at the beginning of the 1990s. All achieved independence in 1918 and land was nationalised in 1940. During the Soviet time all land was possessed by the state and agriculture was managed by collective and state farms (Astaškin, 1999a; Giovarelli and Bledsoe, 2001; Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998). Land reform began following the regaining of independence; the main political goal was compensation of the injustice generated with nationalisation. Delivering land ownership to private owners and restoration of traditional rural living were also objectives of the reform (Astaškin, 1999a).

In the early stages of land reform in Latvia, it was decided to allocate land for use only, without conferring ownership. It was further decided to separate implementation of the land reform in urban and rural areas (Astaškin, 1999b; Jürgenson et al., 2014). The first regulation was the Law on Land Reform in Rural Area, adopted in 1990, in 1991, the Law on Land Reform in Urban Area, Law on Land Use and Land Survey were adopted. Later on, it was decided to allow ownership of land, as well, therefore the Law on Privatisation of the Land Reform in the rural area was adopted in 1992. The Law on State and Municipal Land Property Rights and its Strengthening in the Land Register was added in 1995 (Jürgenson et al., 2014).

A number of institutions implemented land reform in Latvia. The preliminary work was managed on the level, however, decisions were made by land commissions. The State Land Service has been responsible for carrying out the land reform on the state level (Astaškin, 1999b; Jürgenson et al., 2014; Paršova, 2016).

The objective of the land reform according to the Law on Land Reform in the Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia (Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia, 1990): “is to reorganise the legal, social and economic relationships of land property and the use of land in the countryside during a gradual privatisation in order to promote the renewal of the traditional rural lifestyle of Latvia, to ensure the economic use and protection of natural and other resources, preservation and raising of soil fertility, increase of qualitative agricultural product production.”

16 16 process, and a few have still not taken any significant steps (Hartvigsen, Land reform was implemented in two stages in Latvia: i) 1990-1996; ii) 2014a). 10-15 years beginning on 1.01.1993. In the first stage, land commissions formed on the municipal level made decisions on the basis of the The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), with their similar applications. Land survey projects were formed: land plots were history, started to implement land reform at the beginning of the 1990s. surveyed to determine accuracy of plot borders, and were finally given All achieved independence in 1918 and land was nationalised in 1940. to the current legal landowners (Astaškin, 1999b; Auzins, 2003). During the Soviet time all land was possessed by the state and agriculture was managed by collective and state farms (Astaškin, 1999a; Giovarelli The first stage of Latvian land reform was completed in 1997. Therefore, and Bledsoe, 2001; Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998). Land reform the Law on Completion of the Land Reform in Rural Area was passed in 1997 began following the regaining of independence; the main political goal and the Law on Completion of the Land Reform in Urban Area in 1998 was compensation of the injustice generated with nationalisation. (Jürgenson et al., 2014). By 1998, 96% of the rural area was given for use Delivering land ownership to private owners and restoration of to individuals or legal persons, meaning that 85% of the area had been traditional rural living were also objectives of the reform (Astaškin, redistributed; by the end of the year, 85% of the rural areas were 1999a). registered in the land cadastre according to the land surveying projects. Land commissions completed their work after land plots were marked In the early stages of land reform in Latvia, it was decided to allocate in the fields. Later, the second stage of land reform was undertaken land for use only, without conferring ownership. It was further decided (Astaškin, 1999b). to separate implementation of the land reform in urban and rural areas (Astaškin, 1999b; Jürgenson et al., 2014). The first regulation was the Paršova, (2016) pointed out the positive and negative aspects of the Law on Land Reform in Rural Area, adopted in 1990, in 1991, the Law on implementation of land reform in Latvia. The positive: a great part of Land Reform in Urban Area, Law on Land Use and Land Survey were the land went over to private persons, which created possibilities for free adopted. Later on, it was decided to allow ownership of land, as well, entrepreneurship. Negative: it is said that previous land plots were therefore the Law on Privatisation of the Land Reform in the rural area was divided among the heirs, which has resulted in land fragmentation and adopted in 1992. The Law on State and Municipal Land Property Rights and one peculiarity: divided ownership. It means that separate persons can its Strengthening in the Land Register was added in 1995 (Jürgenson et al., own a land parcel, a building on this land, and a flat within this building 2014). (Auzins, 2004). Another factor is that farmland is concentrated in the hands of large agricultural producers, reducing the number of small A number of institutions implemented land reform in Latvia. The farms. preliminary work was managed on the local government level, however, decisions were made by land commissions. The State Land Service has The main regulations in Lithuania concerning the land reform are the been responsible for carrying out the land reform on the state level Law on Land Reform and Law on the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration (Astaškin, 1999b; Jürgenson et al., 2014; Paršova, 2016). of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property (Daugaliene, 2004). These were both adopted in 1991 (Jürgenson et al., 2014), with an aim The objective of the land reform according to the Law on Land Reform in to achieve restitution of previously owned land that was nationalized in the Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia (Supreme Council of the Republic 1940 (Aleknavičius, 2016; Daugaliene, 2004). of Latvia, 1990): “is to reorganise the legal, social and economic relationships of land property and the use of land in the countryside during a gradual privatisation in Land reform in Lithuania was implemented according to the land reform order to promote the renewal of the traditional rural lifestyle of Latvia, to ensure the plans and involved several institutions. The County Governor economic use and protection of natural and other resources, preservation and raising Administration was the main responsible body until 2010, but was of soil fertility, increase of qualitative agricultural product production.” abolished in 2010 (Aleknavičius, 2016). The National Land Service,

16 17 17 which has branch offices in the districts (Jürgenson et al., 2014) then took over administrative duties. Land surveyors also have been important actors in the implementation of land reform. At first, the only land surveyors in Lithuania were civil servants; since 1997, there are private land surveying firms as well.

Aleknavičius (2016) pointed out the problems involved in the implementation of land reform, noting, firstly, that the priority in the process of the land reform in Lithuania was driven by political and legal aspects rather than economic motives. Secondly, he identified the problem caused by frequent and fundamental legal changes in land reform policy. For instance, a user can privatise land, however, after a change of law the previous owner has priority against the current user. Thirdly, he mentioned political intervention into the administration of land reform: e.g. changes of head officers related to land management. Fourthly, the issue of rational land use and enlargement of farms is under discussion in Lithuania as well. Gaudėšius (2011) has pointed out that Lithuania has implemented a second wave of land reform through sustainable land consolidation.

1.3. Historical overview (pre-1990s) of land reforms in Estonia

There have been a number of land reforms over the centuries in Estonia (Grubbström, 2011; Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Hedin, 2005; Jörgensen et al., 2010; Lapping, 1993; Maandi, 2010, 2009; Roosenberg, 2013; Virma, 2004). Disregarding older historical detail, this part of the thesis covers land ownership issues before the first independence (pre- 1919), as well as land reform which started in 1919 and shortly after the nationalization period (post-1940). The land reform carried out from 1919-1926 after Estonia became independent following WWI had significant impact on the recent land reform initiated after Estonia regained its independence in 1991 (Aasmäe, 1999; Lapping, 1993; Virma, 2004).

Before 1919, land ownership issues were critical in Estonia. Serfdom was abolished with the peasant’s laws adopted in 1816 and 1819. However, nearly all land in the rural areas remained with owners of the manors, mostly . The Peasant’s Law in 1849 and 1856

18 18 which has branch offices in the districts (Jürgenson et al., 2014) then allowed peasants to buy land. However, in 1918, most agricultural land took over administrative duties. Land surveyors also have been still belonged to the manor owners (Maandi, 2009; Pool, 1926; Riigi important actors in the implementation of land reform. At first, the only Statistika Keskbüroo, 1923; Roosenberg, 2013; Virma, 2004). land surveyors in Lithuania were civil servants; since 1997, there are private land surveying firms as well. Historically in Estonia, objective and subjective occasions for radical reorganising the land issues were developed. The peasants keenly desired Aleknavičius (2016) pointed out the problems involved in the land ownership. 58% of the agricultural land belonged to the manors, of implementation of land reform, noting, firstly, that the priority in the which there were 1,149; their average size was more than 2,000 hectares process of the land reform in Lithuania was driven by political and legal (cf. Table 1). At the same time, small farmers owned 42% of the aspects rather than economic motives. Secondly, he identified the agricultural land, numbering more than 50,000; the average size was problem caused by frequent and fundamental legal changes in land approximately 34 hectares. Division of land ownership between social reform policy. For instance, a user can privatise land, however, after a classes was very uneven; solving it was vital for peasants. Only a few change of law the previous owner has priority against the current user. European countries had such a large share of land use by big landowners Thirdly, he mentioned political intervention into the administration of (Pool, 1926; Roosenberg, 2013; Virma, 2004). land reform: e.g. changes of head officers related to land management. Fourthly, the issue of rational land use and enlargement of farms is under Table 1. Land ownership division between manors and small farms in 1918. discussion in Lithuania as well. Gaudėšius (2011) has pointed out that Manors Small Lithuania has implemented a second wave of land reform through Indicator farms sustainable land consolidation. Households Number 1,149 51,640 Average area of holding (hectares) 2,113 34 Total land area Hectares 2,428,000 1,761,000 Percentage 58 42 Source: Virma, 2004 1.3. Historical overview (pre-1990s) of land reforms in Estonia Along with the social-economic conflict, there was national-political There have been a number of land reforms over the centuries in Estonia contradiction as well. Manor owners were mostly Baltic Germans; the (Grubbström, 2011; Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Hedin, 2005; small farm owners, . Political power at the level of province, Jörgensen et al., 2010; Lapping, 1993; Maandi, 2010, 2009; Roosenberg, county and parish was also in the hands of Baltic Germans. Estonians 2013; Virma, 2004). Disregarding older historical detail, this part of the were involved only on the lowest commune level (Pool, 1926; thesis covers land ownership issues before the first independence (pre- Roosenberg, 2013). The preconditions for the implementation of land 1919), as well as land reform which started in 1919 and shortly after the reform in 1919 were established. Firstly, with growing awareness of nationalization period (post-1940). The land reform carried out from national justice issues, people requested obtaining land from manors: 1919-1926 after Estonia became independent following WWI had that meant expropriation of the manor’s land ownership. Secondly, there significant impact on the recent land reform initiated after Estonia was economical readiness. The peasants’ farms were strong enough to regained its independence in 1991 (Aasmäe, 1999; Lapping, 1993; Virma, take over agricultural production (the reform did not lead to economic 2004). crash). Thirdly, there were organisational preconditions. Estonians had effectively developed cooperative social associations, as a result of Before 1919, land ownership issues were critical in Estonia. Serfdom radical land reform that had been carried out at the beginning of was abolished with the peasant’s laws adopted in 1816 and 1819. Estonian independence. The land reform was more radical than was However, nearly all land in the rural areas remained with owners of the planned, sometimes approaching actual agrarian reform. The peculiarity manors, mostly Baltic Germans. The Peasant’s Law in 1849 and 1856 of reform was the elimination or reduction the large farm operations

18 19 19 being replaced with small-farming (Paavle, 2010; Pool, 1926; Roosenberg, 2013).

The Land Act was passed on October 10, 1919. It formed the basis for expropriation of landed properties, which had mostly belonged to the Baltic German nobility, leaving them just over 50 ha each. No compensation was initially paid for the expropriated land. This issue was solved in 1925, when it was decided to compensate, however, at lower rates than the market value (Paavle, 2010; Virma, 2004).

According to the Land Act, 1,065, landed properties with a total area of 2,346,494 hectares, amounting to 96.6% of large estates, were expropriated. In 1919, the larger share was transferred to the state: 1,142,043 hectares of forest areas and marshlands remained under state ownership. Therefore, only a smaller part (663 699 hectares) was divided among small farmers. The land was primarily given to those who had participated in the War of Independence (1918-1920), to set up viable smallholdings. It was possible to take land as leased land for an unlimited time, it was inheritable, and/or could be purchased within the next 60 years (Lapping, 1993; Paavle, 2010; Pool, 1926; Virma, 2004).

At the beginning of the land reform there was serious uncertainty and fear among these who adopted and implemented the legislation. They worried about its economical effectiveness. By the mid-1920s it became obvious that the feared negative impact, including economic recession, had remained smaller than predicted (Pool, 1926; Roosenberg, 2013). Factually, the sown area and number of livestock increased, according to the statistics (Pool, 1926). In time, it was possible to export products to Germany, and England (Kõll, 1994).

After the land reform (1919–1926), many people argued that land plots had become scattered and did not meet the conditions necessary for effective agricultural production (Pool, 1926; Spuul, 1935). The next step was to conduct land consolidation. The Land Consolidation Act was adopted in Estonia in 1926; it formed the basis for the organization of private land and regulated the exchange of state and private land. The Land Consolidation Act was amended in 1937, but the content remained largely the same. Via the legal basis contained in these land consolidation acts, a total of 23,741 farms were consolidated—a total area of 475,595 hectares—between 1926 and 1940 (Virma, 2004). The project stopped,

20 20 being replaced with small-farming (Paavle, 2010; Pool, 1926; owing to the outbreak of WWII and the occupation of Estonia by Nazi Roosenberg, 2013). Germany and subsequently the Soviet Union.

The Land Act was passed on October 10, 1919. It formed the basis for However, most farms (more than 100,000) were not included in the land expropriation of landed properties, which had mostly belonged to the consolidation process (Aasmäe, 1999; Virma, 2004). The land use con- Baltic German nobility, leaving them just over 50 ha each. No ditions of the farms were often not optimal. In 1939, 139,984 farms con- compensation was initially paid for the expropriated land. This issue was sisted of 335,282 land plots (an average of 2.4 plots per farm). The ave- solved in 1925, when it was decided to compensate, however, at lower rage size of a farm was little more than 20 hectares and the average area rates than the market value (Paavle, 2010; Virma, 2004). of arable land only eight hectares per farm. Numerous farms consisted of more than five plots, but some were 20 to 50 meters wide and a kilo- According to the Land Act, 1,065, landed properties with a total area of metre or more long, i.e. the shape of plots was often not rational for 2,346,494 hectares, amounting to 96.6% of large estates, were farming (Aasmäe, 1999; Kuddo, 1996; Virma, 2004). Farm size was not expropriated. In 1919, the larger share was transferred to the state: homogeneous; it varied from one to 1,003 hectares and the situation was 1,142,043 hectares of forest areas and marshlands remained under state inconsistent in different areas. The smaller farms were situated in South- ownership. Therefore, only a smaller part (663 699 hectares) was divided East Estonia; the bigger farms were in the county of and Pärnu among small farmers. The land was primarily given to those who had (Virma, 2004). participated in the War of Independence (1918-1920), to set up viable smallholdings. It was possible to take land as leased land for an unlimited The Soviet annexation of Estonia in 1940 resulted in the nationaliza- time, it was inheritable, and/or could be purchased within the next 60 tion of all privately owned land (Kuddo, 1996; Maandi, 2009; Paavle, years (Lapping, 1993; Paavle, 2010; Pool, 1926; Virma, 2004). 2010; Virma, 2004). The new government started to re-organise the eco- nomic and political system according to the Soviet system. Farmers were At the beginning of the land reform there was serious uncertainty and allowed to keep a maximum of 30 hectares of land. The rest was exprop- fear among these who adopted and implemented the legislation. They riated without compensation and turned to the state land fund (reserve), worried about its economical effectiveness. By the mid-1920s it became offering land for rent to the landless peasants (Kuddo, 1996; Maandi, obvious that the feared negative impact, including economic recession, 2009; Virma, 2004). This kind of re-organisation was essential to demo- had remained smaller than predicted (Pool, 1926; Roosenberg, 2013). lish “kulak-capitalist” - or richer peasant - landownership (Maandi, Factually, the sown area and number of livestock increased, according 2009). to the statistics (Pool, 1926). In time, it was possible to export products to Germany, Denmark and England (Kõll, 1994). The Soviet occupation was replaced with German occupation in Esto- nian territory in 1941. Germany abolished all Soviet regulations and app- After the land reform (1919–1926), many people argued that land plots roved those of the Germans. However, the German occupation lasted had become scattered and did not meet the conditions necessary for only three years, meaning that implementation of Soviet regulations was effective agricultural production (Pool, 1926; Spuul, 1935). The next step only interrupted. After the Soviet regime recovered control in 1944, the was to conduct land consolidation. The Land Consolidation Act was implementation of redistribution continued (Maandi, 2009; Virma, adopted in Estonia in 1926; it formed the basis for the organization of 2004). private land and regulated the exchange of state and private land. The Land Consolidation Act was amended in 1937, but the content remained The main collectivisation period started in 1945 with neighbouring largely the same. Via the legal basis contained in these land consolidation households forced to unify their production activities as collective farms. acts, a total of 23,741 farms were consolidated—a total area of 475,595 At the same time, state farms were also created. The level of the produc- hectares—between 1926 and 1940 (Virma, 2004). The project stopped, tion had decreased during the war and agricultural production did not

20 21 21 recover after the war as quickly as predicted. The establishment of col- lective farms on a voluntary basis was quite slow in Estonia, and by 1949, political pressure to increase the number of kolkhozes increased. Many kolkhozes were created that year, not due to the pressure, but simply out of fear: many families had already been identified by the Soviet govern- ment as kulaks and had been carried away to Siberia. By 1950, most of the collective and state farms had already been founded. The reorgani- zation of collective and state farms continued until the 1990s (Kuddo, 1996; Maandi, 2009; Virma, 2004). In 1990, the last Soviet year, there were 206 collective farms with an average area of 7.342 hectares. The number of state farms was 119; their average area was 7.081 hectares (Virma, 2004).

1.4. Implementation of the land reform in Estonia post-1991

A new period began in 1991 with the regaining of independence, which also meant changes in land relations. Before 1991, land belonged to the state and the concept of real properties did not exist. It was decided in Estonia to carry out land reform as an urgent part of the transition from a communist to a market economy.

Actually, with a shift in leadership, changes in land issues had already started at the end of the Soviet period. The Supreme Soviet of the Esto- nia SSR adopted the Law on Farming (Ülemnõukogu, 1989). The objec- tive of this law was to stimulate private farming as an alternative to the existing collective farming. The private farms were legally equal to state agricultural enterprise (Kuddo, 1996; Virma, 2004). It was possible to establish a private farm on the basis of the land lease relationship. The lease contract was without a set term and it was inheritable. Mainly, the new farms were established without taking into account the previous (pre-1940’s) landowners and previous farm borders. On January 1, 1991, 7,298 farms with a total area of 186,000 hectares, 25.5 hectares per farm, were created (Virma, 2000).

Before the adoption of a Land Reform Act, there were serious discussions in parliamentary commissions and in society in general over possible approaches to land reform. It was suggested that land should be privati- zed to the current owners of buildings built or bought during the Soviet

22 22 recover after the war as quickly as predicted. The establishment of col- era or returned to persons eligible for restitution (but only if they were lective farms on a voluntary basis was quite slow in Estonia, and by 1949, local residents). However, some people were of the opinion that land political pressure to increase the number of kolkhozes increased. Many should be returned to its former owners via restitution and no privatiza- kolkhozes were created that year, not due to the pressure, but simply out tion should take place (EAA, 1991a, 1991b; Virma, 2000). Discussions of fear: many families had already been identified by the Soviet govern- were based on several arguments. One of the concerns, as in other Cent- ment as kulaks and had been carried away to Siberia. By 1950, most of ral and Eastern European countries (Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997), the collective and state farms had already been founded. The reorgani- was how to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production. Follo- zation of collective and state farms continued until the 1990s (Kuddo, wing many disputes, it was finally decided to carry out land reform in 1996; Maandi, 2009; Virma, 2004). In 1990, the last Soviet year, there such a way that both the pre-1940 landowners and the building were 206 collective farms with an average area of 7.342 hectares. The owners (land users) from the Soviet period were favoured. If the number of state farms was 119; their average area was 7.081 hectares previous owner could not regain their land by restitution because a buil- (Virma, 2004). ding was situated on the plot, the previous owner had a right to com- pensation (EAA, 1991a, 1991b). This meant that compared to the other countries where land was simply restored to the former owners, Estonia chose a complex approach to land reform (Hänni, 1995; Ulas, 2010) that 1.4. Implementation of the land reform in Estonia post-1991 tried to solve all related matters in one process.

A new period began in 1991 with the regaining of independence, which The rapid completion of the land reform was a topical issue for many also meant changes in land relations. Before 1991, land belonged to the Estonian politicians at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s. The minis- state and the concept of real properties did not exist. It was decided in ters responsible for the implementation of land reform repeatedly pro- Estonia to carry out land reform as an urgent part of the transition from mised to conclude the land reform fairly quickly. Various Estonian aut- a communist to a market economy. horities cited the necessity to finish the land reform in the near future as well; since 2007, the question about the completion of land reform has Actually, with a shift in leadership, changes in land issues had already again become more urgent. In 2008, the Ministry of Finance of the started at the end of the Soviet period. The Supreme Soviet of the Esto- Republic of Estonia conducted a survey to understand the status of the nia SSR adopted the Law on Farming (Ülemnõukogu, 1989). The objec- land reform and identify the main problems preventing its finalization. tive of this law was to stimulate private farming as an alternative to the The report (Riigikontroll, 2008), concluded that the main reasons for the existing collective farming. The private farms were legally equal to state delay were related to court cases, inheritance or land surveying issues. It agricultural enterprise (Kuddo, 1996; Virma, 2004). It was possible to stressed the importance of finishing the land reform, as land without establish a private farm on the basis of the land lease relationship. The fixed ownership is out of use and, thus, its economic potential is unrea- lease contract was without a set term and it was inheritable. Mainly, the lized. In addition, land reform activities are costly for all concerned. The new farms were established without taking into account the previous Minister of the Environment was pressed to report to the Parliament (pre-1940’s) landowners and previous farm borders. On January 1, 1991, and other relevant commissions (, 2009) on progress to date 7,298 farms with a total area of 186,000 hectares, 25.5 hectares per farm, and projections for the future (Eesti Linnade Liit, 2007; Tamkivi, 2008). were created (Virma, 2000). In short, although politicians and ministers have “talked about” the completion of the process for years, in reality, here in 2017, it still has Before the adoption of a Land Reform Act, there were serious discussions not been completed. A recent article in the Estonian press noted that in parliamentary commissions and in society in general over possible the wounds of property reform bleed still (Niitra, 2017). It appears that approaches to land reform. It was suggested that land should be privati- the issue of implementation of the land reform in Estonia is still zed to the current owners of buildings built or bought during the Soviet

22 23 23 important for the Estonian society and it is worth investigating this phenomenon in more detail.

Several authors have discussed issues related to the implementation of land reform in Estonia since 1991. Some have focused on the effects of reform on agriculture (Alanen, 1999; Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998; Unwin, 1997); others have addressed issues of restitution and privatiza- tion of forest land (Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Jörgensen et al., 2010; Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund, 2009). Although there are a few studies of restitution in former Swedish settlement areas on Estonia’s western coastal islands (Grubbström, 2011; Hedin, 2005), a comprehensive over- view for the implementation of land reform in Estonia has not previous- ly existed. This thesis addresses the issue in a most comprehensive way.

The thesis is based on papers I-V. Papers I-III deal with the question of implementation of land reform in Estonia and, more deeply, the issue of why some municipalities were quicker than others to implement land reform. Paper IV concentrates on the typology of property formation as a result of land reform. Paper V addresses the issue of the chosen land reform model and land plot fragmentation in Estonia (Jürgenson, 2016).

The implementation of land reform in Estonia has been tackled by a number of students. The present author has helped to design and has supervised, over a nine year period, 11 master’s and two bachelor’s the- ses. The compilation of their gathered knowledge around the issue of the implementation of land reform (cf. Table 2) has supported the pre- sent thesis. A short overview of these studies is presented here.

Several theses have addressed the implementation of land reform on the municipal level, in an effort to better understand the process. For ins- tance, Kink (2009) and Jakobson (2010) have looked into the essence of unreformed land in the municipality and looked for possibilities to complete the reform. Piik and Taremaa (2012) analyzed data for refor- med and unreformed land in six municipalities in the county of Tartu. Aruväli et al. (2012) tried to determine the factors influencing the speed of carrying out land reform in six rural municipalities in the county of Tartu. Valdner (2014) reviewed the land surveyor companies that acti- vely participated in the process in municipalities in .

24 24 important for the Estonian society and it is worth investigating this

phenomenon in more detail. 2016 2014 2014 2014 2013 2012 2012 2011 2010 2010 2010 2009 2008 Several authors have discussed issues related to the implementation of Year land reform in Estonia since 1991. Some have focused on the effects of -

reform on agriculture (Alanen, 1999; Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998; on the

executing executing

Unwin, 1997); others have addressed issues of restitution and privatiza- based tion of forest land (Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Jörgensen et al., 2010; Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund, 2009). Although there are a few studies of

restitution in former Swedish settlement areas on Estonia’s western i, , coastal islands (Grubbström, 2011; Hedin, 2005), a comprehensive over- view for the implementation of land reform in Estonia has not previous- ly existed. This thesis addresses the issue in a most comprehensive way.

the management of MinistryThe managementof the of

Virumaa local municipalities The thesis is based on papers I-V. Papers I-III deal with the question - of implementation of land reform in Estonia and, more deeply, the issue under

of why some municipalities were quicker than others to implement land thesis

retention of land

reform. Paper IV concentrates on the typology of property formation as a result of land reform. Paper V addresses the issue of the chosen land over reform model and land plot fragmentation in Estonia (Jürgenson, 2016). present

ing out ing land reform in ,Võnnu, Rõngu, Alatskivi, y 25 ts by the administrative by the Supreme boardthe ts of 2002 Courtin

The implementation of land reform in Estonia has been tackled by a author of of author number of students. The present author has helped to design and has the supervised, over a nine year period, 11 master’s and two bachelor’s the- problems in the example of Ida ses. The compilation of their gathered knowledge around the issue of 2009 the implementation of land reform (cf. Table 2) has supported the pre- - ownedduring landthe reform land sent thesis. A short overview of these studies is presented here. - land surveyor companiesactively that participated land in reform in process Tartu

ending landending reform Ridala in Parish by are supervised by by are supervised

s Several theses have addressed the implementation of land reform on the e municipal level, in an effort to better understand the process. For ins- tance, Kink (2009) and Jakobson (2010) have looked into the essence of

unreformed land in the municipality and looked for possibilities to Title overview An landof reform educationalThe background Estonian of local government were involved employees who in of speed the on background educational said of influence the and reform land executing landthe reform possibilitiesthe On comparing of former land units and reformed land units The mapping county parishes relatedfactors causinglegal of analysis The land problems the reform to procedures ac procedural out carrying of practice 2012 carr of speed the influencing Factors Vara and rural municipalities Dataland of analysis reform in municipalities the of Võnnu, Meeks Rõngu, and Rannu Modeling the procedures of the ownership reform Conflicts between stateandlocal government studyThe state of Environment 1993 in Possibilities of Carrying theof out land reform registered on immovable property previously belongingto the city Tallinnof essenceThe unreformed of land example the Puhja of on parish complete the reform. Piik and Taremaa (2012) analyzed data for refor-

med and unreformed land in six municipalities in the county of Tartu. Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc

Aruväli et al. (2012) tried to determine the factors influencing the speed Type M M M B MSc MSc B M M M M M M

of carrying out land reform in six rural municipalities in the county of

Tartu. Valdner (2014) reviewed the land surveyor companies that acti-

vely participated in the process in municipalities in Tartu county. of masters’and bachelor’s thes

maa, L , R.,

are . List Author Lüll, A Taremaa, L Aasmäe, K Valdner, R Kütt, J Aruväli, E., Biedermann, Paiste, PA., Piik T Toom, M Jürgenson, J Simmulmann, K Jakobson, S Satsi, A Kink, T

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

24 Table 25

Taremaa (2014) surveyed the educational background of Estonian municipalities’ employees who were involved in executing the land reform. Lüll (2016) looked into the question of completion of land reform in the municipalities in Ida-Viru county.

Implementation of land reform has led to conflicts between the municipalities and the state. In some cases, both wanted ownership of the same land plot. Satsi (2009) and Jürgenson (2010) have dealt with the issue in the case of the municipality of , which is also the capital of Estonia.

There have also been conflicts between the state, municipality, and private persons, some going to the court level for resolution. Kütt (2013) examined factors causing legal problems related to land reform procedures that went as far as the Supreme Court.

Land reform has been a lengthy process. One reason is regulations that do not always function well. Thus modelling the procedures of the ownership reform was seen as necessary. Toom (2011) used the Unified Modelling Language (UML) in a study covering two processes: i) land restitution, and ii) land privatisation with pre-emption right. The UML is the industry-standard language for specifying, visualising, constructing, and documenting the artefacts of software systems (Booch et al., 1998).

Land fragmentation is one outcome of the implementation of the land reform in a number of Eastern and Central European countries. To understand the Estonian situation, Aasmäe (2014) worked out methods to determine the land plot fragmentation after land reform implementation (post-1991) as compared to the situation before 1940 (land tenure situation before land nationalisation).

1.5. Land reform implementation and land fragmentation

There is not one commonly accepted definition of land fragmentation. Farmers, experts, and policy makers often understand the concept differently (Hartvigsen, 2014a). Nevertheless, overviews of the

26 26

Taremaa (2014) surveyed the educational background of Estonian theoretical basis for defining “classical” land fragmentation in terms of municipalities’ employees who were involved in executing the land the situation in Western Europe have emerged (King and Burton, 1982). reform. Lüll (2016) looked into the question of completion of land However, few theoretical experiments have been undertaken to expand reform in the municipalities in Ida-Viru county. upon this discourse in the Central and Eastern European post- independence land reform context (Hartvigsen, 2014a). Sabates- Implementation of land reform has led to conflicts between the Wheeler (2002) defines at least four dimensions of fragmentation: i) municipalities and the state. In some cases, both wanted ownership of physical fragmentation, i.e. the size and shape of plots, and the distance the same land plot. Satsi (2009) and Jürgenson (2010) have dealt with between them; ii) social fragmentation, where landowners are not the the issue in the case of the municipality of Tallinn, which is also the land users; iii) activity fragmentation, which refers to situations whereby capital of Estonia. the means of production have become fragmented, e.g. the land holding is too small for large-scale machinery or there is a divorce of labour and There have also been conflicts between the state, municipality, and land; iv) ownership fragmentation, where large collective farms have private persons, some going to the court level for resolution. Kütt been privatized but the new owners do not know the exact location of (2013) examined factors causing legal problems related to land reform their parcel. Van Dijk (2003a, 2003b) has also investigated the subject procedures that went as far as the Supreme Court. of land fragmentation in the Central and Eastern Europe context and developed a definition divided into four subgroups: i) ownership Land reform has been a lengthy process. One reason is regulations that fragmentation in terms of hectares per land owner; ii) land use do not always function well. Thus modelling the procedures of the fragmentation, which reflects how land is actually used; iii) internal ownership reform was seen as necessary. Toom (2011) used the Unified fragmentation, i.e. plot size, shape and isolation; iv) divergence between Modelling Language (UML) in a study covering two processes: i) land ownership and use, or how many owners are, at the same time, users. restitution, and ii) land privatisation with pre-emption right. The UML While Sabates-Wheeler and van Dijk handle fragmentation differently, is the industry-standard language for specifying, visualising, the content of some subgroups is similar. constructing, and documenting the artefacts of software systems (Booch et al., 1998). It has often been indicated that land fragmentation in Central and Eastern Europe countries was a side-effect of land reforms aimed at Land fragmentation is one outcome of the implementation of the land restoring the pre-1940’s tenure situation or distributing former state reform in a number of Eastern and Central European countries. To agricultural land to the rural population (Hartvigsen, 2015, 2014a; understand the Estonian situation, Aasmäe (2014) worked out methods Sabates-Wheeler, 2002; van Dijk, 2003a, 2003b). The land ownership to determine the land plot fragmentation after land reform structure of those countries that restored land ownership according to implementation (post-1991) as compared to the situation before 1940 historical boundaries resemble the pre-WWII situation and therefore (land tenure situation before land nationalisation). are frequently very fragmented (Mathijs, 1997; Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997).

Hartvigsen (2014a) presented an overview of land reform approaches 1.5. Land reform implementation and land fragmentation and fragmentation issues in a Central and Eastern European context (for 25 countries), focusing on the causality between the chosen land There is not one commonly accepted definition of land fragmentation. reform approach and the resulting land fragmentation. However, a Farmers, experts, and policy makers often understand the concept detailed country-based investigation of the coherence between the differently (Hartvigsen, 2014a). Nevertheless, overviews of the

26 27 27 chosen land reform approach and land fragmentation is currently lacking (Hartvigsen, 2013).

While the aim of Hartvigsen's (2014a, 2013) research was to analyse the impact of the chosen land reform approach to the farm structure and land fragmentation, the finding was that the land reforms resulted in a number of outcomes, including quite different farm structures. The study countries (except Poland and Yugoslavia) were dominated by large-scale cooperatives and the state farm structure before 1989. There were major changes (e.g. complete breakup of these farms) in some countries after 1989. In some, however, the large scale corporate farms still dominate, operating on lease agreements with private owners of the land. Therefore, the research concluded that differences in the farm structure could explain, to a large degree but not completely, the chosen land reform approaches in each country.

Fragmented land tenure often impacts negatively upon agricultural land use (Hartvigsen, 2014a; van Dijk, 2007, 2003a), for example, via additional production costs for farmers, or land abandonment. Land fragmentation can hamper the viability of rural areas, especially if arable land comes out of production. Small land parcels are often unsuitable for modern farming, allowing arable land to become fallow and overgrown with scrub (Haldrup, 2015; Hartvigsen, 2014b; Lisec et al., 2014; Pašakarnis and Maliene, 2010). Further, the market for land is depressed when land plots are very small and highly fragmented (FAO, 2004). Counterintuitively, land concentration may also result from fragmented land ownership. For example, land reform implementation in Central and Eastern Europe has sometimes encouraged the creation of large farms (Swinnen, 2009), despite an intended aim of land reform being transition from large collective farms to a European family farms model (Griffin et al., 2002).

Land tenure fragmentation has been an issue for most capitalist free market-oriented countries since the nineteenth century (Hartvigsen, 2015, 2014b; Thomas, 2006; van Dijk, 2007). A fragmented land tenure can be minimized using land management tools including land consolidation. Many Western and Northern European countries have decades of experience in land consolidation (FAO, 2004; Hartvigsen, 2015; Thomas, 2006; van Dijk, 2007; Vitikainen, 2004). For example,

28 28 chosen land reform approach and land fragmentation is currently land consolidation can: i) be used to increase the competitiveness of lacking (Hartvigsen, 2013). agriculture and forestry by increasing plot sizes and thus making the use of heavy machinery possible; ii) help the organisation of environmental While the aim of Hartvigsen's (2014a, 2013) research was to analyse the management and melioration; iii) improve access to plots. Some impact of the chosen land reform approach to the farm structure and countries, e.g. Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands, use land land fragmentation, the finding was that the land reforms resulted in a consolidation as a measure to encourage rural development (Haldrup, number of outcomes, including quite different farm structures. The 2015; Hartvigsen, 2015; Lisec et al., 2014; Pašakarnis and Maliene, 2010; study countries (except Poland and Yugoslavia) were dominated by Thomas, 2014). Former socialist countries generally have less large-scale cooperatives and the state farm structure before 1989. There experience with land consolidation tools. However, many of these were major changes (e.g. complete breakup of these farms) in some countries introduced instruments to encourage consolidation at the countries after 1989. In some, however, the large scale corporate farms beginning of the transition from centrally planned economies towards still dominate, operating on lease agreements with private owners of the market economies during the early 1990s (Hartvigsen, 2015; Lisec et al., land. Therefore, the research concluded that differences in the farm 2014; Pašakarnis and Maliene, 2010). structure could explain, to a large degree but not completely, the chosen land reform approaches in each country. The lesson from Western European countries is that the market alone cannot resolve issues of land fragmentation: state intervention is also Fragmented land tenure often impacts negatively upon agricultural land required (Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997; van Dijk, 2007). According use (Hartvigsen, 2014a; van Dijk, 2007, 2003a), for example, via to Alexander (2014): “Land and property are not “normal” market goods, additional production costs for farmers, or land abandonment. Land because they do not share the defining characteristics of the goods and services that are fragmentation can hamper the viability of rural areas, especially if arable the objects of competitive market transactions.” Land fragmentation on the plot land comes out of production. Small land parcels are often unsuitable level was a result of the implementation of land reform in Estonia as for modern farming, allowing arable land to become fallow and well, due to the chosen method for implementation of the process. As overgrown with scrub (Haldrup, 2015; Hartvigsen, 2014b; Lisec et al., previously noted, Estonia chose a complicated approach (Hänni, 1995; 2014; Pašakarnis and Maliene, 2010). Further, the market for land is Ulas, 2010): the scope of entitled persons was quite extensive, requiring depressed when land plots are very small and highly fragmented (FAO, the division of land among many persons. 2004). Counterintuitively, land concentration may also result from fragmented land ownership. For example, land reform implementation in Central and Eastern Europe has sometimes encouraged the creation of large farms (Swinnen, 2009), despite an intended aim of land reform being transition from large collective farms to a European family farms model (Griffin et al., 2002).

Land tenure fragmentation has been an issue for most capitalist free market-oriented countries since the nineteenth century (Hartvigsen, 2015, 2014b; Thomas, 2006; van Dijk, 2007). A fragmented land tenure can be minimized using land management tools including land consolidation. Many Western and Northern European countries have decades of experience in land consolidation (FAO, 2004; Hartvigsen, 2015; Thomas, 2006; van Dijk, 2007; Vitikainen, 2004). For example,

28 29 29

2. AIMS OF THE STUDY

This thesis examines the implementation of the recent land reform in Estonia (post-1990s). It concentrates upon the chosen model and organisational process of the implementation of land reform, addressing the process at the state, county, and municipal level. The municipalities have been important actors in this process, therefore the issue of speed of implementation of the land reform on the municipality level is the focus of the study. One outcome elaborated in detail in the present thesis is that land reform implementation has created greater land plot fragmentation than existed at the end of the previous Estonian Republic, before land nationalization in 1940.

Although the majority of the post-1990 land reform has already been implemented in Estonia, its implementation does not mean the end of land administration and governance. Reform has been an essential step toward achieving secure land ownership, however, the process has also generated new land management and administration tasks. The State had the right to make decisions for use of land it held during the Soviet time. The reform also created multiple landowners, resulting in a challenging situation for management and administration of the land.

The implementation of land reform that has lasted for more than 25 years since the re-establishment of independence in Estonia has itself involved a huge land management task. It is possible now to analyse the administrative approach chosen at the beginning, in order to determine the current suitability of this approach and identify its bottlenecks. The conducted studies of the land reform processes will help to better understand the evolution of the whole picture of land management issues in Estonia. It is possible to offer suggestions for comparative land management and administrative tasks for future implementation of land reform, based on these findings.

Some countries in Central and Eastern Europe, for example, Belarus and the Russian Federation, have not yet undertaken reform. Others, for example, Ukraine, are still on the way. Therefore, the findings of this thesis will be useful for countries where land reform is still in transition.

30 30

2. AIMS OF THE STUDY The main objectives of this thesis are to i) explore the implementation of land reform in Estonia on the state and municipal level, ii) present its This thesis examines the implementation of the recent land reform in outcome, and iii) identify bottlenecks in the process with the intention Estonia (post-1990s). It concentrates upon the chosen model and to learn from them for the future. To achieve these objectives the organisational process of the implementation of land reform, addressing following research questions had to be answered: the process at the state, county, and municipal level. The municipalities have been important actors in this process, therefore the issue of speed  What was the institutional arrangement for the implementation of implementation of the land reform on the municipality level is the of the land reform and what was the outcome? (Papers I, II, focus of the study. One outcome elaborated in detail in the present III, V). thesis is that land reform implementation has created greater land plot fragmentation than existed at the end of the previous Estonian  How have the land use types, geographical location, and chosen Republic, before land nationalization in 1940. approach of the implementation of land reform influenced the speed of implementation of the process on the level of the rural Although the majority of the post-1990 land reform has already been municipality? (Papers II, III). implemented in Estonia, its implementation does not mean the end of land administration and governance. Reform has been an essential step  What was the result of land reform based on the land plot toward achieving secure land ownership, however, the process has also fragmentation that accompanied the implementation of land generated new land management and administration tasks. The State reform? (Papers IV, V). had the right to make decisions for use of land it held during the Soviet time. The reform also created multiple landowners, resulting in a challenging situation for management and administration of the land.

The implementation of land reform that has lasted for more than 25 years since the re-establishment of independence in Estonia has itself involved a huge land management task. It is possible now to analyse the administrative approach chosen at the beginning, in order to determine the current suitability of this approach and identify its bottlenecks. The conducted studies of the land reform processes will help to better understand the evolution of the whole picture of land management issues in Estonia. It is possible to offer suggestions for comparative land management and administrative tasks for future implementation of land reform, based on these findings.

Some countries in Central and Eastern Europe, for example, Belarus and the Russian Federation, have not yet undertaken reform. Others, for example, Ukraine, are still on the way. Therefore, the findings of this thesis will be useful for countries where land reform is still in transition.

30 31 31

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1. Study areas

The thesis deals with the implementation of land reform in Estonia on three levels: state, county, municipal. The study areas are, correspondingly, the whole state, counties, municipalities and two study areas within the municipalities. Although state and county levels are discussed, primary attention is focused on the municipal level.

The survey regarding the outcome of the land reform implementation on the state level covered all municipalities, including towns and boroughs. The study about the educational background of local government employees involved in executing the land reform in 1991- 2012 covered data from 101 municipalities. The study on the county level covered all municipalities. However, examples of extreme land reform results inside the counties refer solely to rural municipalities. Table 3 gives an overview of the level, coverage and aim of the study.

Analyses on the municipal level covered a number of municipalities (cf. Table 3), the number depending on different selection criteria. For this thesis, the main focus was on rural municipalities.

Implementation of land reform has varied in urban and rural municipalities. Among the variations, three are most essential. Firstly, the relevant urban-rural regulations provide different bases for the reform process. Secondly, land plots are smaller in urban areas, resulting in a slower speed of implementation. Thus, results in rural and urban municipalities cannot be adequately compared. Thirdly, there are more conflicts of interest in urban areas, resulting in a slower speed of achieving land reform in the cities. In consequence, this thesis concentrates primarily on the implementation of the land reform in rural municipalities, using data describing land reform implementation and land use types and other characteristics that were possible to express numerically.

The number of the municipalities has changed over the years due to voluntary administrative reform throughout Estonia. Therefore, total

32 32

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS numbers of municipalities indicated in Papers I-III vary. For instance, the number of municipalities was 247 in 1999; 227 in 2008; 226 in 2009 3.1. Study areas and 213 in 2016. The number of municipalities will decrease at the end of 2017 due to compulsory administrative reform. The thesis deals with the implementation of land reform in Estonia on . The level of studies, their coverage and aim three levels: state, county, municipal. The study areas are, Table 3 Level of Coverage Aim correspondingly, the whole state, counties, municipalities and two study study areas within the municipalities. Although state and county levels are State All municipalities Outcome of the land reform (cf. discussed, primary attention is focused on the municipal level. Paper I, V) 101 municipalities Study about the educational The survey regarding the outcome of the land reform implementation background on the state level covered all municipalities, including towns and County All municipalities Outcome of the land reform (cf. Paper I) boroughs. The study about the educational background of local Municipality 155 municipalities Land use types form one group government employees involved in executing the land reform in 1991- of factors that have impacted the 2012 covered data from 101 municipalities. The study on the county result of land reform in Estonia level covered all municipalities. However, examples of extreme land (cf. Paper II). reform results inside the counties refer solely to rural municipalities. 155 municipalities were classi- Are the characteristics of munici- fied on the basis of their speed palities different in groups of Table 3 gives an overview of the level, coverage and aim of the study. of implementation of the land quick and slow municipalities (cf. reform Paper III)? Analyses on the municipal level covered a number of municipalities The 30 quickest and 30 slowest (cf. Table 3), the number depending on different selection criteria. For municipalities according to the this thesis, the main focus was on rural municipalities. speed of the implementation of land reform were chosen for comparison Implementation of land reform has varied in urban and rural 8 municipalities: four quick and Are the quick and slow munici- municipalities. Among the variations, three are most essential. Firstly, four slow from the county of palities implementing land the relevant urban-rural regulations provide different bases for the Tartu reform differently? Are their land reform process. Secondly, land plots are smaller in urban areas, resulting 6 municipalities: three quick use conditions different? and three slow from the county in a slower speed of implementation. Thus, results in rural and urban of Tartu municipalities cannot be adequately compared. Thirdly, there are more 1 municipality: the municipality What are the characteristics and conflicts of interest in urban areas, resulting in a slower speed of of Puhja content of the unreformed land? achieving land reform in the cities. In consequence, this thesis Who is the potential land reform concentrates primarily on the implementation of the land reform in implementer? rural municipalities, using data describing land reform implementation Plot 2 study areas: in the municipa- Does the implementation of the lities of Rõngu (1,267 hectares) land reform increase the land and land use types and other characteristics that were possible to express and Ülenurme (2,219 hectares) fragmentation compared to the numerically. situation before the land nationa- lisation in 1940 (cf. Paper V)? The number of the municipalities has changed over the years due to voluntary administrative reform throughout Estonia. Therefore, total

32 33 33

Paper II embraces 155 (out of 227) rural municipalities in Estonia. Three criteria were used to choose the appropriate municipalities for the study: i) exclusion from the study of rural municipalities with urban-type settlements on their territory; ii) stable boundaries of municipalities for at least the last five years (e.g. if the boundaries had been changed or merged, those municipalities were excluded from the sample); iii) five municipalities were excluded from the sample because of contradictions (obvious errors) in the data on the land reform results.

Paper III covers data of 155 (out of 226) rural municipalities to identify the fast and slow municipalities. Some municipalities were excluded: i) densely populated areas like cities; ii) rural municipalities which contain both scattered populations and urban areas; iii) municipalities where there have been changes to the municipal area or the administrative boundary; iv) municipalities where land reform implementation could have been influenced by characteristics specific to the region (e.g. municipalities influenced by the proximity of the capital, small islands, small towns/boroughs and regions which differ, from a cultural perspective).

The 30 quickest and 30 slowest municipalities in terms of their speed of implementation of land reform were selected to determine whether there are characteristic differences between the groups. The 155 municipalities were ordered on the basis of their land reform percentage (cf. Formula 1), which refers to the ratio of land registered in the land cadastre and the area of the municipality, in other words the percentage of land reform (data as of December 31, 2009).

The first case study dealt with eight rural municipalities situated in Tartu county (cf. Figure 2). Paper III presents the location of 30 quick and 30 slow municipalities in Estonia. The county of Tartu differs from others in that it has equal numbers of quick and slow municipalities while many counties include predominantly quick or slow municipalities. Thus, these four quick and four slow municipalities in Tartu county were chosen to be studied in more detail. The quick are the municipalities of Kambja, Rõngu, Tähtvere and Võnnu. The slow are Alatskivi, Puhja, Rannu and Vara.

34 34

Paper II embraces 155 (out of 227) rural municipalities in Estonia. Three criteria were used to choose the appropriate municipalities for the study: i) exclusion from the study of rural municipalities with urban-type settlements on their territory; ii) stable boundaries of municipalities for at least the last five years (e.g. if the boundaries had been changed or merged, those municipalities were excluded from the sample); iii) five municipalities were excluded from the sample because of contradictions (obvious errors) in the data on the land reform results.

Paper covers data of 155 (out of 226) rural municipalities to identify III Figure 2. Location of the county of Tartu in Estonia and location of four quick and the fast and slow municipalities. Some municipalities were excluded: i) four slow municipalities within the county of Tartu densely populated areas like cities; ii) rural municipalities which contain both scattered populations and urban areas; iii) municipalities where This first case study comprises generalized data from theses by Aruväli there have been changes to the municipal area or the administrative et al. (2012) and Kink (2009). The Aruväli et al. (2012) study area boundary; iv) municipalities where land reform implementation could covered land reform implementation in three quick and three slow have been influenced by characteristics specific to the region (e.g. municipalities located in Tartu county. Three quick municipalities municipalities influenced by the proximity of the capital, small islands, (mostly the same as in this author’s first case study) are Kambja, Võnnu, small towns/boroughs and regions which differ, from a cultural Rõngu and three slow, Alatskivi, Rannu, Vara (cf. Figure 3). perspective).

The 30 quickest and 30 slowest municipalities in terms of their speed of implementation of land reform were selected to determine whether there are characteristic differences between the groups. The 155 municipalities were ordered on the basis of their land reform percentage (cf. Formula 1), which refers to the ratio of land registered in the land cadastre and the area of the municipality, in other words the percentage of land reform (data as of December 31, 2009).

The first case study dealt with eight rural municipalities situated in Figure 3. Location of the county of Tartu in Estonia and location of three quick and Tartu county (cf. Figure 2). Paper III presents the location of 30 quick three slow municipalities within the county of Tartu and 30 slow municipalities in Estonia. The county of Tartu differs from others in that it has equal numbers of quick and slow municipalities Kink's (2009) thesis addresses the unreformed land in the municipality while many counties include predominantly quick or slow of Puhja, situated in Tartu county, in 2009 (cf. Figure 4), which is one municipalities. Thus, these four quick and four slow municipalities in of the slow municipalities in terms of land reform implementation. The Tartu county were chosen to be studied in more detail. The quick are municipality of Puhja was covered in the first case study as well. the municipalities of Kambja, Rõngu, Tähtvere and Võnnu. The slow are Alatskivi, Puhja, Rannu and Vara.

34 35 35

Figure 4. Location of the county of Tartu in Estonia and location of the municipality of Puhja within the county of Tartu

The second case study covered two study areas that were chosen to investigate land ownership fragmentation in terms of number and size of plots (cf. Paper V). The study areas were located in the county of Tartu (cf. Figure 5): one, Ülenurme municipality, with 2,219 hectares, and Rõngu, with 1,267 hectares. The study areas were selected mainly because data on land plots was available or recoverable for both 1940 and following the recent land reform process.

Figure 5. Location of Tartu County and two study areas within the county of Tartu (Paper V).

The study areas were established to cover all plots from 1940 and post- 1990 in their entirety; this was achieved using natural borders and areas where past and present plot boundaries conformed to one another. Both study areas were primarily agricultural land in 1940 and remain so today, except in some areas of Ülenurme municipality that are now mixed use (agricultural and residential).

36 36

For several years the digital cadastral map was not updated to reflect post-1990 plot change; the first digital map containing the plot change (size, shape, and process) was created in 2002. Plot information was restored and validated with officials from the municipalities. The information was gathered by using MapInfo GIS software.

3.2. Methods used Figure 4. Location of the county of Tartu in Estonia and location of the municipality of Puhja within the county of Tartu The pragmatic worldview of this thesis reflects the implementation of land reform which occurs in social, historical and political contexts. The second case study covered two study areas that were chosen to Pragmatism as a worldview arises out of actions, situations, and investigate land ownership fragmentation in terms of number and size consequences rather than antecedent conditions. Instead of focusing on of plots (cf. Paper V). The study areas were located in the county of methods, researchers emphasize the research problem and use all Tartu (cf. Figure 5): one, Ülenurme municipality, with 2,219 hectares, approaches available to understand the problem (Azorin and Cameron, and Rõngu, with 1,267 hectares. The study areas were selected mainly 2010; Creswell, 2014). because data on land plots was available or recoverable for both 1940 and following the recent land reform process. This thesis will address the understanding of the implementation of the land reform in Estonia and its outcome. The implementation of land reform is a complicated and complex process, thus this study used mixed methods. The overall purpose of mixed method studies is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination may provide a better understanding of research problems and complex phenomena, helping to explain the process and its outcomes (Greene et al., 1989).

This thesis used convergent parallel study design (cf. Figure 6) in which qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses is done concurrently (Creswell, 2014). In all research activities, a mix of Figure 5. Location of Tartu County and two study areas within the county of Tartu quantitative and qualitative methods have been used depending on the (Paper V). research questions concerned and the availability and character of data. The used methods and work process are reflected in Table 4. An The study areas were established to cover all plots from 1940 and post- overview of the used methods will follow. 1990 in their entirety; this was achieved using natural borders and areas where past and present plot boundaries conformed to one another. During desk study, the available books, scientific papers, press articles Both study areas were primarily agricultural land in 1940 and remain so and other project reports, acts of law, documents from the authorities today, except in some areas of Ülenurme municipality that are now and files from archive are worked through. Important facts are gathered mixed use (agricultural and residential). and presented in the thesis. A literature review is also included.

36 37 37

Figure 6. Diagram of convergent parallel study design

The technique of observation is helpful for the researcher to understand the subject of study, enabling engagement with the area of research. The technique of observation assists understanding of the phenomenon and selection of data and information that provide a clear picture of the reality of the field (Creswell, 2014; Kielmann et al., 2011). The author of this thesis has used the direct and unstructured observation method as she has been working in the field of land reform more than 20 years, first on the municipal level, then on the state level1. This practical experience and participation in the activity of implementation of the land reform helps to provide understanding and give meaning to a complicated process.

A survey is a form of research conducted on a mass scale by using structured questionnaires as a data-gathering instrument. Surveys are a popular method of collecting primary data and have diverse purposes (Macdonald and Headlam, 2009). The present thesis uses the generalised data from the survey in the master’s thesis by Taremaa (2014), which documented gathered data about the educational background of municipal employees involved in executing land reform in 1991-2012. The questionnaires were sent to 160 rural municipalities; complete answers were returned from 101 municipalities.

1 Author of thesis worked in Elva Town Government 1995-2000 and at the Estonian Land Board 2000-2016.

38 38

- - - I I

Repor ting Chapter 4.1., 5.1.4.2., Paper V Chapter 4.3., 5.2.4.4., Paper III

Figure 6. Diagram of convergent parallel study design differences differences

The technique of observation is helpful for the researcher to ofarrangement the three quick and and quick three the

understand the subject of study, enabling engagement with the area of ignificant research. The technique of observation assists understanding of the - like formations. phenomenon and selection of data and information that provide a clear they Rather country: he

picture of the reality of the field (Creswell, 2014; Kielmann et al., 2011). The author of this thesis has used the direct and unstructured e, etc. observation method as she has been working in the field of land reform more than 20 years, first on the municipal level, then on the state level1. four quick and four slow municipalitiesin

This practical experience and participation in the activity of implementation of the land reform helps to provide understanding and Overviewlegislative aims, the of background,the chosen pattern and organisational land reform Estonia. in Descriptionmutual of relations activities ofthe of land procedures.the reform property formation and ofResults implementation the the of land reform according the to specific activities, intended purpose, land us majorityThe employeesof implementingland reform have municipalities hadin the not background. educational appropriate Differentland usehave types impact an the on land reform rural results in municipalities. quickThe and municipalities slow evenly are not distributed t throughout appear to be located in cluster Some characteristicsare statistically the differentin compared 30 quick and 30 municipalities.slow Case study does notbring out s among Tartu. of county the Interview responses show that municipalitiesthree slow have implemented land reform activities similarly.Accordingly, notis it give meaning to a complicated process.

     Results     39

A survey is a form of research conducted on a mass scale by using -

structured questionnaires as a data-gathering instrument. Surveys are a - 2012. popular method of collecting primary data and have diverse purposes (Macdonald and Headlam, 2009). The present thesis uses the m.

generalised data from the survey in the master’s thesis by Taremaa

(2014), which documented gathered data about the educational background of municipal employees involved in executing land reform in 1991-2012. The questionnaires were sent to 160 rural municipalities;

complete answers were returned from 101 municipalities. search questions,method and work process,results and reportingin the thesis and papers. rchive.

Desk studies of books,scientific papers, press and other reports,acts of law, documents from the authorities and files from archive. Observation during the practical work. Descriptive statistics. Survey to municipalities to sent gather data regarding educational background the of municipality employees were that involved executingin landthe reform 1991 in Desk studies of books,scientific papers, press and other reports,acts of law, documents from the authorities and files from a Observation during the practical work. Descriptive statistics. Statistical analysis: simple correlation, T test GIS application: Mapping the location of municipalities30 quick 30 slow and the of speed the to according implementation land of refor

Method and work process         

on the

.The relationship between re hat was the 4 1 Author of thesis worked in Elva Town Government 1995-2000 and at the Estonian

f

Land Board 2000-2016. Research question What was the institutional arrangement for the implementation landof reform and w outcome? have theHow land use types, geographical location, and chosen approach o implementation landof reform the influenced speed of implementation of the process levelthe of the

Table 38 39

-

Repor ting Chapter 5.3.4.5., Paper IV, V between the the between the beginning of ation before land

. that only 9% of the

state was primarily responsible municipality at the the the unreformed landPuhja in showed

of point out clear differences differences clear out point to

possible organisational arrangements and activity the of quick municipalities. and slow Inventory municipality unreformed underwas landhectares) the (411 responsibility of 2009. Therefore, for completionthe landthe of reform that in municipality. fragmentationThe landthe of plotlevel the is on inbigger 2012 compared to the situ nationalization 1940. in fragmentationThe of landthe the on plotlevel: implementation resultthe of land the reformof accordingto chosen pattern

   Results 40

ntation of land were chosen to scientific papers, uthorities and files

four quick and four slow quick fourfour slow and

of Interviews carried out in the three quick quick three the in out carried Interviews municipalitiesand the three in slow Tartu. of county unreformedthe Inventory about land and potential impleme reform regarding unreformedthese land plots in the municipality of Puhja.

Case study municipalities the in county of Tartu. Complementary data: o o Desk studies of books, press and other reports,acts of law, a the from documents from archive. Observation during the practical work. Descriptive statistics. Case study:Two areas investigate land ownership fragmentation in terms of number and size of plots. Typology used for systematic analysis of procedures. formation property the

     Method and work process  

n

plot

land Research question rural municipality? What was the result of land reform based o the fragmentation that accompanied implementation landof reform?

40 A case study provides a tool for researchers to study complex phenomena within its context using a variety of data sources (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Yin, 2012). The purpose of the first case study was to understand if the factors that influenced the implementation of the land reform on the municipal level varied in the four quick and four slow municipalities located in Tartu county. The descriptive statistical data for municipalities were used: area of municipality, area of arable land, natural grassland, forest land, wetlands, protected areas and average site class of soil. The data from 31 December 2011 about the outcome of land reform were used as well to compare the quick and slow municipalities with each other. The aim was to find out if the quick municipalities differ from fast municipalities according to the general data or land use types or from the outcomes of land reform activities.

The first case study is complemented by the results from the thesis by Aruväli et al. (2012) and Kink (2009). The synthesis of the results of the previous studies helped to improve the result of the present author’s thesis. The findings by Aruväli et al. (2012) are important for explaining land reform implementation from the organisational perspective; results from Kink (2009) provide a better understanding of unreformed land.

The thesis by Aruväli et al. (2012) addressed the three quick and three slow municipalities with regard to the implementation of land reform. These municipalities are situated in the county of Tartu and are mostly the same municipalities as in this author’s first case study (except Tähtvere and Puhja). As part of this master's thesis, the semi- structured interviews were conducted in September, 2011 with the current or former land reform implementers in these three quick and three slow municipalities. The aim of the interviews was to gather information systematically for the implementation of land reform on the municipal level. The interviews were first recorded with a dictating machine, transcribed, then became the protocol for interviews. The criterion was to choose respondents with significant experience with the issues of land reform in that municipality. Unfortunately, it was not possible to cover all four quick and four slow municipalities from Tartu county in the survey, as potential respondents from one quick and one slow municipality declined to be interviewed. The survey covered the municipalities of Alatskivi, Kambja, Rannu, Rõngu, Vara and Võnnu. The interview initially addressed questions about the organisational

41 41 arrangement of implementation of the land reform, but also covered the issues of land restitution and land privatisation with pre-emption right, which were the most comprehensive activities relating to the implementation of land reform for the municipalities.

The aim of the thesis by Kink (2009) was to create an inventory of the unreformed land plots in the municipality of Puhja. All mapped unreformed land plots were evaluated and, when further details were necessary, the author then consulted with the officer from the municipality. The unreformed land plots were categorised according to different indicators. The present thesis covers only the indicators that define the identity of the potential implementer of land reform.

The second case study covered two study areas with an aim to compare the two land plots, before 1940 and after 2012, according to the number of plots and area (cf. Paper V). GIS analysis was used. It was important to gain knowledge about the land plot fragmentation that was caused by the present land reform. Firstly, a land plot layer for 1940 was digitised using historical maps (pre-1940) from the Estonian Land Board website2. Unfortunately, these old maps were not always correct; land plots were often misplaced or distorted. The digitalised land plots were compared with the first topographic maps (scale 1:25,000) of the Soviet Union produced in 1947 and 1948. The old buildings, roads and sometimes property boundaries visible on these topographic maps often matched the current cadastral maps. If pre-1940 plots did not correspond to any natural or infrastructure object, then they were adjusted to the boundaries on the topographical map. When the preparatory work had been finalized, all land plots and their sizes were calculated for each area in the GIS. This data was then used to calculate the total area and average plot size for each study region.

Secondly, a GIS layer was created of reformed land plots using digital cadastre maps for 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2012 obtained from the Estonian Land Board. The cadastral layer of land plots for 2002 was taken as a base, with the remaining plot changes added from the

2 http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/eng/Services/Map-Applications-p341.html, accessed 12.05.2014

42 42 arrangement of implementation of the land reform, but also covered the cadastral layers of subsequent years. If a cadastral unit’s shape was issues of land restitution and land privatisation with pre-emption right, changed before 2002 but not strictly by the land reform process (e.g. which were the most comprehensive activities relating to the resulting from the subsequent selling of part of a reformed plot), then implementation of land reform for the municipalities. the original reformed land plot’s size, shape and data regarding the land reform process (e.g. restitution, privatisation) was restored with help The aim of the thesis by Kink (2009) was to create an inventory of the from municipal officials. In this layer there were still some unreformed unreformed land plots in the municipality of Puhja. All mapped plots, nonetheless, it was possible to define their concurrent shapes. The unreformed land plots were evaluated and, when further details were reformed and unreformed land plots were also counted and their sizes necessary, the author then consulted with the officer from the found. With this data, the average size of land plots after the recent land municipality. The unreformed land plots were categorised according to reform was calculated. different indicators. The present thesis covers only the indicators that define the identity of the potential implementer of land reform. Typology was used for a systematic analysis of the four basic types of property formation that occurred in course of land reform (cf. Paper The second case study covered two study areas with an aim to IV). Typology is used as a common approach for better understanding compare the two land plots, before 1940 and after 2012, according to complex issues, to categorize them into a limited number of types (von the number of plots and area (cf. Paper V). GIS analysis was used. It der Dunk et al., 2011). was important to gain knowledge about the land plot fragmentation that was caused by the present land reform. Firstly, a land plot layer for 1940 Statistical analyses are used in this thesis as well. Descriptive statistics was digitised using historical maps (pre-1940) from the Estonian Land are used to provide an overview of the outcome of the land reform and Board website2. Unfortunately, these old maps were not always correct; to find the average indicators. Simple correlation is used to determine land plots were often misplaced or distorted. The digitalised land plots the impact of different land use type characteristics on the total results were compared with the first topographic maps (scale 1:25,000) of the of the land reform and on the separate activities of the land reform on Soviet Union produced in 1947 and 1948. The old buildings, roads and the level of municipalities (cf. Paper II). T-test is used to analyse sometimes property boundaries visible on these topographic maps differences between the 30 quick and 30 slow municipalities according often matched the current cadastral maps. If pre-1940 plots did not to their natural conditions and the implementation of land reform (cf. correspond to any natural or infrastructure object, then they were Paper III). Both land reform and land use type characteristics were adjusted to the boundaries on the topographical map. When the analysed using the Microsoft Excel data analysis tool T-test (two sample preparatory work had been finalized, all land plots and their sizes were unequal variance). calculated for each area in the GIS. This data was then used to calculate the total area and average plot size for each study region. One special indicator used throughout the thesis is the speed of the implementation of land reform. This concept means the stage of the Secondly, a GIS layer was created of reformed land plots using digital land reform in the corresponding moment in time. As there has been a cadastre maps for 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2012 obtained from the need to monitor the implementation of land reform, so-called land Estonian Land Board. The cadastral layer of land plots for 2002 was reform percentage (cf. Formula 1) has been used for the monitoring taken as a base, with the remaining plot changes added from the of the land reform process. The land reform percentages have been calculated commonly by the administrative units (counties and municipalities) and for the whole country as well. This indicator shows

the ratio between the area of land plots registered in cadastre (so-called 2 http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/eng/Services/Map-Applications-p341.html, accessed 12.05.2014 reformed land) and accordingly, the total area of Estonia if it illustrates

42 43 43 the situation for all Estonia, or the county area if this indicator is for a county or municipal area, if this parameter is for a municipality.

Sreformed LR%  , (1) Stotal where: LR% - land reform percentage Sreformed - area of land plots registered in cadastre in Estonia/county/municipality Stotal - total area of the Estonia/county/municipality

The size of counties and municipalities differs. For example, the biggest county is Pärnu; its total area is 480,953 hectares. The smallest is the county of ; its area is 103,244 hectares. The difference is 4.7 times. Unquestionably, the area of reformed land differs in these counties. With municipalities the situation is similar, but with even larger variation. The biggest municipality is Märjamaa with an area of 86,745 hectares. The smallest is ; its area is 186 hectares. The difference is 466.4 times. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the area of reformed land and data without this indicator. Accordingly, the land reform percentage is an indicator that describes the course of the land reform which pervades in this thesis and in Papers I, II, III, V as well. It is a comparable indicator for the implementation of land reform for the counties and municipalities.

3.3. Data

The general overview of the content and source of data used in the present thesis are presented in Table 5. The content and source of the data are presented according to the research questions.

The first research question is to clarify the institutional arrangement for the implementation of the land reform and present the outcome. Firstly, the legal acts are used to define the necessary regulations for the implementation of land reform. The organisational arrangements, aims and activities of land reform are defined according to the legal acts, primarily the Land Reform Act.

44 44

the situation for all Estonia, or the county area if this indicator is for a

IV, V III

county or municipal area, if this parameter is for a municipality. - - I I

Sreformed Reporting Chapter 4.2.,4.1., 5.1. Paper Chapter 4.4.,4.3., 5.2. Paper Chapter 5.3. 4.5., Paper V LR%  , (1)

Stotal . ------

pa me Tea Tea where: land reform percentage LR% -

Sreformed - area of land plots registered in cadastre in nur

Estonia/county/municipality Üle

Stotal - total area of the Estonia/county/municipality

tion System tion cipalities of

nian Land Board Land nian Board Land nian Naturenian In Board Land nian

ration

ni ma nnu, Rõngu and

The size of counties and municipalities differs. For example, the biggest ja ties to the question the to ties Esto Esto Esto Mu Website of Riigi Website of ta municiAnswers of li naire Estonia Statistics Estonia Statistics for Estonian Road Admi nist Municipalities of Alataskivi, Kambja, Ra Võnnu Municipality Puhja of Esto and Rõngu Riigi Website of taja. county is Pärnu; its total area is 480,953 hectares. The smallest is the Source of the Source dataof             

county of Hiiu; its area is 103,244 hectares. The difference is 4.7 times.

Unquestionably, the area of reformed land differs in these counties. use

. With municipalities the situation is similar, but with even larger ) from level. l and

variation. The biggest municipality is Märjamaa with an area of 86,745 , etc istances of d hectares. The smallest is Tootsi; its area is 186 hectares. The difference , and potential on the municipal is 466.4 times. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the area of centres

on the state on the reformed land and data without this indicator. Accordingly, the land these unreformedthese land reform percentage is an indicator that describes the course of the land 45 - 2012. , Land Cadastre Act, Land Land Act, Cadastre Land , reform which pervades in this thesis and in Papers I, II, III, V as well. It is a comparable indicator for the implementation of land reform for ensity of roads , d

including data about the regarding the counties and municipalities.

. Alatskivi, Kambja, Rannu, Rõngu and

land reform implementers (officials

of Land Act Reform

: to the municipalities aboutthe educational s land use municipalities

3.3. Data about unreformedthe land used in the Thesis the in used is time seriesland of reform results time seriesland of reform results

atio protectedof areas of data The general overview of the content and source of data used in the r in municipalityin Puhja. of about the , present thesis are presented in Table 5. The content and source of the ata for land reform results and land consolidation projects. D ata for Text of legalText of act Register Act, Local OrganisationGovernment Act, Land Consolidation Act. Questionnaires background local of governmentemployees that were involved executingin landthe reform in 1991 Data about the Data data are presented according to the research questions. Data for level types municipalities from Tallinn and from county Interviews with the municipalitiesthe Võnnu. Inventory implementer land of reform plots D Data for land before plots 1940 and landafter plots land reform 2012. in legalText of act: Land Reform Act.

Content Content           

The first research question is to clarify the institutional arrangement n hat the the land for the implementation of the land reform and present the outcome.

on the

result of Firstly, the legal acts are used to define the necessary regulations for the f

and w implementation of land reform. The organisational arrangements, aims influenced the the influenced

and activities of land reform are defined according to the legal acts, .Content and source of the data 5 primarily the Land Reform Act. fragmentationplot

Research question What was the institutional arrangement for the implementation of land reform the outcome? was How have the land use geographicaltypes, location, and chosen approach o implementation of reform speed of implementation of the process level ruralthe of municipality? What was the land reform based o land accompanied that implementation land of reform?

Table 44 45

Secondly, data is presented about the educational background of local government employees involved in executing the land reform in 1991- 2012. This data is based on the results of the master's thesis by Taremaa (2014). The questionnaires were used for gathering data from the municipalities. It sent questionnaires to 160 municipalities and received answers from 101 municipalities.

Thirdly, data for the time series of land reform results and land use on the state level was used. Data of the Estonian Land Board and Statistics Estonia were used to analyse the general progress and results of the land reform.

The second research question is to find out how land use types, geographical location, and chosen approach of the implementation of land reform have influenced the speed of reform on the level of the rural municipality. Firstly, data for the time series of land reform results on the municipal level is used. The data is from the Estonian Land Board and Statistics Estonia.

Secondly, different data that characterise the municipalities is used. For example, the data about the land use types, ratio of protected areas, density of roads, distances of municipalities from Tallinn and from county centres, etc. The previous data is gathered from the Estonian Land Board, Statistics Estonia, Estonian Nature Information System, Estonian Road Administration.

Thirdly, the result of the interviews is presented. The interviews were conducted with the land reform implementers (officials) from the municipalities of Alatskivi, Kambja, Rannu, Rõngu, Vara and Võnnu. This data is based on the result of the master's thesis by Aruväli et al. (2012). Fourthly, the result of the inventory about the unreformed land and potential implementer of land reform according to unreformed land plots in municipality of Puhja is presented. This inventory is based on conclusions of the master's thesis by Kink (2009).

The third research question is to determine the result of land reform based on the land plot fragmentation that accompanied implementation of land reform. Firstly, data for land reform results and land consolidation projects is used. Data is from the Estonian Land Board.

46 46

Secondly, data is presented about the educational background of local Secondly, data for land plots before 1940 and after land reform in 2012 government employees involved in executing the land reform in 1991- is used. This data is from the Estonian Land Board and from the 2012. This data is based on the results of the master's thesis by Taremaa municipalities of Rõngu and Ülenurme. (2014). The questionnaires were used for gathering data from the municipalities. It sent questionnaires to 160 municipalities and received Thirdly, the Land Reform Act is used for mapping the most possible answers from 101 municipalities. situations of property formation in the course of land reform and identifies interdependencies among those situations. The key issues of Thirdly, data for the time series of land reform results and land use on the study are the determination of property area and boundaries. The the state level was used. Data of the Estonian Land Board and Statistics main data source for this study is the Land Reform Act that gave the basic Estonia were used to analyse the general progress and results of the land provisions for the property formation in the course of land reform. The reform. Land Reform Act was amended many times; figures used were in the version that was valid until 1.03.2014. The second research question is to find out how land use types, geographical location, and chosen approach of the implementation of land reform have influenced the speed of reform on the level of the rural municipality. Firstly, data for the time series of land reform results on the municipal level is used. The data is from the Estonian Land Board and Statistics Estonia.

Secondly, different data that characterise the municipalities is used. For example, the data about the land use types, ratio of protected areas, density of roads, distances of municipalities from Tallinn and from county centres, etc. The previous data is gathered from the Estonian Land Board, Statistics Estonia, Estonian Nature Information System, Estonian Road Administration.

Thirdly, the result of the interviews is presented. The interviews were conducted with the land reform implementers (officials) from the municipalities of Alatskivi, Kambja, Rannu, Rõngu, Vara and Võnnu. This data is based on the result of the master's thesis by Aruväli et al. (2012). Fourthly, the result of the inventory about the unreformed land and potential implementer of land reform according to unreformed land plots in municipality of Puhja is presented. This inventory is based on conclusions of the master's thesis by Kink (2009).

The third research question is to determine the result of land reform based on the land plot fragmentation that accompanied implementation of land reform. Firstly, data for land reform results and land consolidation projects is used. Data is from the Estonian Land Board.

46 47 47

4. RESULTS

4.1. Institutional arrangements for the implementation of the land reform in Estonia

There are many regulations important for the implementation of the land reform. However, the most important acts are the Law of Property Reform Act (adopted 13.06.1991) and the Land Reform Act (adopted 17.10.1991). The Law of Property Reform Act stipulates the aim, content, objects and subjects of property reform, determines procedure and is the basis for other regulations needed for implementation. The Land Reform Act determines the bases for restructuring relations regarding land reform.

The Land Reform Act was adopted in 1991 and, due to the complexity of the process, has been revised 49 times during the last 26 years (cf. Figure 7) in order to specify, change or add regulations over time. In fact, some legal act has changed the Land Reform Act almost every year. Figure 7 gives the overview for the number of such changes of legal acts per year. It indicates only the number of acts, however, one act could consist of a few or many changes in the Land Reform Act. There are no revisions listed for 1995, 2007, 2011, 2012. Contrarily, there have been five legal acts in 2002 and four acts in 1994, 1997, 1998, 2009.

5 4 3 2 1 0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 7. Number of legal acts per year that changed the Land Reform Act

The Land Reform Act (Riigikogu, 1991) set the objective of land reform in section 2. It is possible to distinguish three aims (cf. Table 6). First,

48 48

4. RESULTS transformation of state land ownership to private land ownership; the second mandates that the interests of both sides, i) rights of former 4.1. Institutional arrangements for the implementation of the owners; ii) the interests of current land users, must be protected. The land reform in Estonia third aim is to establish preconditions for more effective use of land. Aims of the land reform base on Land Reform Act section 2 There are many regulations important for the implementation of the Table 6. Aim land reform. However, the most important acts are the Law of Property 1 To transform relations based on state ownership of land into relations primarily Reform Act (adopted 13.06.1991) and the Land Reform Act (adopted based on private ownership. 17.10.1991). The Law of Property Reform Act stipulates the aim, content, 2 The implementation of land reform must be based on the continuity of rights objects and subjects of property reform, determines procedure and is of former owners and the interests of current land users that are protected by the basis for other regulations needed for implementation. The Land law. 3 To establish preconditions for more effective use of land. Reform Act determines the bases for restructuring relations regarding land reform. The real properties and private land ownership are established through land reform activities (cf. Figure 8). Land is redistributed in four ways: The Land Reform Act was adopted in 1991 and, due to the complexity of i) restored to its former owners (restitution); ii) privatised; iii) given over the process, has been revised 49 times during the last 26 years (cf. Figure to local municipal ownership; iv) retained in state ownership. Private 7) in order to specify, change or add regulations over time. In fact, some ownership is created through restitution and privatisation; public legal act has changed the Land Reform Act almost every year. Figure 7 ownership through the other two activities. gives the overview for the number of such changes of legal acts per year. It indicates only the number of acts, however, one act could consist of a few or many changes in the Land Reform Act. There are no revisions listed for 1995, 2007, 2011, 2012. Contrarily, there have been five legal acts in 2002 and four acts in 1994, 1997, 1998, 2009.

5 4 Figure 8. Land reform activities for formation of real properties and for establishing 3 private ownership in Estonia

2 Privatisation is divided into four types of activities (cf. Figure 9): i) 1 privatisation by the right of pre-emption; ii) privatisation through auction (closed or public); iii) privatisation of vacant forestland; iv) 0 privatisation of vacant agricultural land. There are two possibilities for

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 privatisation in auction: closed auction, for limited persons and public

Figure 7. Number of legal acts per year that changed the Land Reform Act auction, open to everyone. It has been possible to acquire the vacant forest and arable land through special procedures. The Land Reform Act (Riigikogu, 1991) set the objective of land reform in section 2. It is possible to distinguish three aims (cf. Table 6). First,

48 49 49

Figure 9. Subtypes of privatisation

More than one reform process (restitution, privatization, etc) can take place simultaneously. When a specific land reform activity (cf. Figure 8) for a land plot has been decided upon, then the reform for that specific plot can be completed and a real property can be formed. Until then, the land plot status is considered as unreformed land. This is true for all land plots.

Theoretically, property formation unfolds in the following stages: i) land plot adjudication; ii) mapping; iii) registration (van der Molen, 2002). Land reform implementation in Estonian covered the same stages. Adjudication is the process whereby all existing rights to a particular plot of land are authoritatively determined (Lawrence, 1985). Adjudication can be systematic or sporadic (Larsson, 1991). Land reform in Estonia was implemented plot-by-plot and not simultaneously in a particular area. It was carried out in the order of submission of applications or where local governments had all the documents necessary for plots to start property formation. Therefore, land reform in Estonia has been more sporadic than systematic.

This sporadic approach has resulted in some hindrances to completion of the reform process. As seen in Figure 10, unreformed land plots are situated side-by-side with reformed land plots. Unreformed land plots are designated in white. All other land plots around these white spots are reformed. Sometimes these white spots are completely surrounded by reformed land plots; there is no access to them, thus there is little interest by private persons to acquire them.

50 50

Figure 9. Subtypes of privatisation

More than one reform process (restitution, privatization, etc) can take place simultaneously. When a specific land reform activity (cf. Figure 8) Figure 10. Unreformed land plots (white spots) among reformed land plots. Extract for a land plot has been decided upon, then the reform for that specific 3 from X-GIS Estonian Land Board map application . plot can be completed and a real property can be formed. Until then, the land plot status is considered as unreformed land. This is true for all All land plots have been registered in the land cadastre and land register land plots. (cf. Figure 11). Each is given a cadastral register number, a numeric code which is used to identity cadastral units and to relate data to other Theoretically, property formation unfolds in the following stages: i) land registers (Riigikogu, 1994). Next, the cadastral unit(s) is entered into the plot adjudication; ii) mapping; iii) registration (van der Molen, 2002). land register. All immovables shall be entered in a land register unless Land reform implementation in Estonian covered the same stages. otherwise provided by law. An independent register section is opened Adjudication is the process whereby all existing rights to a particular for each immovable entered in a land register and a separate number plot of land are authoritatively determined (Lawrence, 1985). (registered immovable number) is assigned thereto (Riigikogu, 1993a). Adjudication can be systematic or sporadic (Larsson, 1991). Land One property may consist of one or many cadastral units. Estonia has reform in Estonia was implemented plot-by-plot and not chosen a dual registration system whereby the Land Board is simultaneously in a particular area. It was carried out in the order of responsible for the land cadastre and the courts maintain the title book. submission of applications or where local governments had all the documents necessary for plots to start property formation. Therefore, land reform in Estonia has been more sporadic than systematic.

This sporadic approach has resulted in some hindrances to completion of the reform process. As seen in Figure 10, unreformed land plots are situated side-by-side with reformed land plots. Unreformed land plots are designated in white. All other land plots around these white spots are reformed. Sometimes these white spots are completely surrounded by reformed land plots; there is no access to them, thus there is little interest by private persons to acquire them. Figure 11. Scheme of land plots registration in land cadastre and title book during the land reform in Estonia

3 Available at: http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/eng/

50 51 51

There are 15 counties in Estonia, each with its local governing body. Under the organizational scheme of land reform implementation in Estonia (cf. Figure 12), the parliament established the legal acts. The state Land Board supervised and guided the activity, overall, and the county governors monitored, controlled and guided the municipal land reform activities within a county. The municipalities themselves initiated and performed most land reform activities on the spot. The number of municipalities has changed. For instance, there were 247 municipalities in 1999, however, it was 213 on January 1, 2017. The number of municipalities will be much smaller at the end of 2017 due to administrative reform in Estonia.

Figure 12. Organisational scheme for implementation of land reform in Estonia post- 1990 (Paper V).

According to the Estonian Local Government Organisation Act (Riigikogu, 1993b) the local government (municipality) has the right, authority and duty of the democratically formed bodies of power of a local government provided for in the Constitution, a rural municipality or city, to independently organise and manage local issues pursuant to law and based on the legitimate needs and interests of the residents of the rural municipality or city, and considering the specific development of the rural municipality or city. The present thesis operates with the concept of municipality which is equivalent to the concept of local government.

52 52

At the beginning of the implementation of land reform, it was decided There are 15 counties in Estonia, each with its local governing body. that the process would be implemented on the municipal level. Under the organizational scheme of land reform implementation in However, the state did not ensure the municipalities’ readiness to Estonia (cf. Figure 12), the parliament established the legal acts. The undertake the necessary tasks. For her master’s thesis, Taremaa (2014) state Land Board supervised and guided the activity, overall, and the studied the educational background of Estonian local government county governors monitored, controlled and guided the municipal land employees involved in executing the land reform from 1991-2012. She reform activities within a county. The municipalities themselves initiated studied 368 officials and found that the biggest group, including 138 and performed most land reform activities on the spot. The number of officials (cf. Figure 13), had an educational background in other municipalities has changed. For instance, there were 247 municipalities specialties; 37% officials did not have higher education. The second in 1999, however, it was 213 on January 1, 2017. The number of group, 122 officials, or 33%, had higher education but not in land municipalities will be much smaller at the end of 2017 due to surveying (land management). Many had studied agronomy or technical administrative reform in Estonia. engineering and some had a background in humanitarian studies. Only 60 individuals, only 16%, had a background in land surveying (land management).

Figure 13. Educational background of officials who worked in municipalities 1991- Figure 12. Organisational scheme for implementation of land reform in Estonia post- 2012 (base on the data Taremaa, 2014) 1990 (Paper V). Accordingly, it is possible to conclude from the study that only a small According to the Estonian Local Government Organisation Act (Riigikogu, number of employees who implemented land reform in municipalities 1993b) the local government (municipality) has the right, authority and had the appropriate educational background. duty of the democratically formed bodies of power of a local government provided for in the Constitution, a rural municipality or city, to independently organise and manage local issues pursuant to law and based on the legitimate needs and interests of the residents of the 4.2. The outcome of the land reform implementation on state rural municipality or city, and considering the specific development of level the rural municipality or city. The present thesis operates with the concept of municipality which is equivalent to the concept of local The Land Reform Act was adopted in 1991; the land plot registration in government. land cadastre started in 1993. Table 7 presents the results of land plot registration in the cadastre from 1993-2015 in Estonia, showing data for

52 53 53 numbers of cadastre units, area of cadastre units (hectares), ratio of the reformed land and average plots area (hectares) per year. Average plot area is calculated by dividing the area of cadastre units by the number of units. Both the number and area of the cadastral units have varied over the years. Additionally, the average plot area has ranged from 4 to 11 hectares.

Table 7. Number and area of cadastral units, land reform percent and average plot area in Estonia per year Year Number of Area of Land reform Average cadastre cadastre units % plot area units (hectares) (hectares) 1993 3,350 38,362 1 11 1994 6,813 61,893 2 9 1995 14,077 118,449 5 8 1996 23,858 268,001 11 11 1997 50,559 569,959 24 11 1998 76,413 605,373 38 8 1999 73,937 476,151 49 6 2000 54,329 264,644 55 5 2001 46,674 274,528 62 6 2002 38,741 267,075 68 7 2003 28,222 200,515 72 7 2004 23,190 235,096 78 10 2005 14,773 142,980 81 10 2006 15,218 74,655 83 5 2007 12,603 84,899 85 7 2008 9,948 40,896 86 4 2009 9,558 71,216 87 7 2010 8,973 71,779 89 8 2011 8,414 68,171 91 8 2012 7,215 72,658 92 10 2013 7,387 78,057 94 11 2014 7,476 59,596 95 8 2015 9,192 45,551 96 5

Figure 14 presents the activity of land reform from 1993-2015. It covers two indicators: the area of cadastral units and number of cadastral units registered in the land cadastre (cf. Table 7). In the early years, the speed of the land reform implementation was relatively slow and the results were modest. However, after 1996, the land area registered in cadastre and the number of parcels increased considerably. More than 50% of

54 54 numbers of cadastre units, area of cadastre units (hectares), ratio of the the Estonian inland had already been reformed by 2000 (cf. Figure 15). reformed land and average plots area (hectares) per year. Average plot The most active years were in 1997, 1998 and 1999; the peak was in area is calculated by dividing the area of cadastre units by the number 1998, when over 600,000 hectares of land and 76,413 cadastral units of units. Both the number and area of the cadastral units have varied were registered. In comparison, in 2015 the registered area was only over the years. Additionally, the average plot area has ranged from 4 to 45,551 hectares and the cadastral unit number was 9,192; the area was 11 hectares. 13 times smaller and the cadastral unit number 8 times smaller. The cadastral unit number did not decrease as much and the average area of Table 7. Number and area of cadastral units, land reform percent and average plot cadastral units was also smaller in 2015, decreasing from 8 hectares in area in Estonia per year 1998 to 5 hectares. Year Number of Area of Land reform Average cadastre cadastre units % plot area units (hectares) (hectares) 1993 3,350 38,362 1 11 1994 6,813 61,893 2 9 1995 14,077 118,449 5 8 1996 23,858 268,001 11 11 1997 50,559 569,959 24 11 1998 76,413 605,373 38 8 1999 73,937 476,151 49 6 2000 54,329 264,644 55 5 2001 46,674 274,528 62 6 2002 38,741 267,075 68 7 2003 28,222 200,515 72 7 2004 23,190 235,096 78 10 Figure 14. Registration of cadastral units and the area of cadastral units (hectares) by 2005 14,773 142,980 81 10 years 1993-2015 2006 15,218 74,655 83 5 2007 12,603 84,899 85 7 The speed of land reform implementation has decreased a lot since 2008 9,948 40,896 86 4 2009 9,558 71,216 87 7 1999. Had it continued at the same level as in 1997-1999, the reform 2010 8,973 71,779 89 8 would have been completed by at least 2010. However, by the end of 2011 8,414 68,171 91 8 2010, only 89 percent had been reformed, leaving more than 11% of the 2012 7,215 72,658 92 10 Estonian area (476,860 hectares) as unreformed. Six years later, at the 2013 7,387 78,057 94 11 end of 2016, 2% of the land (88,295 hectares) was still in need of reform. 2014 7,476 59,596 95 8 2015 9,192 45,551 96 5 It is possible to distinguish four distinct periods of land area registration in the cadastre (cf. Figure 14). The first period lasted from the beginning Figure 14 presents the activity of land reform from 1993-2015. It covers of the registration in 1993 till its peak in 1998; remarkable increase of two indicators: the area of cadastral units and number of cadastral units the land reform speed is characteristic of these years. The second period registered in the land cadastre (cf. Table 7). In the early years, the speed was from 1999 to 2008 when the intensity decreased, with a of the land reform implementation was relatively slow and the results considerable decrease from 1999 to 2000. The third period started in were modest. However, after 1996, the land area registered in cadastre 2009, during which a slight rise in the registered area continued until and the number of parcels increased considerably. More than 50% of

54 55 55

2013. The fourth period started in 2014 and, till the present time, there has been a slight decrease in the registered area.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Reformed land Not reformed land

Figure 15. Implementation of land reform over the years (land reform %)

Although it was possible to start and carry out all land reform activities simultaneously, it is still possible to distinguish that land reform started mostly with land restitution (cf. Figure 16). Until 1995, restitution of land was the only land reform activity. State land units and privatized land plots were added to the process in 1996. Since 2009, more than 70% of area registered has consisted of state land plots; in addition, unreformed land plots have been reformed by the state and are being transferred to state management.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

State ownership Restitution Privatisation

Figure 16. The ratios of different land reform activities by years (100% scale)

56 56

2013. The fourth period started in 2014 and, till the present time, there The average plot sizes have varied over the years (cf. Figure 17). It was has been a slight decrease in the registered area. 11 hectares in 1993, 1996, 1997 and 2013. In 2008, the average area was 4 hectares, and in many years, for example, in 2000, 2006 and 2015, it 100% was 5 hectares.

80% 12 60% 10

40% 8

20% 6

0% 4 2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Reformed land Not reformed land 0

Figure 15. Implementation of land reform over the years (land reform %) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 17. Average area (hectares) of formed cadastral units 1993-2015 Although it was possible to start and carry out all land reform activities simultaneously, it is still possible to distinguish that land reform started In the early years of the land reform (1993-1998), the average plot area mostly with land restitution (cf. Figure 16). Until 1995, restitution of tended to be bigger, between 8 and 11 hectares. Land reform started land was the only land reform activity. State land units and privatized mostly with restitution, thus these land plots were larger than privatised land plots were added to the process in 1996. Since 2009, more than land plots that were formed later. In 1996, 1997 and 2013 the larger 70% of area registered has consisted of state land plots; in addition, average area of land unit is connected with the formation of state land unreformed land plots have been reformed by the state and are being plots. The state land plot formation was most active in 1996, 1997 and transferred to state management. again in 2004, 2005 (cf. Figure 18). The size of land units was quite large, and at the same time, the state was also reforming previous state 100% forested and protected areas. Since 2009, the state activity has increased further. However, the area of land units is no longer so large. 80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

State ownership Restitution Privatisation

Figure 16. The ratios of different land reform activities by years (100% scale)

56 57 57

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

Area hectares 100,000 50,000 ,0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 18. Formation of state land cadastral units (hectares) 1993-2015

Table 8 presents the status of land reform as of December 31, 2016. The data show that 98% of the entire Estonian inland has been registe- red in the land cadastre. According to the land reform activities the ma- jority of reformed land, 40%, has remained in state ownership. Land restitution represents 34% of the total Estonian area which has been given back to the eligible persons; 23% has been privatised. Privatisation with pre-emption right includes (15%); the rest (8%), included privatisa- tion through auction, free forest and agricultural land. Just 1% of the total Estonian land area has been given over to municipal ownership. The land reform is not finished yet; 2% of the country’s land is still in the process of transformation.

The municipality determines the intended use for each cadastral unit before it is registered in the cadastre. Intended use of cadastral unit means the use or uses permitted by legislation and determined pursuant to the procedure provided therein (Riigikogu, 1994). If a cadastral unit has more than one intended use, up to three uses must be registered in the cadastre (Vabariigi Valitsus, 1995). Land registered in the land cadastre according to the intended use is presented in Table 9.

58 58

. The result of the Estonian land reform by the land reform activities as of 400,000 Table 8 December 31, 2016 350,000 Activity of land reform Hectares Percentages 300,000 Inland area of Estonia 4,346,537 250,000 Reformed land 4,258,242 98 200,000 from this restitution 1,505,070 34 150,000 privatisation 986,716 23

Area hectares 100,000 from this privatisation with pre- 643,039 15 50,000 emption right ,0 other kind of 343,676 8 privatisation 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 state ownership 1,718,055 40 municipal ownership 48,417 1 Figure 18. Formation of state land cadastral units (hectares) 1993-2015 Unreformed land 88,295 2 4 Table 8 presents the status of land reform as of December 31, 2016. Source: Land Board homepage The data show that 98% of the entire Estonian inland has been registe- red in the land cadastre. According to the land reform activities the ma- Table 9. Land registered in the land cadastre by intended use on December 31, 2016 Intended use Number of Area Average jority of reformed land, 40%, has remained in state ownership. Land cadastral (hectares) plot area restitution represents 34% of the total Estonian area which has been units (hectares) given back to the eligible persons; 23% has been privatised. Privatisation Reformed land in Estonia 680,247 4,258,242 6.26 with pre-emption right includes (15%); the rest (8%), included privatisa- Profit-yielding land 307,291 3,785,106 12.32 tion through auction, free forest and agricultural land. Just 1% of the Residential land 263,764 85,818 0.33 total Estonian land area has been given over to municipal ownership. Transport land 46,314 55,256 1.19 Production land 29,179 26,284 0.90 The land reform is not finished yet; 2% of the country’s land is still in Public land 13,954 25,607 1.84 the process of transformation. Commercial land 12,871 7,198 0.56 Protected land 2,515 189,546 75.37 The municipality determines the intended use for each cadastral unit National defence land 1,257 22,156 17.63 before it is registered in the cadastre. Intended use of cadastral unit Land not designated for a specific 954 3,580 3.75 means the use or uses permitted by legislation and determined pursuant purpose Waste disposal land 909 5,886 6.48 to the procedure provided therein (Riigikogu, 1994). If a cadastral unit Mining land 683 15,514 22.71 has more than one intended use, up to three uses must be registered in Land under inland waters 381 10,010 26.27 the cadastre (Vabariigi Valitsus, 1995). Land registered in the land Peat-extraction & processing land 175 26,287 150.21 cadastre according to the intended use is presented in Table 9. Source: Land Board homepage5

4http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=506&type=maarefo rm&year=2016&month=12&group=1 5http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=506&type=ky_so_h a&year=2016&month=12&group=1

58 59 59

The largest (45%) intended use according to the cadastral unit numbers is profit-yielding land, which consists of agricultural land (arable land and natural grassland), forestland, land under the yard, etc. The Estonian landscape is quite diverse and almost all agricultural areas include forested or brush-covered areas, etc. The next category is residential land, representing 39% of total cadastral units. The number of cadastral units with other intended use is smaller: only 16%.

According to the area registered in cadastre, 89% of the entire registered area is profit-yielding land. Residential land area is only 2% and is related to average size of units. For instance, the average area of a profit- yielding land unit is 12.32 hectares while a residential land unit is only 0.33 hectares (cf. Table 9).

Comparison of profit-yielding land and residential land is presented in Figure 19, showing the proportion according to the number and size of cadastral units. According to the number of cadastral plots there are 45% profit-yielding cadastral plots; by area, it represents 89% of all other intended uses. While 39% of land plots are residential, according to the number of cadastral units, that represents only 2% of the total area.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Others 50% 40% Residential land 30% Profit yielding land 20% 10% 0% Number of cadastral units Area of cadastral units (hectares)

Figure 19. Percentage of profit-yielding land and residential land according to the number and area of cadastral units

Table 10 presents land registered in the land cadastre by land use type. Land use type means a section of a cadastral unit which has the same

60 60

The largest (45%) intended use according to the cadastral unit numbers intended economic use and/or natural status and which is not delimited is profit-yielding land, which consists of agricultural land (arable land by boundary marks (Riigikogu, 1994). Forestland is 51% of all registered and natural grassland), forestland, land under the yard, etc. The land. Arable land is 24%. Other land use types are together 15%. Estonian landscape is quite diverse and almost all agricultural areas include forested or brush-covered areas, etc. The next category is Table 10. Land registered in the land cadastre by land use type on December 31, 2016 residential land, representing 39% of total cadastral units. The number Land use type Hectares Percentages of cadastral units with other intended use is smaller: only 16%. Reformed land in Estonia 4,258,242 from this forestland 2,185,400 51 arable land 1,037,364 24 According to the area registered in cadastre, 89% of the entire registered other land use 652,319 15 area is profit-yielding land. Residential land area is only 2% and is related type to average size of units. For instance, the average area of a profit- natural grassland 292,144 7 yielding land unit is 12.32 hectares while a residential land unit is only yard land 56,829 1 0.33 hectares (cf. Table 9). Source: Land Board homepage6

Comparison of profit-yielding land and residential land is presented in Combining the data from Table 9 with Table 10, it is possible to identify Figure 19, showing the proportion according to the number and size of what comprises profit-yielding land (cf. Table 11). Forest land is 58% cadastral units. According to the number of cadastral plots there are of that area (3,785,106 hectares), arable land is 27%, natural grassland 45% profit-yielding cadastral plots; by area, it represents 89% of all 8% and 7%, other land use types. other intended uses. While 39% of land plots are residential, according to the number of cadastral units, that represents only 2% of the total Table 11. The structure of profit-yielding land by land use types on December 31, area. 2016 Land use type Area (hectares) Percentage Forestland 2,185,400 58 100% Arable land 1,037,364 27 90% Natural grassland 292,144 8 80% Other land use types 270,198 7 70% Total 3,785,106 100 60% Others 50% As shown, profit-yielding land accounts for 87% of land on the 40% Residential land Estonian inland; more than half is forestland and more than a quarter is 30% Profit yielding land 20% arable land. 10% 0% Number of cadastral units Area of cadastral units (hectares)

Figure 19. Percentage of profit-yielding land and residential land according to the number and area of cadastral units

Table 10 presents land registered in the land cadastre by land use type. Land use type means a section of a cadastral unit which has the same 6http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=506&type=maarefo rm&year=2016&month=12&group=1

60 61 61

4.3. Speed of the implementation of land reform on the level of counties and municipalities

Paper I deals with the general process and regional differences of the land reform results in Estonia. The progress of implementation has differed in counties and municipalities. Table 12 consists of information about land reform implementation on the county level at the end of the years 1998, 2008, 2011 and 2016. The comparable indicator for the counties and for the years is land reform percentage.

The land reform percentages differed more among counties in the earlier land reform years. For instance, at the end of 1998 the land reform percentage was 64 in the county of Põlva while it was 20% in the county of , a difference of 44% between counties. Ten years later, at the end of 2008 the land reform percentage was 93 in Viljandi and Valga counties, and 80% in Harju, a 13% difference. At the end of 2011 the highest land reform percentage was in the county of Viljandi: it was 96; the lowest percentage was in the county of Saare, at 86%; the difference, 10%. The results were more equal at the end of 2016. Land reform percentage is almost 99% in four counties (Lääne-Viru, Järva, Valga, Rapla); 98% in seven counties (Jõgeva, Lääne, Pärnu, Põlva, Saare, Võru, Hiiu); 97% in the county of Harju. In the last two counties (Ida-Viru, Tartu), the land reform percentage is 96. Variance between the land reform percentages is only 3% at the end of 2016.

The difference between the results of the implementation of the land reform on the municipal level has been much bigger than in counties. Table 13 presents the land reform implementation data for the fast and slow rural municipalities in the counties. Urban municipalities are excluded from this study. Data is presented for the year 2008.

62 62

4.3. Speed of the implementation of land reform on the level of counties and municipalities

Paper I deals with the general process and regional differences of the land reform results in Estonia. The progress of implementation has differed in counties and municipalities. Table 12 consists of information about land reform implementation on the county level at the end of the years 1998, 2008, 2011 and 2016. The comparable indicator for the

counties and for the years is land reform percentage. 97 98 96 98 99 98 99 98 98 99 98 96 99 99 98 98 %

The land reform percentages differed more among counties in the earlier land reform years. For instance, at the end of 1998 the land 31.12.2016 Area 420,871 100,668 321,919 256,486 242,873 237,507 358,368 212,776 472,929 293,965 287,831 287,662 201,636 337,232 225,517 Reformed land

reform percentage was 64 in the county of Põlva while it was 20% in 4,258,242

the county of Rapla, a difference of 44% between counties. Ten years

87 90 87 95 94 91 93 94 93 90 86 91 95 96 93 92 % later, at the end of 2008 the land reform percentage was 93 in Viljandi

and Valga counties, and 80% in Harju, a 13% difference. At the end of 2008, 2011 and 2016 2011 the highest land reform percentage was in the county of Viljandi: 31.12.2011 it was 96; the lowest percentage was in the county of Saare, at 86%; the 93,212 Area 376,507 290,261 246,451 231,320 219,258 335,917 204,421 447,897 268,568 253,184 273,550 194,450 328,471 213,873 1998, Reformed land 3,977,341 difference, 10%. The results were more equal at the end of 2016. Land

63

reform percentage is almost 99% in four counties (Lääne-Viru, Järva, 80 88 83 91 90 81 90 92 90 85 82 87 93 93 91 87

Valga, Rapla); 98% in seven counties (Jõgeva, Lääne, Pärnu, Põlva, % counties in

Saare, Võru, Hiiu); 97% in the county of Harju. In the last two counties

the

(Ida-Viru, Tartu), the land reform percentage is 96. Variance between in 90,694 31.12.2008 Area the land reform percentages is only 3% at the end of 2016. 348,502 277,526 235,955 220,853 195,428 325,899 199,643 431,864 254,767 239,637 261,763 188,986 316,894 209,073 Reformed land 3,797,485

The difference between the results of the implementation of the land 41 21 43 47 47 36 37 46 64 60 20 21 36 50 50 47 % reform on the municipal level has been much bigger than in counties. Table 13 presents the land reform implementation data for the fast and slow rural municipalities in the counties. Urban municipalities are 31.12.1998 90,356 44,893 87,502 88,240 58,883 61,173 Area excluded from this study. Data is presented for the year 2008. 158,115 123,499 165,673 138,550 289,911 108,500 102,402 172,040 109,505 Reformed land 1,799,243

area (hectares) and percentage percentage and (hectares) area 433,834 103,244 333,662 260,417 245,924 241,314 362,859 216,415 480,953 297,998 293,764 299,300 204,293 342,004 230,556 4,346,537 Area of Area of county

. Reformed land 2 - 1 Virumaa County - Harjumaa Ida Jõgevamaa Järvamaa Läänemaa Lääne Põlvamaa Pärnumaa Raplamaa Tartumaa Valgamaa Viljandimaa Võrumaa Estonia

Table 62 63

According to the data, the biggest ratio of land registered in cadastre at the end of the 2008 is 99 percent in the municipality of Surju in the county of Pärnu. The lowest figure is only 47 percent in Piirissaare municipality in Tartu county, respectively. The difference between minimum and maximum percentage, 52%, is considerable. If the untypical Estonian municipality, Piirissaare, is eliminated, the difference between the ratio of land registered in cadastre in municipality Peipsiääre and Surju is 37% and the difference between counties is only 13% (Paper I).

Table 13. Land reform implementation data for fast and slow municipalities within counties on December 31, 2008. The name of corresponding municipality is in brackets after the ratio (Paper I) County Land reform percentage County Extreme results of municipalities % Minimum Maximum Difference (max-min) Harjumaa 80 72 () 90 () 18 Hiiumaa 88 80 (Pühalepa) 93 (Kõrgessaare) 13 Ida-Virumaa 83 70 () 93 () 23 Järvamaa 91 82 (Kareda) 95 (Türi) 13 Jõgevamaa 90 85 (Torma) 98 (Pala) 13 Läänemaa 81 71 () 91 (Lihula) 20 Lääne-Virumaa 90 84 () 96 () 12 Pärnumaa 92 63 () 99 (Surju) 36 Põlvamaa 90 70 (Mikitamäe) 97 () 27 Raplamaa 85 79 () 92 (Käru) 13 Saaremaa 82 70 (Kärla) 93 () 23 Tartumaa 87 47*(Piirisaare); 98 (Võnnu) 51* or 36 62 (Peipsiääre) Valgamaa 93 90 (Tõlliste) 97 () 7 Viljandimaa 93 87 () 98 (Kõpu) 11 Võrumaa 91 87 (Lasva) 94 (Rõuge) 7 Estonia 87 47*(Piirisaare); 99 (Surju) 52* or 37 62 (Peipsiääre) * Data for Piirissaare municipality. It is a fairly small and untypical Estonian municipality characterised by certain specific features and situated on an island in Lake Peipus.

The result of Paper I showed that the implementation of the land reform was more successful in some municipalities than in others. The fact that municipalities have been the main implementer of the land reform was based on deeper study of land reform on the municipal level. Thus the impetus to engage in additional research of the municipalities.

64 64

According to the data, the biggest ratio of land registered in cadastre at The hypothesis of the Paper II was that the land use types (e.g. the ratio the end of the 2008 is 99 percent in the municipality of Surju in the of arable land as well as the density of the road network in a municipality, county of Pärnu. The lowest figure is only 47 percent in Piirissaare etc.) compose one group of factors that have an impact on the results of municipality in Tartu county, respectively. The difference between land reform in Estonia. Simple correlation analysis has been used to minimum and maximum percentage, 52%, is considerable. If the prove the hypothesis. The ratios of different land use types (arable land, untypical Estonian municipality, Piirissaare, is eliminated, the difference forest land, etc.) are used to describe the land use within municipalities. between the ratio of land registered in cadastre in municipality Peipsiääre Also included in the analysis is the distance of municipalities from and Surju is 37% and the difference between counties is only 13% (Paper Tallinn and the county centre. The percentage of the reformed land in I). municipalities is used to describe the success of the land reform.

Table 13. Land reform implementation data for fast and slow municipalities within The impact of different land use types on the total results of the land counties on December 31, 2008. The name of corresponding municipality is in brackets reform (all registered land in a cadastre) and on the separate activities of after the ratio (Paper I) the land reform (restitution, privatisation, etc.) is shown in Table 14. The County Land reform percentage County Extreme results of municipalities data presented in Table 14 shows that the separate activities of the land % Minimum Maximum Difference reform results better correlate with land use types than with general (max-min) results of the land reform. Only two land use types (the ratio of arable Harjumaa 80 72 (Keila) 90 (Kernu) 18 land and grassland) have a significant correlation with the ratio of all land Hiiumaa 88 80 (Pühalepa) 93 (Kõrgessaare) 13 registered in a cadastre. The ratio of arable land has positive correlation Ida-Virumaa 83 70 (Aseri) 93 (Tudulinna) 23 and the ratio of grassland has negative correlation. Järvamaa 91 82 (Kareda) 95 (Türi) 13 Jõgevamaa 90 85 (Torma) 98 (Pala) 13 Läänemaa 81 71 (Kullamaa) 91 (Lihula) 20 The ratio of privatised land is most correlated with various land use Lääne-Virumaa 90 84 (Rakke) 96 (Laekvere) 12 types. Only two land use types (ratio of grassland and distance of Pärnumaa 92 63 (Lavassaare) 99 (Surju) 36 municipalities from Tallinn) do not have any significant correlations with Põlvamaa 90 70 (Mikitamäe) 97 (Ahja) 27 the ratio of privatised land. The correlation between the ratio of the Raplamaa 85 79 (Kohila) 92 (Käru) 13 privatized land and the ratio of the arable land (r=0.77) is the highest Saaremaa 82 70 (Kärla) 93 (Ruhnu) 23 Tartumaa 87 47*(Piirisaare); 98 (Võnnu) 51* or 36 one indicated in Table 14. The impact of land use types on the separate 62 (Peipsiääre) activities of the land reform results is converse in certain cases. The ratio Valgamaa 93 90 (Tõlliste) 97 (Palupera) 7 of arable land has a positive correlation with the ratio of privatized land Viljandimaa 93 87 (Halliste) 98 (Kõpu) 11 whilst the correlation with the ratio of the land retained in state Võrumaa 91 87 (Lasva) 94 (Rõuge) 7 ownership is negative. Estonia 87 47*(Piirisaare); 99 (Surju) 52* or 37 62 (Peipsiääre)

* Data for Piirissaare municipality. It is a fairly small and untypical Estonian municipality characterised by certain specific features and situated on an island in Lake Peipus.

The result of Paper I showed that the implementation of the land reform was more successful in some municipalities than in others. The fact that municipalities have been the main implementer of the land reform was based on deeper study of land reform on the municipal level. Thus the impetus to engage in additional research of the municipalities.

64 65 65

0.08 0.03 - 0.77* 0.45* 0.51* 0.48* 0.25* 0.49* 0.52* 0.28* - - - - - land Ratio of of Ratio privatized

0.11 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.07 0.16 - - - - 0.21* 0.22* 0.38* 0.33* - land Ratio of of Ratio use types and distance factors distance and types use municipalized

47* 44* 56* . . . 0.18 0.10 0.06 reform - - 0 0 0.38* 0.52* 0.41* 0 0.33* and land

- - - - state ownership retained in activities Ratio of land of Ratio

Results land of

0.14 0.07 0.15 0.02 - - 0.24* 0.32* 0.41* 0.28* 0.44* 0.33* - former owners returned to Ratio of land of Ratio

66 0.03 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.20 0.18 - - - - - 0.27* 0.37* - land Ratio of of Ratio registered in cadastrein

centre

tions are significanttions at p<0.01 a grassland use typesand factors distance

. Correlation coefficients that describe the relation between the result of land reform reform land of result the between relation the describe that coefficients Correlation . ) 4 II 1 The land land arable of ratio The of ratio The forest of ratio The land wetlands of ratio The yards of ratio The roads the under land of ratio The The density of roads (m/ha) protected of ratio areasThe municipalitiesDistance of from Tallinn municipalitiesDistance of from county the Paper Paper

Table ( correl Marked *

66 Paper II shows that there are regional differences in Estonia, even though it is a small country. Some results of this study have not been reported yet but there are indications that more proper investigation of these regional differences is required. Other important points for further studies are various aspects of the land reform results, which provided a motive for Paper III. That aim was to investigate why some municipalities are quicker than others in terms of implementing the land reform.

The 30 quickest and 30 slowest municipalities were chosen to determine whether there are characteristic differences. The municipalities were classified on the basis of their speed of implementation of the land reform; in other words, according to percentage of land reform (data as of 31.12.2009). Quick and slow municipalities are not distributed evenly throughout Estonia; their geographical locations are presented in Figure 20.

Quick municipality Slow municipality Boundaries of county Boundaries of municipality Figure 20. Location of quick and slow municipalities according to the implementation of land reform

Three types of data have been used to analyse these differences: i) the geographical location of the municipalities; ii) the groups of municipalities characterised by the data related to reform activities (land remaining under state ownership, privatised land, land returned to the

67 67 former owners, average size of plot); iii) the comparison of groups of municipalities defined as land use types (arable land, forest land, grassland, protected areas, land under the roads, water bodies, wetlands, yards and other types of land) (Paper III).

Table 15 gathers the results of the T-test, which is based on Table 1 published in Paper III. This table consists of characteristics that are statistically significant for the quick and slow municipalities. The difference between two groups is statistically significant if p<0.05.

Table 15. Outcomes of T-test: Characteristics that are statistically significant for the quick and slow municipalities Characteristics Quick muni- Slow muni- cipalities cipalities (average) (average) Location Distance from county centre 22.11 km 29.62 km Activities connected to land reform Land remaining under state ownership on 30.94% 16.41% December 31, 1999 Land remaining under state ownership on 33.61% 19.88% December 31, 2004 Land remaining under state ownership on 35.15% 23.58% December 31, 2009 Privatised land on December 31, 1999 10.16% 5.44% Privatised land on December 31, 2004 15.97% 10.28% Privatised land on December 31, 2009 17.10% 11.75% Land returned to former owners on December 27.74% 15.94% 31, 1999 Average size of plot on December 31, 2004 12.90 ha 9.75 ha Average size of plot on December 31, 2009 11.25 ha 8.59 ha Land use types Arable land 29.09% 22.54% Natural grassland 7.83% 12.07% Protected areas 12.37% 18.67% Source: Table 1 in Paper III

It became obvious that municipalities closer to the county centre fall into the quick category. Over the years, more land has been retained under both state ownership and as privatised land in quick municipalities. More land has been restored to previous owners in quick municipalities, as well, but the difference is statistically significant only until 31.12.1999; in later years the difference between two groups is no longer statistically different. The average size of plots has been greater

68 68 former owners, average size of plot); iii) the comparison of groups of in quick municipalities. There is more arable land but less natural municipalities defined as land use types (arable land, forest land, grassland and protected areas in quick municipalities. grassland, protected areas, land under the roads, water bodies, wetlands, yards and other types of land) (Paper III).

Table 15 gathers the results of the T-test, which is based on Table 1 4.4. Case study for municipalities in the county of Tartu published in Paper III. This table consists of characteristics that are according to the implementation of the land reform statistically significant for the quick and slow municipalities. The difference between two groups is statistically significant if p<0.05. Paper III presents the location of 30 quick and 30 slow municipalities (cf. Figure 20) involved in the implementation of the land reform. Table 15. Outcomes of T-test: Characteristics that are statistically significant for the According to that study the county of Tartu has four quick and four quick and slow municipalities slow municipalities (cf. Figure 2) which is unlike the situation in other Characteristics Quick muni- Slow muni- cipalities cipalities counties. According to the organisational arrangements for (average) (average) implementation of the reform (cf. Figure 12), county governments were Location tasked with guiding the activity of local governments. The presumption Distance from county centre 22.11 km 29.62 km was that municipalities within one county would be led in a similar Activities connected to land reform manner, with similar central coordination (by county government). But Land remaining under state ownership on 30.94% 16.41% what happened in reality? Why are four municipalities in the quick group December 31, 1999 Land remaining under state ownership on 33.61% 19.88% and four in the slow group in the county of Tartu? December 31, 2004 Land remaining under state ownership on 35.15% 23.58% This chapter consist of three parts. Firstly, it gives the numerical data for December 31, 2009 municipalities, their land use and the results of the land reform activities Privatised land on December 31, 1999 10.16% 5.44% for the four quick and four slow municipalities in Tartu county (cf. Privatised land on December 31, 2004 15.97% 10.28% Figure 2). The municipalities of Kambja, Rõngu, Tähtvere and Võnnu Privatised land on December 31, 2009 17.10% 11.75% Land returned to former owners on December 27.74% 15.94% belong to the quick group; the municipalities of Alatskivi, Puhja, Rannu 31, 1999 and Vara belong to the slow group. Secondly, it presents the summary Average size of plot on December 31, 2004 12.90 ha 9.75 ha result of the interviews made by Aruväli et al. (2012). They interviewed Average size of plot on December 31, 2009 11.25 ha 8.59 ha the land reform implementers from three quick (Kambja, Rõngu, Land use types Võnnu) and three slow municipalities (Alatskivi, Rannu, Vara). The Arable land 29.09% 22.54% interviews were comprised of questions about the organisational Natural grassland 7.83% 12.07% arrangement, the process of land restitution itself, and land privatisation Protected areas 12.37% 18.67% Source: Table 1 in Paper III with pre-emption right. The responses have been generalised. Thirdly, the chapter gives an overview of the unreformed land in the municipality It became obvious that municipalities closer to the county centre fall of Puhja at the beginning of 2009. It presents the intended land reform into the quick category. Over the years, more land has been retained implementers, state or municipal. It generalises the results of the Kink under both state ownership and as privatised land in quick (2009) master's thesis. municipalities. More land has been restored to previous owners in quick municipalities, as well, but the difference is statistically significant only until 31.12.1999; in later years the difference between two groups is no longer statistically different. The average size of plots has been greater

68 69 69

4.4.1. Land use and the results of the land reform in four quick and four slow municipalities in the county of Tartu

Table 16 presents the data for quick and slow municipalities in the county of Tartu. The total area of municipalities for both groups varies widely. In the quick group, the municipality of Võnnu is biggest, with an area of more than 23,000 hectares. The smallest is Tähtvere; its area is over 11,000 hectares, a difference of more than 10,000 hectares. The biggest municipality in the slow group is Vara, with more than 33,000 hectares. The smallest is Alatskivi, with more than 12,000 hectares, a difference of 20,000 hectares. Reformed land area differs also, depending on the total area of the municipality. Therefore, the land reform percentage is more comparable, thus is used as the indicator between reformed land and total area of the municipality. The ratio of land reform is 96% and 98% in the fast group and 72-86% in the slow group.

Predictably, the size of municipalities and land plots within them varies; some reformed land plots are bigger than others. For instance, the average area of a reformed land plot is biggest in the municipality of Võnnu - 17.1 hectares. Meanwhile, in Tähtvere, the average area of a reformed land plot is 6.4 hectares. The difference of average areas is 2.7 times. A quite similar situation exists in the slow group of municipalities. The average area of reformed land plots is 13.8 hectares in the municipality of Vara and 5.8 hectares in Alatskivi. The difference is 2.4 times.

The data for land reform activities for quick and slow municipalities also differ considerably. For instance, (reformed) state land area in municipalities depends on the size of the municipality and additionally, on the location of (pre-1940) state forest areas. Forested areas that belonged to the state before 1940 remained in state ownership under the present land reform. As a result, the number of hectares retained in state ownership differs. For example, in the group of quick municipalities it varies from 3,044 hectares to 13,751 hectares; the difference is 4.5 times.

70 70

4.4.1. Land use and the results of the land reform in four quick

- - 16 and four slow municipalities in the county of Tartu 11 34 12 21 20 16 15 20 15 i

land

(%) privat Ratio of of Ratio emption

Table 16 presents the data for quick and slow municipalities in the zed with pre

county of Tartu. The total area of municipalities for both groups varies -

- - 175 widely. In the quick group, the municipality of Võnnu is biggest, with an 613 421 361 503 474 050 096 096 459

, , , , , , , , , , 3 2 6 1 3 2 5 3 2 3 tion tion pre (ha) with right area of more than 23,000 hectares. The smallest is Tähtvere; its area is emp sation over 11,000 hectares, a difference of more than 10,000 hectares. The Privati

1 3 1 4

- biggest municipality in the slow group is Vara, with more than 33,000 2 4 25 43 33 3 2 35 23 28

of (%) hectares. The smallest is Alatskivi, with more than 12,000 hectares, a land resti tuted Ratio Ratio

difference of 20,000 hectares. Reformed land area differs also, 2011)

-

depending on the total area of the municipality. Therefore, the land 31 ,

937 048 813 031 707 974 123 490 894 370 , , , , , , , , , , 4 8 2 7 3 8 5 3 reform percentage is more comparable, thus is used as the indicator 5 5 (ha) tuted between reformed land and total area of the municipality. The ratio of Resti land area

land reform is 96% and 98% in the fast group and 72-86% in the slow December

) 41 group. 59 18 68 19 26 37 20 23 27 of % on ( ( land state

Ratio Ratio

Predictably, the size of municipalities and land plots within them varies; 021 710 480 810 044 315 134 937 751 453 , , , , , , , , , , 7 5 some reformed land plots are bigger than others. For instance, the 3 7 3 3 3 3 (ha) area land 13 12 State State average area of a reformed land plot is biggest in the municipality of

71

Võnnu - 17.1 hectares. Meanwhile, in Tähtvere, the average area of a 4 9 .

6.8 6.4 7.3 5.8 8.2 7.9 9 8. reformed land plot is 6.4 hectares. The difference of average areas is 2.7 17.1 13.8 (ha) land plots times. A quite similar situation exists in the slow group of municipalities. countyinTartu of the

area of Average The average area of reformed land plots is 13.8 hectares in the reformed

81 municipality of Vara and 5.8 hectares in Alatskivi. The difference is 2.4 98 98 96 96 97 86 84 82 72 ) times. % ( Ratio Ratio reform of landof

The data for land reform activities for quick and slow municipalities also

330 714 717 154 979 907 032 585 524 762 , , , , , , , , , , 1 1 differ considerably. For instance, (reformed) state land area in 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 of land municipalities depends on the size of the municipality and additionally, plots Number on the location of (pre-1940) state forest areas. Forested areas that reformed uick municipalities and slow

- belonged to the state before 1940 remained in state ownership under the 006 046 803 492 037 690 980 079 056 070 , , , , , , , , , , for q for (ha) area med land 17 16 present land reform. As a result, the number of hectares retained in state 22 18 11 15 10 28 13 12 Refor ata ownership differs. For example, in the group of quick municipalities it

varies from 3,044 hectares to 13,751 hectares; the difference is 4.5 times. 521 693 263 922 479 418 838 381 801 754

, , , , , , , , , 17 (ha) area 19 23 18 11, 16 12 33 15 16 Total Total

Land reform d

. -

6

1

Muni cipality Quick municipalities Võnnu Kambja Tähtvere Rõngu Average Slow municipalities Alatskivi Vara Rannu Puhja Average

Table 70 71

The situation in the group of slow municipalities is quite similar; the smallest number is 3,134 hectares and the biggest, 12,453 hectares. The difference is 4 times. According to that difference, the ratio of state land varies as well. The ratio of state land means that the state land area is divided by the total area of a municipality. The biggest percentage is 68 and smallest 18 in the quick group. In the slower group, the biggest percentage is 37 and the smallest, 20.

Table 17 presents land use types (arable, forest and natural grassland), protected areas and site class of soil in four quick and four slow municipalities. Land use types and protected areas are presented in hectares and percentages; also shown, the average indicator for site class of soil per municipality. Ratios have been determined by dividing the area of municipality by the area of land use. Ratios are more comparable with each other than with the total area of land use type.

The ratio of arable land is quite high in the group of quick municipalities, except in the municipality of Võnnu. It differs from other municipalities where the ratio of arable land is only 18% and is the lowest value in groups of quick and slow municipalities. The ratio of arable land is between 23% and 40% in the group of slow municipalities. The highest ratio in the slow group is in Rannu.

The ratio of natural grassland varies more in the group of quick municipalities, between 5% and 12%. It is under 10% in the slow group - 4% in three of them. The ratio of forest land is between 35% and 47% in quick group. The same indicator is between 30 and 54% in the group of slow municipalities.

The ratio of wetland varies according to its location. For example, the ratio is quite high, 27% in the municipality of Võnnu, however, it is low, 1-5%, in other quick municipalities. Alatskivi is distinct from other municipalities in the slow group; its ratio is only 2%, while others range from 14-20%.

The ratio of protected area, 34%, is considerably higher in Võnnu than in other quick municipalities. The ratio of protected areas tend to be higher in the group of slower municipalities. The lowest ratio, 10%, is in Alatskivi; the highest is in Puhja at 35%.

72 72

The situation in the group of slow municipalities is quite similar; the

38 40 45 45 42 39 40 47 44 43 smallest number is 3,134 hectares and the biggest, 12,453 hectares. The difference is 4 times. According to that difference, the ratio of state land of soil of Site classSite varies as well. The ratio of state land means that the state land area is average

divided by the total area of a municipality. The biggest percentage is 68 2 3 3

1 34 12 10 21 15 35 20 and smallest 18 in the quick group. In the slower group, the biggest % percentage is 37 and the smallest, 20. 5

415 563 4,132 7,83 1,332 1,310 6,913 2,413 5,891 Table 17 presents land use types (arable, forest and natural grassland), 2,536 hectares protected areas and site class of soil in four quick and four slow Protected areas municipalities. Land use types and protected areas are presented in

2 5 1 9 2

hectares and percentages; also shown, the average indicator for site class 13 27 14 15 20 %

of soil per municipality. Ratios have been determined by dividing the area of municipality by the area of land use. Ratios are more comparable in the county of Tartu

420 523 192 269 1,881 with each other than with the total area of land use type. 6,390 4,825 2,389 3,327 5,709 Wetlands

The ratio of arable land is quite high in the group of quick municipalities, hectares except in the municipality of Võnnu. It differs from other municipalities municipalities

where the ratio of arable land is only 18% and is the lowest value in 45 47 35 40 42 54 54 30 37 44 %

groups of quick and slow municipalities. The ratio of arable land is

73 between 23% and 40% in the group of slow municipalities. The highest 8,929 4,025 6,532 7,041 4,784 6,252 ratio in the slow group is in Rannu. 7,470 9,033 quick and slow 10,396 18,054

in Forest land

The ratio of natural grassland varies more in the group of quick hectares

municipalities, between 5% and 12%. It is under 10% in the slow group 6 5 9 9 4 4 4 5 12 12

- 4% in three of them. The ratio of forest land is between 35% and 47% % in quick group. The same indicator is between 30 and 54% in the group of slow municipalities. 631 683 728 1,577 1,003 1,384 2,324 1,970 1,161 1,440 Natural grassland

The ratio of wetland varies according to its location. For example, the hectares ratio is quite high, 27% in the municipality of Võnnu, however, it is low,

31 1-5%, in other quick municipalities. Alatskivi is distinct from other 18 34 48 43 36 31 23 40 28 municipalities in the slow group; its ratio is only 2%, while others range % ,protected areas and site class of soil

from 14-20%.

types 4,294 6,345 5,479 7,020 3,980 7,818 6,302 4,736 5,784 5,709

The ratio of protected area, 34%, is considerably higher in Võnnu than land Arable in other quick municipalities. The ratio of protected areas tend to be hectares Land use

higher in the group of slower municipalities. The lowest ratio, 10%, is in

.

7

1

Alatskivi; the highest is in Puhja at 35%. Quick municipalities Võnnu Kambja Tähtvere Rõngu Average Slow municipalities Alatskivi Vara Rannu Puhja Average

Table 72 73

The average indicator for site classes of soil is quite similar in groups of quick and slow municipalities: it varies between 38 and 45 in the group of quick municipalities and between 39 and 47 in the slow group.

The conditions of municipalities differ widely, and do not support previous statistical findings regarding slow and quick municipalities. The extreme variation makes it difficult to determine clear trends for quick and slow groups. However, the average indicators (cf. Table 18) allow making some general conclusions about the land reform processes in these quick and slow municipalities.

Table 18. Average indicators of land reform results for the groups of quick and slow municipalities in the county of Tartu Quick Slow Indicator municipalities municipalities Total area (hectare) 17,521 19,693 Reformed land area (hectare) 17,006 16,046 Number of reformed land plots 1,979 1,762 Ratio of reformed land (%) 97 81 Average area of reformed land plots 9.4 8.9 (hectares) Ratio of state land (%) 41 27 Ratio of restituted land (%) 33 28 Ratio of privatised land with pre-emption 20 16 right (%) Ratio of arable land (%) 36 31 Ratio of natural grassland (%) 9 5 Ratio of forestland (%) 42 44 Ratio of wetlands (%) 9 13 Ratio of protected areas (%) 13 20 Site class of soil 42 43

The case study shows that the quicker municipalities in the county of Tartu tend to have smaller total area but more reformed land, according to the reformed land area and number of land plots. The ratio of reformed land has been the basis for ordering; it is higher for the quick group and lower in the slow group. The average area of reformed land plots has been slightly bigger in the group of quicker municipalities.

More land is retained in state ownership in the group of quick municipalities (average is 41%) compared to the slow group (27%). However, as previously indicated, there is large variation within the

74 74

The average indicator for site classes of soil is quite similar in groups of group of quick municipalities. More than half of the municipal land is quick and slow municipalities: it varies between 38 and 45 in the group retained under state ownership in two municipalities and under 20% in of quick municipalities and between 39 and 47 in the slow group. another two municipalities.

The conditions of municipalities differ widely, and do not support The area and ratio of restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right previous statistical findings regarding slow and quick municipalities. The also differ among municipalities. The average ratios of restitution and extreme variation makes it difficult to determine clear trends for quick privatisation with pre-emption right are slightly higher in the group of and slow groups. However, the average indicators (cf. Table 18) allow quicker municipalities, however, these are quite similar in both groups. making some general conclusions about the land reform processes in these quick and slow municipalities. Ratios of arable land and natural grassland are higher in the group of quick municipalities. The ratio of forestland is quite similar in both Table 18. Average indicators of land reform results for the groups of quick and slow groups. The ratio of wetlands is higher in the slower group. However, municipalities in the county of Tartu the municipality of Võnnu is quite distinct: the ratio of wetlands, 27%, Quick Slow is the highest in both groups. The ratio of protected areas is higher in Indicator municipalities municipalities the slow group. Generally, the ratio of protected areas is quite low in the Total area (hectare) 17,521 19,693 group of quick municipalities. Again, Võnnu stands out; the ratio of Reformed land area (hectare) 17,006 16,046 Number of reformed land plots 1,979 1,762 protected areas is 34% of the total area. Ratio of reformed land (%) 97 81 Average area of reformed land plots 9.4 8.9 Data varies a lot within the group of quick and slow municipalities (cf. (hectares) Table 16, 17), thus it is not possible to extract clear trends. Only the ratio Ratio of state land (%) 41 27 of unreformed land, which was the basis for ordering, is different. It is Ratio of restituted land (%) 33 28 0-5% from the total area in the group of fast municipalities and 13-16% Ratio of privatised land with pre-emption 20 16 right (%) in the slow group. Ratio of arable land (%) 36 31 Ratio of natural grassland (%) 9 5 Ratio of forestland (%) 42 44 Ratio of wetlands (%) 9 13 4.4.2. The land reform implementation in three quick and three Ratio of protected areas (%) 13 20 Site class of soil 42 43 slow municipalities in the county of Tartu

The case study shows that the quicker municipalities in the county of A summary of the results of interviews made by Aruväli et al., (2012) Tartu tend to have smaller total area but more reformed land, according follows. The interviews were carried out with officials (land reform to the reformed land area and number of land plots. The ratio of implementers) from the three quick (the municipalities of Kambja, reformed land has been the basis for ordering; it is higher for the quick Rõngu, Võnnu) and three slow (Alatskivi, Rannu, Vara) municipalities group and lower in the slow group. The average area of reformed land in the county of Tartu. (They are mostly the same as previously described plots has been slightly bigger in the group of quicker municipalities. municipalities, except for Tähtvere, quick, and Puhja, slow.) The results of these interviews complement the previous data from the perspective More land is retained in state ownership in the group of quick of the activity of municipalities. The results of the interviews are municipalities (average is 41%) compared to the slow group (27%). presented in generalised way only, not including all detail presented in However, as previously indicated, there is large variation within the this thesis.

74 75 75

The first group of questions was about the organisational arrangement of the implementation of the land reform on the level of the municipality. Most questions were about the personnel; one question was about the role of land surveyors. The questions and the summary of answers is presented in Table 19.

Table 19. The questions and summary of answers about the organisational arrangement of the implementation of the land reform on the level of the municipality Question Summary of answers How many implementers There have been 1-2 officials in each municipality, have been involved with in both quick and slow municipalities. There was a land reform issues during more stable workforce in quick municipalities due to the implementation of the lower personnel turnover compared with slow land reform? municipalities. What kind of education These municipalities had employed a total of 18 have officials that have officials from 1991-2010. Generally the officials had implemented land reform higher education except one official in the had? Had they engaged with municipality of Kambja. Only three of the 18 had land issues before working studied land management (land surveying). Other in the municipality? officials had studied agronomy, forestry, melioration, geology, etc. They had engaged in the land issues before they started to implement land reform. Did you use an additional Most did not use an additional contractual workforce on a contract workforce; exceptions were Rõngu (quick) and basis? How were the tasks Alatskivi (slow.) If there was more than one official divided among work groups the tasks were divided according to personal or among officials, if there suitability. The work was divided between officials was more than one? according to district only in Vara, the biggest municipality (more than 33,000 hectares) covered in the study. How have you been able to They kept in touch with the changing land reform keep up with the officials in process at seminars and trainings presented by touch about the frequent county governments and the Estonian Land Board changes in the process of the and through information sent by e-mails. The land reform? What sources workforce read the acts of law, regulations of of information were used? government and authority and directives. Communication among officials helped as well. Did the same land surveyors Generally, the same land surveyors continued to conduct work in your work in the municipality with which they were most municipalities? familiar. The exceptions: a number of different surveyors worked in Rõngu (quick) and Alatskivi (slow).

The second group of questions was about the activity of restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right, which have been the most

76 76

The first group of questions was about the organisational arrangement comprehensive activities for the municipalities during the land reform. of the implementation of the land reform on the level of the The questions and summary of answers is presented in Table 20. municipality. Most questions were about the personnel; one question was about the role of land surveyors. The questions and the summary of Table 20. The questions and summary of answers about the activity of restitution and answers is presented in Table 19. privatisation with the pre-emption right Question Summary of answers Table 19. The questions and summary of answers about the organisational How did the municipalities The municipalities implemented the processes of arrangement of the implementation of the land reform on the level of the municipality implement the process of restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right the restitution and the priva- similarly. The principles of these processes have not Question Summary of answers tisation with pre-emption changed during the period of the land reform How many implementers There have been 1-2 officials in each municipality, right? despite many changes in the act of laws and have been involved with in both quick and slow municipalities. There was a regulations. land reform issues during more stable workforce in quick municipalities due to Who made the decisions The land manager (official) made the simpler the implementation of the lower personnel turnover compared with slow during the process of the decisions, and some decisions were approved by the land reform? municipalities. restitution and privatisation municipal government. The municipal government What kind of education These municipalities had employed a total of 18 with pre-emption right? or council made decisions for complicated cases. have officials that have officials from 1991-2010. Generally the officials had When did the process of The Land Reform Act came into force in 1991. implemented land reform higher education except one official in the restitution start? Which kind However, the municipalities were not able to start had? Had they engaged with municipality of Kambja. Only three of the 18 had of detentions, if any, were before the decisions by the Unlawfully Expropriated land issues before working studied land management (land surveying). Other there? How did the order of Land Restitution and Compensation Commission in the municipality? officials had studied agronomy, forestry, restitution land plots regarding the entitled subjects of restitution (who melioration, geology, etc. They had engaged in the evolve? will be the entitled subject and how much land can land issues before they started to implement land the subject require). The restitution started in 1992- reform. 1993. The municipalities handled most of the Did you use an additional Most did not use an additional contractual restitution cases at the same time; they were resolved workforce on a contract workforce; exceptions were Rõngu (quick) and according to the capacity of the municipality. The basis? How were the tasks Alatskivi (slow.) If there was more than one official order of restitution evolved according to the activity divided among work groups the tasks were divided according to personal of entitled subjects (the date they submitted their or among officials, if there suitability. The work was divided between officials application to regain their land). was more than one? according to district only in Vara, the biggest Who was more active in The farmers were more active in three municipalities municipality (more than 33,000 hectares) covered in requesting restitution? What (Rõngu, Rannu, Alatskivi). In Kambja, foreigners the study. land types were preferred? and those who lived apart from the municipality (e.g. How have you been able to They kept in touch with the changing land reform in Tallinn) were more active. The other keep up with the officials in process at seminars and trainings presented by municipalities did not mention specific groups. touch about the frequent county governments and the Estonian Land Board Forest land was preferred in all municipalities, changes in the process of the and through information sent by e-mails. The agricultural land in two. The entitled persons did not land reform? What sources workforce read the acts of law, regulations of want swampy or brush-covered areas or plots of information were used? government and authority and directives. located far from the main land plot. Communication among officials helped as well. When did the process of The process of privatisation with pre-emption right Did the same land surveyors Generally, the same land surveyors continued to privatisation with pre- was started from 1995 - 1997. The order which arose conduct work in your work in the municipality with which they were most emption right start? Which and the order of privatisation evolved mostly municipalities? familiar. The exceptions: a number of different kind of detentions were according to the activity of entitled subjects (date surveyors worked in Rõngu (quick) and Alatskivi there (if at all)? How did the when he or she submitted the application for (slow). order of privatisations privatisation). evolve? The second group of questions was about the activity of restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right, which have been the most

76 77 77

Question Summary of answers Who were more active in The farmers, private house owners and summer requiring privatisation with house owners were more active in three pre-emption right? municipalities (Rõngu, Kambja and Rannu). How did you solve the The municipal officials proposed the possible problems among concerned solution for the cases of restitution and privatisation parties? with pre-emption right. The quick municipalities were more ready to promote agreements between participants. What factors have hampe- Legal problems have been the main prohibitive red the implementation of factor. Other factors inhibiting entitled subjects: the restitution or privatisa- inactivity, scarcity of finances, uncompleted tion with the pre-emption inheritance issues and inability to find agreement right? among entitled subjects. Financial problems have been the main prohibitive factor concerning the privatisation with pre-emption right. However, the factors mentioned before concerning the restitution are valid here as well. How could the process of National interest would have had to be more restitution and privatisation apparent. Legislation would have had to be more with the pre-emption right stable, with fewer changes. Explanatory work by the have been carried out more Estonian Land Board and county governor would quickly? have had to be more efficient. The act of law should have determined stricter deadlines.

The third group of questions regard the role and activity of state and county government concerning the implementation of land reform. Additionally, questions were asked about circumstances that prevent the implementation of the land reform and how it could be implemented more quickly. The questions and summary of answers are presented in Table 21.

Table 21. Assessment of the municipal officials about the role and activity of state and county government concerning the implementation of land reform and about the circumstances that prevent the completion the land reform Question Summary of answers What has been the role of The role of the county government was to monitor, county government in the supervise and coordinate the process. The county process of the land reform? government has been the organiser of privatisation; Did county government the county governor signed the privatisation fulfil this role? contract. The county government fulfilled their tasks. The collaboration with municipalities was good. The county government was the intermediary; communication concerning the implementation of land reform went through the county government.

78 78

Question Summary of answers Question Summary of answers Who were more active in The farmers, private house owners and summer What has been the role of The state role was to compose the act of law and requiring privatisation with house owners were more active in three the state concerning the control (inspect, etc.) the overall reform process. In pre-emption right? municipalities (Rõngu, Kambja and Rannu). process of the land reform? addition, the state provided updates regarding often How did you solve the The municipal officials proposed the possible Did the state fulfil this role? changing regulations. The land reform implementers problems among concerned solution for the cases of restitution and privatisation How much and about what gave different opinions about how the state fulfilled parties? with pre-emption right. The quick municipalities questions did you tasks. The slower municipalities were more negative. were more ready to promote agreements between communicate with state Municipalities communicated mostly with Estonian participants. authorities? With which Land Board concerning legal questions or questions What factors have hampe- Legal problems have been the main prohibitive authorities did you about the special cases of restitution or privatisation. red the implementation of factor. Other factors inhibiting entitled subjects: communicate? What issues The municipalities communicated to other the restitution or privatisa- inactivity, scarcity of finances, uncompleted did you communicate to the authorities (Environmental Board, Road tion with the pre-emption inheritance issues and inability to find agreement Estonian Land Board? Did Administration, National Heritage Board of right? among entitled subjects. Financial problems have you get the answers? Estonia) with regard to special cases. been the main prohibitive factor concerning the Would the state have to be There was not harmonious opinion. The officials privatisation with pre-emption right. However, the more powerful or non- from the municipalities Vara, Rõngu and Rannu factors mentioned before concerning the restitution powerful concerning the expected that the state would be more powerful. The are valid here as well. implementation of land officials from the municipalities of Alatskivi and How could the process of National interest would have had to be more reform? Rõngu were satisfied with the state activity. The restitution and privatisation apparent. Legislation would have had to be more officials from Võnnu and Kambja indicated that with the pre-emption right stable, with fewer changes. Explanatory work by the state should not be more powerful. However, the have been carried out more Estonian Land Board and county governor would municipal officials said that state would have to quickly? have had to be more efficient. The act of law should determine the potential state land (land with state have determined stricter deadlines. interest) and the determination of such criteria would have to be stated more clearly in the Land Reform Act. The state would have to be more The third group of questions regard the role and activity of state and consistent and stable concerning the regulations of county government concerning the implementation of land reform. land reform. Additionally, questions were asked about circumstances that prevent Which circumstances have The municipal officers mentioned several the implementation of the land reform and how it could be prevented the completion of circumstances: the disinterest of entitled subjects, the land reform on the disputes among the entitled subjects and heirs, implemented more quickly. The questions and summary of answers are municipality level? uncompleted issues of inheritance, shortage of presented in Table 21. finance for surveying and for purchase of the privatised land. One issue was noted: the regulations Table 21. Assessment of the municipal officials about the role and activity of state and became increasingly complicated. county government concerning the implementation of land reform and about the How could the land reform Land reform could be carried out more quickly with circumstances that prevent the completion the land reform have been carried out more better regulations, more vigorous land reform quickly? activities, and more input from the municipalities. Question Summary of answers What has been the role of The role of the county government was to monitor, county government in the supervise and coordinate the process. The county It is possible to conclude that the municipalities’ response has been process of the land reform? government has been the organiser of privatisation; varied, as have answers from the officers. However, it can be pointed Did county government the county governor signed the privatisation out that activities of the land reform as restitution and privatisation with fulfil this role? contract. The county government fulfilled their pre-emption right have been implemented similarly. The officials get the tasks. The collaboration with municipalities was good. The county government was the intermediary; information and instruction from Estonian Land Board and county communication concerning the implementation of government. However, it appeared that officers would like more and land reform went through the county government. clearer instructions. In the process of land reform the role of the land

78 79 79 surveyor has been important. The activity of the entitled subjects has been essential for fluent implementation of the reform. According to the interviews it is not possible point out clear differences between the activity of the quick and slow municipalities.

4.4.3. Overview of the unreformed land plots in the municipality of Puhja in 2009

The third section of this chapter goes into more detail and gives an overview of the unreformed land plots in Puhja municipality in 2009. Puhja is one slow municipality in Tartu county’s implementation of land reform. This section summarises the results of the master's thesis composed by Kink (2009): the aim of the work was to analyse unreformed land plots in Puhja municipality.

Table 22 presents relevant data for 2009 and 2016: i) the area of the municipality; ii) the area of reformed land iii) the area of unreformed land; iv) reformed land percentage. The reformed land percentage was 72 in 2009. At the end of the 2016 it was 91%. The area of the municipality is slightly different in 2009 and 2016: 16,754 hectares in 2009 and 16,734 hectares in 2016. The size is different because the Estonian Land Board, which keeps that data, changed the method of area determination, but the borders of municipalities have not changed.

Table 22. The total area of the municipality of Puhja, area of reformed land and unreformed land, reformed land percentage in 2009 and 2016 Time Total area of Reformed Unreformed Reformed municipality land land land hectares percentage 31.03.2009 16,754 12,004 4,750 72 31.12.2016 16,734 15,282 1,453 91

Table 23 presents information about the 184 unreformed land plots comprised of 4,424 hectares in 2009. The total area of the unreformed land in Table 22 is not equal with the unreformed land area in Table 23, as some land plots were already in the cadastral forming phase; these had been excluded from the survey.

80 80 surveyor has been important. The activity of the entitled subjects has The area of unreformed land is divided according to the potential land been essential for fluent implementation of the reform. According to the reform implementer. The land reform implementers are state or interviews it is not possible point out clear differences between the municipal personnel. Additionally, Table 23 indicates the land plots activity of the quick and slow municipalities. covered by applications by private persons. The municipality is responsible for the completion of the land reform with these land plots as well.

4.4.3. Overview of the unreformed land plots in the municipality Table 23. The area of the unreformed land plots according to the potential land reform of Puhja in 2009 implementer in Puhja municipality in 2009. Potential land reform implementer Area of the unreformed land plots (hectares) The third section of this chapter goes into more detail and gives an State 4339 overview of the unreformed land plots in Puhja municipality in 2009. Municipality 411 Puhja is one slow municipality in Tartu county’s implementation of land thereof land plots covered by applications 224 reform. This section summarises the results of the master's thesis by private persons composed by Kink (2009): the aim of the work was to analyse Total 4424 unreformed land plots in Puhja municipality. The biggest area (4,339 hectares) belongs under the responsibility of the Table 22 presents relevant data for 2009 and 2016: i) the area of the state; it accounts for 91% of the unreformed area. The areas of land plots municipality; ii) the area of reformed land iii) the area of unreformed that go over to the state vary greatly. For instance, one land plot located land; iv) reformed land percentage. The reformed land percentage was on the borders of Alam-Pedja Nature Reserve is 2,549 hectares. 72 in 2009. At the end of the 2016 it was 91%. The area of the municipality is slightly different in 2009 and 2016: 16,754 hectares in The responsibility of the municipality is considerably smaller, only 411 2009 and 16,734 hectares in 2016. The size is different because the hectares. Included are land plots covered with applications that total 224 Estonian Land Board, which keeps that data, changed the method of hectares. area determination, but the borders of municipalities have not changed.

Table 22. The total area of the municipality of Puhja, area of reformed land and unreformed land, reformed land percentage in 2009 and 2016 4.5. Model of the implementation of land reform in Estonia Time Total area of Reformed Unreformed Reformed municipality land land land The statistical analysis has brought out some differences between the hectares percentage quick and slow municipalities (cf. Chapter 4.3.). However, the case study 31.03.2009 16,754 12,004 4,750 72 of the four quick and four slow municipalities and the results of the 31.12.2016 16,734 15,282 1,453 91 interviews with officials from three quick and three slow municipalities have not presented the fixed differences between quick and slow Table 23 presents information about the 184 unreformed land plots municipalities according to the organisational process and activity of comprised of 4,424 hectares in 2009. The total area of the unreformed municipalities (cf. Chapter 4.4.). Circumstances have allowed some land in Table 22 is not equal with the unreformed land area in Table 23, municipalities to implement reform more quickly than others. A model as some land plots were already in the cadastral forming phase; these had was created to illustrate the differences and is presented in this chapter. been excluded from the survey.

80 81 81

The common variation, which can be underlined for four quick and slow municipalities in the county of Tartu is the amount of unreformed land in fast and slow municipalities. It is 0-5% from the total area in the group of fast municipalities, 13-16% in the slow group (cf. Table 16). According to the other indicators, it is not possible to determine such a clear difference because the municipalities that belong to the quick and slow group are quite different; outcomes of the land reform differ as well.

Graphically, it is possible to divide the responsibility for the enactment of land reform into two blocks (cf. Figure 21). The first one consists of land that is reformed because the applicants (entitled subjects) have been interested in ownership of the land plots. That, in turn, can be divided into two sub-blocks. The first one consists of land that has been applied for by entitled subjects of restitution or privatisation, or land plots that have been applied for by the municipality. This activity falls under responsibility of the municipality. According to the Land Reform Act municipalities have undertaken the preliminary work with these applications. The second sub-block indicates land allotted to state ownership and responsibility. However, the municipality still has several tasks in this process, e.g. handling documentation, but their contribution is smaller compared to the other land reform activities.

Figure 21. Division of the area of municipality between the reformed and unreformed land

82 82

The common variation, which can be underlined for four quick and slow The second block consists of land that was not reformed at the end of municipalities in the county of Tartu is the amount of unreformed land 2000’s. There are three sub-blocks. The first one consists of land which in fast and slow municipalities. It is 0-5% from the total area in the group should be reformed, as it is covered by applications but it has not been of fast municipalities, 13-16% in the slow group (cf. Table 16). reformed yet because of delays. Quite often there were problems with According to the other indicators, it is not possible to determine such a unsolved inheritance issues and the heir of the entitled subject of clear difference because the municipalities that belong to the quick and restitution or privatisation is not known. slow group are quite different; outcomes of the land reform differ as well. The second sub-block consists of land that should belong to the municipality. However, the municipality has not applied for these land Graphically, it is possible to divide the responsibility for the enactment plots, for different reasons. In her thesis, Kink (2009) studied of land reform into two blocks (cf. Figure 21). The first one consists of unreformed land plots in the municipality of Puhja. Results indicated land that is reformed because the applicants (entitled subjects) have been that the lack of a general plan slowed down the completion of land interested in ownership of the land plots. That, in turn, can be divided reform, as such a document is the basis for defining the land plots into two sub-blocks. The first one consists of land that has been applied needed by the municipality. The municipality also included a lot of for by entitled subjects of restitution or privatisation, or land plots that streets and roads which should have been applied for. However, finances have been applied for by the municipality. This activity falls under were lacking for surveying work, thus the municipality delayed these responsibility of the municipality. According to the Land Reform Act applications. It was similar in other municipalities as well. municipalities have undertaken the preliminary work with these applications. The second sub-block indicates land allotted to state The third sub-block consists of land plots for which nobody has applied ownership and responsibility. However, the municipality still has several (land without applications) and which has not been as valuable for the tasks in this process, e.g. handling documentation, but their contribution state, either. These plots are designated as out of state priority, although is smaller compared to the other land reform activities. they remain under state responsibility and should be reformed by the state. This category of land plots has been the bottleneck from the point of view of implementation of land reform.

The overview of the unreformed land in the municipality of Puhja showed that reformed land percentage was 72 on March 31, 2009 (cf. Table 22), meaning that 28% of the land in Puhja was unreformed at the beginning of 2009. The majority of that unreformed land (4,013 hectares), amounting to 91% of the area, belonged under the responsibility of the state (cf. Table 23).

Figure 22 presents the division of the area of the municipality of Puhja between the reformed and unreformed land at the beginning of 2009. The division is based on the division presented in Figure 21. The bigger part is reformed land area (12,004 hectares) and is divided between the two sub-blocks. The first sub-block covers 7.653 hectares of land Figure 21. Division of the area of municipality between the reformed and unreformed reformed according to the applications and land that is given to the land municipality; the second one refers to land retained in state ownership; this area is 4,441 hectares.

82 83 83

The second block is unreformed land (4,750 hectares). Only the smaller part of that is under the responsibility of the municipality of Puhja. The first subsection is land covered by applications; this area is 224 hectares. The second subsection is land that should belong to the municipality; its area is 187 hectares. Therefore, a total of 411 hectares is under the municipality of Puhja’s responsibility. To some extent, the municipality is able to speed up land reform of these land plots.

The third subsection is land that is without applications; this land is out of state priority concerning the implementation of the land reform. In Puhja, the area is 4,339 hectares. The implementer for reform of this land must be from the state, not from the municipality.

Therefore, it can be determined that the municipality of Puhja can engage in land reform of up to 12,416 hectares in its territory. This area is calculated so that there is added land that is under the responsibility of the municipality to be reformed land as of 31, March 2009. It consists of 74% of the area the municipality of Puhja. This 74% is the upper limit that the municipality of Puhja can achieve without state activity.

Figure 22. Division of the area of the municipality of Puhja in 2009 between the reformed and unreformed land

84 84

The second block is unreformed land (4,750 hectares). Only the smaller It is possible to calculate the municipal and state contributions to the part of that is under the responsibility of the municipality of Puhja. The implementation of the land reform in the municipality of Puhja. Table first subsection is land covered by applications; this area is 224 hectares. 24 presents how the reformed and unreformed land is divided between The second subsection is land that should belong to the municipality; its the state and municipality. In sum, 52%, an impressive proportion of the area is 187 hectares. Therefore, a total of 411 hectares is under the total area of the municipality, is under the responsibility of the state. municipality of Puhja’s responsibility. To some extent, the municipality Accordingly, the municipality of Puhja was able to target only 48%, less is able to speed up land reform of these land plots. than half of the area’s land reform without state activity.

The third subsection is land that is without applications; this land is out Table 24. Reformed and unreformed land division between the responsibility of state of state priority concerning the implementation of the land reform. In and municipality in the municipality of Puhja in 2009 Puhja, the area is 4,339 hectares. The implementer for reform of this Responsibility Reformed Unreformed Total Ratio form land must be from the state, not from the municipality. land land area Hectares % State 4,441 4,339 8,780 52 Therefore, it can be determined that the municipality of Puhja can Municipality 7,563 411 7,974 48 engage in land reform of up to 12,416 hectares in its territory. This area is calculated so that there is added land that is under the responsibility Figure 23 introduces the model of implementation of land reform that of the municipality to be reformed land as of 31, March 2009. It consists was used for at least the first 20 years (until the end of the 2000s). It of 74% of the area the municipality of Puhja. This 74% is the upper limit deals with land that was covered by restitution and privatisation that the municipality of Puhja can achieve without state activity. applications. The State provided rules and regulations for implementation of the land reform, including deadlines for activities. The actual implementation (preparatory work) was delegated to the municipalities according to the Land Reform Act. Entitled subjects (for both restitution and privatisation) submit their applications to the municipal authorities responsible for processing the applications, according to State regulations.

Figure 23. Model of the implementation of land reform till at the end of 2000s in Figure 22. Division of the area of the municipality of Puhja in 2009 between the Estonia; it concerns the land covered by restitution and privatisation applications reformed and unreformed land

84 85 85

The entitled subjects have been an impelling force to implement land reform. It became clear according to the interviews with the officials from the municipality that entitled subjects were eager to become landowners and frequently pushed the municipalities to act quickly. (Even the land reform implementation order was based on the activity of entitled subjects (cf. Chapter 4.4.2).) Of course, as indicated in the interviews, there were exceptions: sometimes it was the entitled persons who did not complete necessary requirements, thus slowing down the process. Nevertheless, if there were a lot of applications, if most of the territory of the municipality was covered and the entitled subjects were active, it was possible to implement land reform quickly. Aside from land designated for these entitled subjects, the municipalities assigned land to municipal ownership and the state claimed some land. If there were not many applications, and the state was interested in the land in a municipality, then it was possible to implement land reform quickly.

There are some preconditions for quick land reform implementation (cf. Figure 24). The first and most important is existence of a knowledgeable and competent municipal staff to undertake reform activities. Second is the existence of active entitled subjects. As previously noted, the entitled subjects may push the municipalities, but if the municipal personnel are not active then they can hamper the implementation of the land reform. If the municipality is covered by applications for restitution and/or privatisations then it can contribute to the quick implementation of land reform. Or, if there are few applications but the state wants to retain the land under state ownership, that would be another precondition. Additionally, if the land is of good quality, the entitled subjects are more interested in acquiring such land.

As described previously, the land reform implementation was not hindered if the whole municipality was covered by applications; the problem appeared when there were none. In that case, the municipalities no longer had responsibility (and authority) to implement land reform and the process slowed down. By the end of 2012, depending on the municipalities, some had successfully reformed 98% of land, for example, Võnnu and Kambja; some, as in the case of Puhja municipality, only 72% (cf. Table 16).

86 86

The entitled subjects have been an impelling force to implement land reform. It became clear according to the interviews with the officials from the municipality that entitled subjects were eager to become landowners and frequently pushed the municipalities to act quickly. (Even the land reform implementation order was based on the activity of entitled subjects (cf. Chapter 4.4.2).) Of course, as indicated in the interviews, there were exceptions: sometimes it was the entitled persons who did not complete necessary requirements, thus slowing down the process. Nevertheless, if there were a lot of applications, if most of the territory of the municipality was covered and the entitled subjects were active, it was possible to implement land reform quickly. Aside from land designated for these entitled subjects, the municipalities assigned land to municipal ownership and the state claimed some land. If there were not many applications, and the state was interested in the land in a municipality, then it was possible to implement land reform quickly. Figure 24. Preconditions for the quick implementation of land reform There are some preconditions for quick land reform implementation (cf. Figure 24). The first and most important is existence of a knowledgeable Municipalities had the necessary information for the overall process of and competent municipal staff to undertake reform activities. Second is reform, as dictated by the state, and for the local situation and status of the existence of active entitled subjects. As previously noted, the entitled the land plots as well. The state, which was responsible for the subjects may push the municipalities, but if the municipal personnel are completion of land reform, did not have information about local not active then they can hamper the implementation of the land reform. conditions, thus, the bottleneck, which is presented in Figure 25. If the municipality is covered by applications for restitution and/or privatisations then it can contribute to the quick implementation of land reform. Or, if there are few applications but the state wants to retain the land under state ownership, that would be another precondition. Additionally, if the land is of good quality, the entitled subjects are more interested in acquiring such land.

Figure 25. Bottleneck in the implementation of land reform As described previously, the land reform implementation was not hindered if the whole municipality was covered by applications; the At the end of the 2000s, the state realised that the state itself had to problem appeared when there were none. In that case, the municipalities contribute to the implementation of land reform. Without essential no longer had responsibility (and authority) to implement land reform information, it was unclear how to do that. However, the technical and the process slowed down. By the end of 2012, depending on the capacity had been expanded and it became possible to do the work using municipalities, some had successfully reformed 98% of land, for digital technology. One possibility was to locate and input the example, Võnnu and Kambja; some, as in the case of Puhja municipality, unreformed land plots and relevant information into the cadastral data- only 72% (cf. Table 16). base. However, the state lacked information for these land plots: i) what is situated on that land; ii) are there restitution or privatisation applications for that land plot; iii) etc. Thus, transferring such land to

86 87 87 state ownership required getting the necessary information about each land plot from the municipality, a time consuming task.

In 2008, the state established a digital map, a tool for municipal and state authorities to gather information about unreformed land plots. Plot locations could be entered into the map in the database and additional information added as necessary. By April 2009, the Minister of the Environment was able to report to Parliament that 70% of unreformed land had been defined (Riigikogu, 2009). It was quite a good result considering that filling the database was voluntary for municipalities. However, some municipalities did not contribute to the database, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the completion of land reform was not the liability of municipalities. Secondly, the land reform activity had diminished, so the municipalities had reduced or abolished the locations of the land reform and eliminated the roles of land specialists. Thirdly, the relations between the state and municipalities were not always good. There was a mutual lack of trust because the municipalities were interested in some land plots however, the state ignored that and formed state land plots (Eesti Linnade Liit, 2007). As a result, the municipalities were no longer keen on giving the information to the state.

However, after 2008 the state became more active (cf. Figure 18). In the next years, most state land was registered in the land cadastre (cf. Figure 16). For example, 76% of the area registered in the land cadastre in 2009 was state land; after 2011, it increased to 90%. As of the end of 2016, registered land area in the land cadastre was 4 258 242 hectares: 98% of the Estonian inland area. Still, 2% (88 295 hectares) of land has to be registered. If the state works at the same speed as in previous years, it will complete the land reform during next two years. If the tempo slows, the state will need more time.

4.6. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the implementation of the land reform

The Land Reform Act and other regulations concerning land reform provide rules for the reformation of land plots and the rights of the eligible persons. It has been the task of municipalities to find out to whom, to what extent and how they could reform land plots.

88 88 state ownership required getting the necessary information about each Paper V provides an overview of the Estonian approach to land reform, land plot from the municipality, a time consuming task. and an analysis of how this has led to more fragmented land tenure compared to the situation pre-1940. The chosen approach created In 2008, the state established a digital map, a tool for municipal and state situations where different persons had the right to the same land plot authorities to gather information about unreformed land plots. Plot (or part thereof). For example, in the case of restitution, the basis was locations could be entered into the map in the database and additional property ownership as it existed in 1940. At the same time, however, it information added as necessary. By April 2009, the Minister of the was possible that a person eligible for privatisation by pre-emption also Environment was able to report to Parliament that 70% of unreformed had the right to part of the land plot. The Land Reform Act (1991) land had been defined (Riigikogu, 2009). It was quite a good result included provisions for solving such situations. considering that filling the database was voluntary for municipalities. However, some municipalities did not contribute to the database, for a There have been both simple and complicated cases of property variety of reasons. Firstly, the completion of land reform was not the formation during the land reform process in Estonia. Paper IV liability of municipalities. Secondly, the land reform activity had systematised the different plot area and boundary determination diminished, so the municipalities had reduced or abolished the locations procedures that have been applied in the course of land reform property of the land reform and eliminated the roles of land specialists. Thirdly, formation. Paper IV introduces in detail the subtypes of property the relations between the state and municipalities were not always good. formation: restitution, privatisation, municipalisation and retention of There was a mutual lack of trust because the municipalities were land in state ownership. It also presents some examples of interested in some land plots however, the state ignored that and formed interdependencies of property formation procedures (cf. Table 25). state land plots (Eesti Linnade Liit, 2007). As a result, the municipalities were no longer keen on giving the information to the state. Table 25. Examples of interdependencies of property formation procedures (Paper IV) However, after 2008 the state became more active (cf. Figure 18). In the Property formation Possible constraints of property formation next years, most state land was registered in the land cadastre (cf. Figure procedure 16). For example, 76% of the area registered in the land cadastre in 2009 Property forma- Right of other entitled subjects for restitution of a share of the was state land; after 2011, it increased to 90%. As of the end of 2016, tion for land same land to be restored registered land area in the land cadastre was 4 258 242 hectares: 98% of restitution The right of a house owner to privatize land to the building the Estonian inland area. Still, 2% (88 295 hectares) of land has to be The presence of protected land that cannot be restored registered. If the state works at the same speed as in previous years, it The need of the state to retain land in state ownership The right of local governments to municipalize land will complete the land reform during next two years. If the tempo slows, Property forma- Right of entitled subjects for restitution of the same land the state will need more time. tion for land Right of other persons to privatize the same land privatization The needs of the state to retain the land in state ownership The needs of local governments to municipalize land Property forma- Right of subjects for land restitution tion for land The right of a house owner to privatize land around the 4.6. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the municipalization building. implementation of the land reform The needs of state to retain the land in state ownership Property forma- Right of subjects for land restitution The Land Reform Act and other regulations concerning land reform tion for retention The right of a house owner to privatize land around the provide rules for the reformation of land plots and the rights of the of land in state building. eligible persons. It has been the task of municipalities to find out to ownership The right of local governments to municipalize land whom, to what extent and how they could reform land plots.

88 89 89

Table 25 does not cover all possible combinations of interdependencies among property formation activities. However, it illustrates the complicated nature of property formation procedures over the course of land reform. These four basic land reform procedures (restitution, privatization, municipalisation and retention in state ownership) can combine reality in very different ways and have produced very different results.

Some examples are presented in Paper V also. If only one person eligible for restitution applied, then land was returned according to its former boundaries. Variant A in Figure 26 depicts this situation. It was also possible that one former property was divided between multiple persons eligible for restitution (cf. Figure 26 variant B). If several entitled persons claimed the restitution of a land plot that included a residential lot, the local government would set a period of one month for the claimants to come to a private legal agreement over its division; if no agreement was reached within this time then the local government would return the property into the claimants’ joint ownership based on their share.

Persons eligible for privatisation by pre-emption also had the right to request land within the borders of former properties being claimed by restitution. In this case, land was divided between persons eligible for restitution and privatisation by pre-emption (cf. Figure 26 variant C).

Land restitution in Estonia involved returning the exact land area (same location and inside the same borders) to the 1940 owners or their heirs. It was the case even if part of the land was privatised to other persons (cf. Figure 26 variant C). It reduced the previous (before 1940) land plot area and changed the plot borders.

Figure 26. Theoretical land restitution and privatisation.

Accordingly, the regulations of the implementation of land reform gave different eligible persons the right to apply for the same piece of land or part of it. Multiple claims often resulted in the division of former

90 90

Table 25 does not cover all possible combinations of interdependencies properties. To verify the situation, two areas were chosen to investigate among property formation activities. However, it illustrates the land ownership fragmentation in terms of number and size of plots. The complicated nature of property formation procedures over the course study areas were located in Tartu County (cf. Figure 5): one in the of land reform. These four basic land reform procedures (restitution, municipality of Ülenurme totalling 2,219 hectares; the other in the privatization, municipalisation and retention in state ownership) can municipality of Rõngu equalling 1,267 hectares. combine reality in very different ways and have produced very different results. Table 26 presents an overview of the size and number of the land plots in the two study areas, for 1940 (pre-WWII and Soviet occupation) and Some examples are presented in Paper V also. If only one person eligible 2012 (after Estonian independence and land reform post-1990). The for restitution applied, then land was returned according to its former number of land plots in the Ülenurme study area was 191 in 1940 and boundaries. Variant A in Figure 26 depicts this situation. It was also 879 in 2012, i.e. a 4.6 times increase in the number of land plots. The possible that one former property was divided between multiple persons average size of the plots was 4.5 times smaller in 2012 (2.5 hectares) eligible for restitution (cf. Figure 26 variant B). If several entitled persons compared to 1940 (11.3 hectares). 189 land plots were restored by claimed the restitution of a land plot that included a residential lot, the restitution and the average area of such plots was 6.7 hectares, which local government would set a period of one month for the claimants to was smaller than the average in 1940 (11.3 hectares). In 2012 the number come to a private legal agreement over its division; if no agreement was of recently privatised land plots numbered 598; their average area reached within this time then the local government would return the equalled 1.1 hectares. This meant that besides restitution there were also property into the claimants’ joint ownership based on their share. many privatised plots, but these plots tended to be smaller than the restored land plots. Today this area contains more residential buildings Persons eligible for privatisation by pre-emption also had the right to than in 1940 and their owners had/have the right to privatise land, thus request land within the borders of former properties being claimed by there are now many more small land plots in the area. All other plots— restitution. In this case, land was divided between persons eligible for those retained in state ownership, transferred to municipal ownership or restitution and privatisation by pre-emption (cf. Figure 26 variant C). that remained unreformed—totalled 92 (Paper V).

Land restitution in Estonia involved returning the exact land area (same Table 26. Number and size of the plots in the two study areas in 1940 and 2012. location and inside the same borders) to the 1940 owners or their heirs. Number of Total area Average plots (hectares) area of plots It was the case even if part of the land was privatised to other persons (hectares) (cf. Figure 26 variant C). It reduced the previous (before 1940) land plot Study area 1 (Ülenurme) area and changed the plot borders. Land plots in 1940 191 2,163 11.3 Reformed land 879 2,163 2.5 plots in 2012 Restitution 189 1,274 6.7 Privatisation 598 636 1.1 Other plots* 92 253 2.8 Study area 2 (Rõngu) Land plots in 1940 90 1,238 13.8 Reformed land 253 1,238 5.3 Figure 26. Theoretical land restitution and privatisation. plots in 2012 Restitution 64 449 7.0 Privatisation 127 627 4.9 Accordingly, the regulations of the implementation of land reform gave Other plots* 44 162 3.7 different eligible persons the right to apply for the same piece of land or *other plots included those retained in state ownership, transferred to municipal ownership or part of it. Multiple claims often resulted in the division of former which had not been reformed.

90 91 91

The number of land plots in the Rõngu study area was 90 in 1940 and 235 in 2012, i.e. a 2.6 times increase. The average size of plots was 2.5 times smaller in 2012 (5.3 hectares) than in 1940 (13.5 hectares). 64 land plots had been restored by restitution and their average area equalled 7.0 hectares, quite similar to the average size of plots in the first study area (6.7 hectares). The number of the recently privatised land plots was 191 in 2012 and the average area was 4.9 hectares, which was larger than in the first study area (1.1 hectares). As the second study area was mostly agricultural, there were relatively fewer building owners to claim land via privatisation and thus such plots could be made larger (Paper V).

As it becomes obvious, the number of land plots have grown in both areas, while at the same time, average plot size became smaller. The reason: there could be several applications for one and the same land plot and during the implementation of land reform the land plots were divided among eligible persons. There are many different options under the regulations of implementation of land reform for how land can be divided between various eligible subjects (state; municipalities; subjects with a right to restitution; subjects with a right to privatisation by pre- emption).

92 92

The number of land plots in the Rõngu study area was 90 in 1940 and 5. DISCUSSION 235 in 2012, i.e. a 2.6 times increase. The average size of plots was 2.5 times smaller in 2012 (5.3 hectares) than in 1940 (13.5 hectares). 64 land 5.1. Institutional arrangement for implementation of the land plots had been restored by restitution and their average area equalled 7.0 reform and outcome of land reform hectares, quite similar to the average size of plots in the first study area (6.7 hectares). The number of the recently privatised land plots was 191 The Land Reform Act provided the basis for the implementation of land in 2012 and the average area was 4.9 hectares, which was larger than in reform. This act has changed 49 times since the beginning of the the first study area (1.1 hectares). As the second study area was mostly process. The number and frequency of changes in the Land Reform Act agricultural, there were relatively fewer building owners to claim land via indicates the extreme complexity of the undertaking. Not all privatisation and thus such plots could be made larger (Paper V). complications are possible to prevent and so the Land Reform Act must be reviewed periodically. It is certain that the Land Reform Act will be As it becomes obvious, the number of land plots have grown in both changed again before the completion of land reform in Estonia. areas, while at the same time, average plot size became smaller. The reason: there could be several applications for one and the same land The Land Reform Act states the three aims for Estonian land reform (cf. plot and during the implementation of land reform the land plots were Table 6). In addition to the aims, Table 27 presents explanations for divided among eligible persons. There are many different options under those aims, as well as approaches to the land reform implementation and the regulations of implementation of land reform for how land can be outcomes in brief. Although it was not specifically stated in the aim, the divided between various eligible subjects (state; municipalities; subjects speedy implementation of the land reform was the underlying driver. with a right to restitution; subjects with a right to privatisation by pre- This expedited reforming land, plot-by-plot, as it was possible to emption). implement the process with these land plots where documents were ready. It allowed eligible persons to be active: bring all documents, request surveying if it was the responsibility of eligible person, etc. This approach did not support a comprehensive solution for a single area and created fragmentation on the plot level; newly formed land plots had to be located among previously formed plots and within pre-existing borders. Later ones could not alter shapes or boundaries of previously formed land plots, even if they had not always been effective.

The quick implementation of the land reform was also the reason why the range of eligible persons for restitution was so broad. For instance, even the sisters and brothers of the former owner had the right to claim return of, or compensation for, land in equal shares. Further, their descendants, if their parent is dead, had the right to claim return of, or compensation for land in equal share.

92 93 93

Table 27. Aims, approaches and outcomes of the land reform in Estonia. Aim 1 To transform relations based on state ownership of land into relations primarily based on private ownership. Explanation: Make these changes and transfer properties into private hands to encourage civil circulation of properties as quickly as possible. Aim 2 The implementation of land reform has to be based on the continuity of rights of former owners and the interests of current land users that are protected by law. Explanation: Do not generate a new injustice. Aim 3 To establish preconditions for more effective use of land. Explanation: Make it possible that life will go on in rural areas and agricultural production will be continued. Approach 1 Fulfil these applications plot-by-plot, form the properties for which documents are submitted and assure that they are correct. If there are no disputes between eligible persons, make these plots available for civil circulation. Approach 2 The state desired as broad a representation of eligible subjects of restitution or privatization as possible. As a result, many people were encouraged and eager to be landowners. Approach 3 Land plots held previous to 1940 could now be divided between the persons eligible for restitution and privatisation according to the rules of the Land Reform Act. For example, it was possible to privatise land with pre-emption under and around a house, farm building, etc. The result was additional land fragmentation. Outcome 1 Land reform is mostly implemented; 98% of inland is reformed. Outcome 2 Fragmentation is greater on the plot level than it was before compulsory acquisition in 1940. It was caused by: 1. Broad scope of entitled persons of restitution: previous land plot divided among entitled persons 2. Previous land plot divided among entitled persons for restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right 3. Land reform that was implemented plot-by-plot Fragmented land use is not effective for agricultural production. Outcome 3 Formed land plots have irregular shapes, lack of access requiring the need to arrange the land tenure and use, for example, land consolidation or land exchange, etc.

The second objective states that the implementation of the land reform has to be based on the continuity of rights of former owners and the interests of current users that are protected by law. It means that during implementation of land reform, both sides must be protected; from one side, the right of former owners or their successors if the former owner is deceased and, from the other side, the interests of current land users.

94 94

Table 27. Aims, approaches and outcomes of the land reform in Estonia. The idea behind this aim is that present land reform should not generate Aim 1 To transform relations based on state ownership of land into a new injustice. Frequently, achieving this aim has been quite relations primarily based on private ownership. complicated; often both sides have been interested in one and the same Explanation: Make these changes and transfer properties into private land plot, which can require conflict resolving between these entities. It hands to encourage civil circulation of properties as quickly as has made the implementation of the land reform more complicated and possible. time consuming; the outcome is that there is greater land fragmentation Aim 2 The implementation of land reform has to be based on the continuity of rights of former owners and the interests of current land users that on the land plot level than there was before compulsory acquisition in are protected by law. 1940. Explanation: Do not generate a new injustice. Aim 3 To establish preconditions for more effective use of land. The third aim is that land reform has to establish preconditions for more effective land use. The idea of this aim is not so clear. It could be that Explanation: Make it possible that life will go on in rural areas and life will go on and agricultural production will continue in rural areas agricultural production will be continued. Approach 1 Fulfil these applications plot-by-plot, form the properties for which after land reform. It could be also that during the land reform, better use documents are submitted and assure that they are correct. If there of land from the aspect of land management will be taken into are no disputes between eligible persons, make these plots available consideration. However, it has not been the case in Estonia as we see for civil circulation. that land reform was implemented in a sporadic way (plot-by-plot) and Approach 2 The state desired as broad a representation of eligible subjects of without a comprehensive plan at the outset. Additionally, one outcome restitution or privatization as possible. As a result, many people were encouraged and eager to be landowners. of the land reform is greater land fragmentation than before 1940. Approach 3 Land plots held previous to 1940 could now be divided between the persons eligible for restitution and privatisation according to the rules Consequently, the aims of the land reform are not always totally clear. of the Land Reform Act. For example, it was possible to privatise land There could exist hidden aims as well. Sometimes implementation of with pre-emption under and around a house, farm building, etc. The these aims has involved contradictions or the aims themselves cause result was additional land fragmentation. Outcome 1 Land reform is mostly implemented; 98% of inland is reformed. conflict. Outcome 2 Fragmentation is greater on the plot level than it was before compulsory acquisition in 1940. It was caused by: The Land Reform Act appoints four different possibilities for land 1. Broad scope of entitled persons of restitution: previous land redistribution: restitution, privatisation, assignment of land to plot divided among entitled persons municipality or to the state (cf. Figure 7). It cannot be said that Estonia 2. Previous land plot divided among entitled persons for restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right has chosen only restitution for the implementation of land reform. 3. Land reform that was implemented plot-by-plot According to the outcome of the land reform, the biggest amount of Fragmented land use is not effective for agricultural production. land (according to size) has come under state ownership (cf. Table 8). Outcome 3 Formed land plots have irregular shapes, lack of access requiring the Next is restitution and after that, privatisation. Although there have been need to arrange the land tenure and use, for example, land four different possibilities for privatisation (cf. Figure 9), the most consolidation or land exchange, etc. common privatisation is by a right of pre-emption (cf. Table 8). Also, municipalities have been able to become landowners through special The second objective states that the implementation of the land reform processes (cf. Figure 7). However, the land ownership of municipalities has to be based on the continuity of rights of former owners and the is quite modest: it is under 50 000 hectares, which is only 1% of the interests of current users that are protected by law. It means that during reformed land area (cf. Table 8). implementation of land reform, both sides must be protected; from one side, the right of former owners or their successors if the former owner The process of land reform represents a rapid and radical change of land is deceased and, from the other side, the interests of current land users. ownership and use, which creates conflicts and stress in a society.

94 95 95

Moreover, Estonia chose to carry out land reform in a way that made the situation even more complicated, trying to solve all of the related matters at once: privatising land, returning land to former owners, retaining land under state ownership, municipalisation of land and compensating for unlawfully expropriated land. The complications have led to many conflicts and great complexity. As early as 1995, former Minister of Property Reform Hänni made this very point, as noted by Ulas in 2010 in comments.

Land reform could be state-led or community-led. State-led land reform supports a top-down approach and community-led, action from the bottom-up (Sikor and Müller, 2009). One could question which approach Estonia has actually chosen. While organizationally, implementation of land reform was arranged so that regulations and supervision were laid on state level (cf. Figure 12), the reform itself has been handled primarily on the local level. Municipalities have had to act according to the rigid regulations worked out by the state. The Estonian Land Board has controlled and continuously inspected the activity of municipalities. If a mistake is detected, the Estonian Land Board has the prescription for repairing the situation; the community has not been involved in problem-solving. Even land ownership of municipalities is quite modest - only 1% of the Estonian territory - in spite of the fact that municipalities are requesting more land for community development. Therefore, it can be said that Estonia has chosen a state- led land reform approach, as is currently the case in other Central and Eastern European countries (Sikor and Müller, 2009). Nevertheless, despite the small percentage of land ownership, the municipalities on the local level have played an important role in actual implementation of the land reform. Therefore, all local actions impact the result of the implementation of land reform.

The decision to implement land reform on the municipal level has positive and negative aspects. The positive side is that municipalities are closer to the entitled subjects and know the local conditions. Positive, also, is the fact that the number of municipalities is large. For example, in 1999 there were 247 municipalities in Estonia: only one officer per municipality means at least 247 officials in all Estonia. However, normally, there were two or more officials involved in one municipality, meaning a great number of officials implemented land reform throughout the country.

96 96

Moreover, Estonia chose to carry out land reform in a way that made The negative side is that the implementation of the land reform in the situation even more complicated, trying to solve all of the related Estonia was a new process. Usually, municipalities studied the situation matters at once: privatising land, returning land to former owners, and sometimes developed their own model for the implementation of retaining land under state ownership, municipalisation of land and land reform. There have been workshops held by county government or compensating for unlawfully expropriated land. The complications have Land Board to harmonize the process. However, interviews with the led to many conflicts and great complexity. As early as 1995, former municipal officials indicate that they would like to get even more Minister of Property Reform Hänni made this very point, as noted by information and instructions from the county government and Estonian Ulas in 2010 in comments. Land Board (cf. Table 21).

Land reform could be state-led or community-led. State-led land reform The land reform implementers (municipal officers) have very different supports a top-down approach and community-led, action from the levels of relevant knowledge. There was a great demand for the officials bottom-up (Sikor and Müller, 2009). One could question which to execute the reform, and many were not well prepared. Only a small approach Estonia has actually chosen. While organizationally, number of officers who implemented the land reform in municipalities implementation of land reform was arranged so that regulations and had received the relevant education; often they came from other supervision were laid on state level (cf. Figure 12), the reform itself has specialities (cf. Figure 13). Questions arose: Was the state as an been handled primarily on the local level. Municipalities have had to act organisation ready to implement land reform, and were the according to the rigid regulations worked out by the state. The Estonian implementers ready? In response, it is possible to say that 98% of the Land Board has controlled and continuously inspected the activity of Estonian inland is reformed today. The state has implemented most of municipalities. If a mistake is detected, the Estonian Land Board has the the land reform and thus fulfilled the task, however, as speed was a prescription for repairing the situation; the community has not been priority during the process, there may not have been adequate attention involved in problem-solving. Even land ownership of municipalities is to quality. That suggests ongoing problems (for example, the increasing quite modest - only 1% of the Estonian territory - in spite of the fact fragmentation) that can last quite a long time. Additional research into that municipalities are requesting more land for community the quality of implementation of land reform would be welcome. development. Therefore, it can be said that Estonia has chosen a state- led land reform approach, as is currently the case in other Central and Eastern European countries (Sikor and Müller, 2009). Nevertheless, despite the small percentage of land ownership, the municipalities on the 5.2. Speed and model of the implementation of land reform in local level have played an important role in actual implementation of the Estonia land reform. Therefore, all local actions impact the result of the implementation of land reform. The Land Reform Act was adopted in 1991. The first land plots were registered in the land cadastre in 1993. The speed of the implementation The decision to implement land reform on the municipal level has of land reform increased very quickly from 1993 until 1998. The peak positive and negative aspects. The positive side is that municipalities are year was in 1998: 14% of the Estonian inland was registered in the land closer to the entitled subjects and know the local conditions. Positive, cadastre. The speed then started to decrease in 1999 (cf. Figure 14), with also, is the fact that the number of municipalities is large. For example, the lowest amount (40,896 hectares) registered in the land cadastre in in 1999 there were 247 municipalities in Estonia: only one officer per 2008. At the same time, 15% of in the cadastre had not yet municipality means at least 247 officials in all Estonia. However, been reformed (cf. Figure 15). normally, there were two or more officials involved in one municipality, meaning a great number of officials implemented land reform Differences among the results of the implementation of the land reform throughout the country. on the county level were quite broad in 1998. For instance, the ratio of

96 97 97 reformed land was 64% in the county of Põlva but only 20% in ; the difference was 44%. In 2016, the difference was not so wide: the ratio was 99% in five counties and 96% in two counties, a difference of only 3%. It appears that the differences between counties were big in the first year of the land reform but have since diminished.

The difference among municipalities according to the land reform percentage was quite large as well. It was 99% in one municipality and the same indicator was only 47% in another municipality in 2008 (cf. Table 13). The situation had changed significantly by the end of the 2016: one municipality had 100% land reform and 56 municipalities had a land reform percentage of 99% or more. For example, the percentage remains low in the municipality of Piirisaare, at 51%. It means that only 4% of the area was reformed in eight years. Land reform percentage was 74% in the municipality of Peipsiääre. The difference is 12% during eight years. In summary, some municipalities had almost completed land reform by 2008 while other municipalities are still only halfway or less complete.

Why is there such a big difference between municipalities? The question arose: have the land use types (e.g. the ratio of arable and forest and, the density of road network in municipality, etc.) influenced this difference between municipalities? The result of the study (Paper II) shows that there is a low-to-medium correlation (r = 0.21 to r = 0.77) between the results of the land reform and the land use types. It means that the impact of land use types causes up to 50 percent of variations in land reform results in Estonian municipalities. The results of the study also showed that the impact of land use types on the results of various land reform activities (restitution of land, privatization, etc.) varies. It can be concluded that land reform comprises different activities (restitution, privatisation, etc.) thus it is necessary to analyse these components separately and not only focus on general results of the land reform.

Paper III continued to determine whether the characteristics of 30 quick and 30 slow municipalities are different. The analysed data present the situation at the end of 2009. The geographical location is presented in Figure 20. The municipalities located in Central and South-Eastern Estonia have tended to carry out land reform faster than municipalities located in Western Estonia, i.e. there was no quick municipality located in that area at the end of the 2009. However, it is important to turn

98 98 reformed land was 64% in the county of Põlva but only 20% in Rapla attention to special features: firstly, the county of Tartu has both four county; the difference was 44%. In 2016, the difference was not so wide: quick and four slow municipalities; secondly, the fast municipalities are the ratio was 99% in five counties and 96% in two counties, a difference farther from the capital. The result of the paper III analysis supports the of only 3%. It appears that the differences between counties were big in last statement as well, finding that fast municipalities are farther from the first year of the land reform but have since diminished. the capital (an average of 172.48 km) than slow municipalities (an average of 142.72 km). While the differences in the probability of the The difference among municipalities according to the land reform latter parameter are slightly below 95% (p = 0.058), this result is not percentage was quite large as well. It was 99% in one municipality and introduced in Table 14. The situation with county centres is the the same indicator was only 47% in another municipality in 2008 (cf. opposite: the quick municipalities are closer to the county centre. Table 13). The situation had changed significantly by the end of the 2016: one municipality had 100% land reform and 56 municipalities had Over the years the proportion of land retained under state ownership in a land reform percentage of 99% or more. For example, the percentage local government areas has been higher in quick municipalities than in remains low in the municipality of Piirisaare, at 51%. It means that only slow municipalities (cf. Table 15). Local governments play a smaller role 4% of the area was reformed in eight years. Land reform percentage was and also have fewer commitments in terms of procedures related to 74% in the municipality of Peipsiääre. The difference is 12% during eight retaining land in state ownership compared to other procedures years. In summary, some municipalities had almost completed land (returning land to former owners and land privatisation). Generally, a reform by 2008 while other municipalities are still only halfway or less state institution or enterprise is responsible for retaining land in state complete. ownership. Therefore, state institutions themselves have been one of the driving forces behind the speed at which land reform is carried out. Why is there such a big difference between municipalities? The question arose: have the land use types (e.g. the ratio of arable and forest and, the Paper II indicates that the impact of land use types on the ratio of the density of road network in municipality, etc.) influenced this difference land returned to former owners and on the ratio of the land retained in between municipalities? The result of the study (Paper II) shows that state ownership was converse. If the land use types had positive impact there is a low-to-medium correlation (r = 0.21 to r = 0.77) between the (correlation) on the ratio of the land returned to former owners, then results of the land reform and the land use types. It means that the the impact on the ratio of the land retained in state ownership was impact of land use types causes up to 50 percent of variations in land negative. The abovementioned variations can be explained by the reform results in Estonian municipalities. The results of the study also different drivers of the land reform processes for the private sector and showed that the impact of land use types on the results of various land for the state. For instance, it had already been decided in 1919 that the reform activities (restitution of land, privatization, etc.) varies. It can be large areas of forests and marshlands would be retained by the state in concluded that land reform comprises different activities (restitution, the 1919 land reform (Lapping, 1993). Therefore, in 1991 there were a privatisation, etc.) thus it is necessary to analyse these components great number of forest areas that had to be retained under state separately and not only focus on general results of the land reform. ownership. Such land retention under state ownership can be handled as a particular kind of restitution. Paper III continued to determine whether the characteristics of 30 quick and 30 slow municipalities are different. The analysed data present the The proportion of privatised land has been greater in quick situation at the end of 2009. The geographical location is presented in municipalities than in slow municipalities. The reason here may be that Figure 20. The municipalities located in Central and South-Eastern the proportion of arable land has been higher as well in quick Estonia have tended to carry out land reform faster than municipalities municipalities. Paper II found a strong correlation (r = 0.77) between located in Western Estonia, i.e. there was no quick municipality located the ratio of arable land and privatised land. Paper III also indicates that in that area at the end of the 2009. However, it is important to turn the proportion of both privatized and arable land is higher in quick

98 99 99 municipalities, while the ratio of natural grasslands is lower in quick municipalities than in slow municipalities. The productivity of natural grassland is not comparable with arable land, thus there is less interest by persons to acquire such land. Paper II revealed a negative correlation (r = -0.37) between the ratio of grassland and the ratio of land registered in the cadastre, which shows that the subjects of land acquisition were not interested in becoming owners of this type of land. The proportion of natural grassland is higher in slow municipalities, as confirmed in Paper III.

The greater amount of protected areas in slow municipalities indicates that there are areas for which no one is interested in becoming an owner, or that the areas are not intended to be privatised or returned to their former owners. The state government itself has been unable to carry out land reform regarding these areas. Paper II indicates a low correlation (0.33) between the ratio of protected areas and the ratio of land remaining under state ownership, which shows that wherever there are protected areas, a greater amount of land has been retained by the state. It can be concluded that there are restrictions on converting protected areas to private ownership, and therefore that the land will gradually be retained under state ownership.

Over the years the average areas of plots registered in the land cadastre have been greater in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities (cf. Table 15). The difference between the average areas of plots has decreased over the years, and remains higher in fast municipalities. It takes a longer time to reform smaller land units because the process of documentation must be carried out for each unit separately, whatever its size. Further, the contribution of land units with smaller areas to a reduction in unreformed land has been lower (Paper III).

Data from the case study about the land use and the land reform activities in the four quick and slow municipalities in the county of Tartu did not bring out fixed differences between them. Data varies a lot inside the group of quick and slow municipalities (cf. Table 16, 17). Although the statistical analysis revealed that, over the years, the proportion of land retained under state ownership has been higher in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities, this detailed study did not verify that fact so unambiguously. Whilst the average proportion was higher in four quick municipalities than in the slow group, the numbers

100 100 municipalities, while the ratio of natural grasslands is lower in quick differ widely within the quick group. For instance, the highest municipalities than in slow municipalities. The productivity of natural proportion was 68 and the lowest 18. In the slow group the ratio was grassland is not comparable with arable land, thus there is less interest more stable: the highest was 37 and the lowest 20. The situation is similar by persons to acquire such land. Paper II revealed a negative correlation with the proportion of privatised land. The statistical analysis indicates (r = -0.37) between the ratio of grassland and the ratio of land registered that it has been greater in quick municipalities than in slow in the cadastre, which shows that the subjects of land acquisition were municipalities. Comparing the situation with the group of four quick and not interested in becoming owners of this type of land. The proportion four slow municipalities, it is possible say that the average ratio (20) for of natural grassland is higher in slow municipalities, as confirmed in four quick municipalities is higher compared with slower municipalities Paper III. (16). However, the variation between ratios within the fast group of municipalities is again quite wide: the highest ratio is 34 and lowest 11. The greater amount of protected areas in slow municipalities indicates The highest ratio in the slow group is 20; the lowest, 15. that there are areas for which no one is interested in becoming an owner, or that the areas are not intended to be privatised or returned to their The results of the interviews complement the understanding about the former owners. The state government itself has been unable to carry out organisational arrangements for implementation of land reform on the land reform regarding these areas. Paper II indicates a low correlation level of municipalities. The interviews were conducted with personnel in (0.33) between the ratio of protected areas and the ratio of land the three quick municipalities (Kambja, Rõngu, Võnnu) and three slow remaining under state ownership, which shows that wherever there are municipalities (Alatskivi, Rannu, Vara) in the county of Tartu. The protected areas, a greater amount of land has been retained by the state. results of the interviews, in Tables 19-21, make it possible to bring out It can be concluded that there are restrictions on converting protected some general features about the organisational side of land reform areas to private ownership, and therefore that the land will gradually be implementation. retained under state ownership. Firstly, the municipal officials who implemented the land reform and Over the years the average areas of plots registered in the land cadastre additional workflow would not have been used, normally. The personnel have been greater in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities (cf. in quick municipalities has been more stable; fewer changes in officials Table 15). The difference between the average areas of plots has could have been an advantage. In the first year (1991), the work was decreased over the years, and remains higher in fast municipalities. It completed mostly on paper and on the map. Historical memory by takes a longer time to reform smaller land units because the process of officials could have added value for the municipality. On the other hand, documentation must be carried out for each unit separately, whatever its frequent changes in personnel created delays, as new officials had to get size. Further, the contribution of land units with smaller areas to a used to the workflow. reduction in unreformed land has been lower (Paper III). Secondly, the land reform implementers were kept in touch with the land Data from the case study about the land use and the land reform reform process through the county government or by taking part in activities in the four quick and slow municipalities in the county of Tartu seminars organised by the county government of the Estonian Land did not bring out fixed differences between them. Data varies a lot Board. They read the regulations and communicated with officials from inside the group of quick and slow municipalities (cf. Table 16, 17). other municipalities. It appears that such a complicated process needs Although the statistical analysis revealed that, over the years, the assistance from upper levels in control of the process. The officials proportion of land retained under state ownership has been higher in interviewed indicated that they would have liked to receive more fast municipalities than in slow municipalities, this detailed study did not information from the county government and Estonian Land Board. verify that fact so unambiguously. Whilst the average proportion was Without such assistance implementer(s) communicating amongst higher in four quick municipalities than in the slow group, the numbers themselves were left to work out their own processes. Personal

100 101 101 characteristics could be one essential criteria that plays a role in faster or slower implementation of land reform. For example, officials with good communication skills are better able to look for help, ask questions from colleagues or from the state authorities, etc. Without such skills, he or she might just await solutions from the upper levels, which could lengthen the process.

Thirdly, there are not big differences concerning the processes of land restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right between quick and slow municipalities. The restitution process started in 1992-1993 and privatisation with pre-emption right in 1995-1997. When there evolved an order for restitution or privatisation, then the municipalities dealt with the application according to the activity of the entitled subject. As a result, it is probable that the more active persons became landowners sooner than less active persons. The choice of plot-by-plot reform in combination with active participation by applicants made it possible to solve the applications relatively quickly. If a more comprehensive approach (land reform implemented jointly in one area) had been used, the activity of individual applicants would not have been such an important driver. So it can be said that the chosen approach was good for active persons; however, it also resulted in more fragmented land.

Fourthly, the officials from the municipalities were satisfied with the activity of the county government, as they monitored, supervised and coordinated the land reform implementation, but they expressed different opinions on how the state fulfilled the role. The officials from the slower municipalities were more pessimistic than officials from the quicker municipalities. It could be that officials from the slower municipalities needed more support during the implementation of land reform from the upper (state) level.

Fifthly, the factors that hampered the implementation of the land reform were identified. The first were the legal problems. Factors which accrued from entitled subjects were pointed out as well. These are inactivity, scarcity of finances, uncompleted inheritance issues and inability to find solutions among entitled subjects. The land reform could have been carried out faster if the regulations had been better and more stable, national interests had been known at the beginning of the process and if the land reform activities had had more rigorous deadlines. It would

102 102 characteristics could be one essential criteria that plays a role in faster or have been quicker had municipalities been asked for their opinions slower implementation of land reform. For example, officials with good about the implementation of the land reform. communication skills are better able to look for help, ask questions from colleagues or from the state authorities, etc. Without such skills, he or The interviews enabled gaining better understanding of the she might just await solutions from the upper levels, which could organisational arrangements according to the implementation of land lengthen the process. reform on the municipal level. However, it did not distinguish such fixed differences between the organisational process and activity among quick Thirdly, there are not big differences concerning the processes of land and slow municipalities. There remains one indicator - the ratio of restitution and privatisation with pre-emption right between quick and unreformed land in quick and slow municipalities - which is different slow municipalities. The restitution process started in 1992-1993 and among groups. And, because the content of the unreformed land is also privatisation with pre-emption right in 1995-1997. When there evolved important, it seemed important to make an inventory. an order for restitution or privatisation, then the municipalities dealt with the application according to the activity of the entitled subject. As The inventory of unreformed land plots in the municipality of Puhja in a result, it is probable that the more active persons became landowners 2009 provided increased understanding of who is responsible for the sooner than less active persons. The choice of plot-by-plot reform in completion of land reform. Generally, the local governments have combination with active participation by applicants made it possible to assumed a great deal of responsibility in carrying out the reform; they solve the applications relatively quickly. If a more comprehensive followed the model of the implementation of land reform used till the approach (land reform implemented jointly in one area) had been used, end of the 2000s (cf. Figure 23). However, a municipality was only able the activity of individual applicants would not have been such an to reform plots for which there were applications, and could not important driver. So it can be said that the chosen approach was good complete reform beyond that. It appeared that the state was primarily for active persons; however, it also resulted in more fragmented land. responsible for the completion of the land reform in the municipality of Puhja: 91% of the unreformed land (4,339 hectares) belonged under Fourthly, the officials from the municipalities were satisfied with the state responsibility. In some cases, the state did not undertake its share activity of the county government, as they monitored, supervised and of the land reform activity; that also prevented completion of the coordinated the land reform implementation, but they expressed process. The state realized this problem as well. For instance, more than different opinions on how the state fulfilled the role. The officials from 65% of registered land in the cadastre was state land in 2009 and this the slower municipalities were more pessimistic than officials from the proportion has risen year-by-year (cf. Figure 16). Most land registered in quicker municipalities. It could be that officials from the slower the land cadastre recent years has been state-held land. municipalities needed more support during the implementation of land reform from the upper (state) level. For many years, the municipalities were responsible for the implementation of the land reform and their activity was definitely Fifthly, the factors that hampered the implementation of the land reform important. The speed of the implementation of the process was were identified. The first were the legal problems. Factors which accrued dependent upon the activity of officials from the beginning years until from entitled subjects were pointed out as well. These are inactivity, they reached their land reform ceiling in a municipality. The state has scarcity of finances, uncompleted inheritance issues and inability to find implemented land reform aside from that located in municipalities; for solutions among entitled subjects. The land reform could have been example, a lot of forest land was registered in the land cadastre from carried out faster if the regulations had been better and more stable, 1996-1999. There was also land without applications which fell to state national interests had been known at the beginning of the process and if responsibility. This has been problematical, as although the state has the the land reform activities had had more rigorous deadlines. It would responsible for such land, it does not always have adequate information about it (cf. Figure 25). This has been the bottleneck concerning the

102 103 103 implementation of land reform. After the applications are resolved, the speed of implementation of the land reform is more dependent on state activity; the state is also responsible for lands for which no one applied.

It is possible to conclude that there are some preconditions for quick land reform implementation (cf. Figure 24). As the municipalities are implementers of land reform, then a knowledgeable and competent municipality is essential in this context. However, it is not dependent only on activity of municipalities; there are external influences as well. For instance, the action of entitled subjects has supported and sometimes pushed the implementation of land reform. If the area of the municipality is covered by applications for restitution and/or privatisation, the municipality is in a better position to implement the land reform. The land reform stoppage took place when there was land without applications. Concerning the land itself, the entitled subjects prefer land with a good quality. Forest or fertile arable land has been supportive of the implementation of land reform; swampy and brush- covered areas have hampered the process. Quite often the state has played an important role, particularly if it is interested in retaining land under state ownership. It is possible to say that the speed of carrying out land reform has depended on several concurrent factors with different impacts on the speed of land reform of each local government.

5.3. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the implementation of the land reform

While land reform was being planned in Estonia, the possible outcomes were considered but only at a rather general level. As is often the case, political and economic objectives were drivers (Bell, 1990; Griffin et al., 2002; Powelson, 1987). The leading question was how to compensate the injustice of the expropriation of private property during the Soviet era, whilst at the same time ensuring sustainable agricultural production. Little attention was paid to how land tenure would look after land reform had been carried out (Virma, 2004).

During the planning stages, one strongly-held principle was that implementation of the land reform could not generate a new injustice (EAA, 1991a, 1991b). It led to formulation of the second objective in

104 104 implementation of land reform. After the applications are resolved, the the Land Reform Act, which stated that implementation of the land speed of implementation of the land reform is more dependent on state reform must be based on the continuity of rights of former owners and activity; the state is also responsible for lands for which no one applied. the interests of current users that are protected by law. In addition to persons eligible for restitution, there were others eligible for It is possible to conclude that there are some preconditions for quick privatisation. Quite often the previous land plot (before 1940) was land reform implementation (cf. Figure 24). As the municipalities are divided among persons eligible for restitution and privatisation (cf. implementers of land reform, then a knowledgeable and competent Figure 26). municipality is essential in this context. However, it is not dependent only on activity of municipalities; there are external influences as well. According to the chosen model of implementation of land reform, For instance, the action of entitled subjects has supported and different kinds of activities were implemented at the same time. Paper sometimes pushed the implementation of land reform. If the area of the IV mapped out the specific situations of property formation in the municipality is covered by applications for restitution and/or course of land reform and determined interdependencies among those privatisation, the municipality is in a better position to implement the situations (cf. Table 25). It followed from the study that four basic land land reform. The land reform stoppage took place when there was land reform procedures (restitution, privatization, land retained to state without applications. Concerning the land itself, the entitled subjects ownership, land given to the municipalities) can combine in reality in prefer land with a good quality. Forest or fertile arable land has been very different ways. Quite often it is not possible to form properties supportive of the implementation of land reform; swampy and brush- singly, because more than one person may have rights to apply for the covered areas have hampered the process. Quite often the state has same pieces of land (cf. Figure 26). For example, more than one person played an important role, particularly if it is interested in retaining land can apply for restitution and several persons can have the right to under state ownership. It is possible to say that the speed of carrying out privatize the same plot by right of pre-emption. At the same time, the land reform has depended on several concurrent factors with different state or municipality can be interested in the same plot or part of it. In impacts on the speed of land reform of each local government. there is available vacant land, the problem can be solved in a way that satisfies interested parties. However, vacant land is not always available and a process of complex negotiations and discretions may be necessary. The result of the study showed that property formation during the 5.3. Land fragmentation on the plot level as result of the course of land reform can be easy and simple, or quite complicated. implementation of the land reform Estonia implemented land reform plot-by-plot as documents were While land reform was being planned in Estonia, the possible outcomes submitted, which could be considered a rather sporadic approach were considered but only at a rather general level. As is often the case, (Larsson, 1991). The evolution of implementation of the land reform is political and economic objectives were drivers (Bell, 1990; Griffin et al., presented in Figure 27, showing the same area in successive years. By 2002; Powelson, 1987). The leading question was how to compensate 2005, only a few plots had been reformed. Two of them were adjacent the injustice of the expropriation of private property during the Soviet to each other, two plots were in separate locations. By 2007, more plots era, whilst at the same time ensuring sustainable agricultural production. had been reformed around the previously reformed plot. By 2012, Little attention was paid to how land tenure would look after land reform almost all area was covered with reformed land plots. had been carried out (Virma, 2004).

During the planning stages, one strongly-held principle was that implementation of the land reform could not generate a new injustice (EAA, 1991a, 1991b). It led to formulation of the second objective in

104 105 105

Figure 27. Evolution of implementation of the land reform.

This plot-by-plot resolution brought together the unreformed land plots amongst reformed land plots, as presented in Figure 10. These unreformed land plots worried the government, so a new possibility to reform such land plots was written in the Land Reform Act in 2013. Article 22 section 13 states: “If it is not possible to form an immovable which can be used independently on land bordering on an immovable in private, municipal or state ownership (hereinafter land suitable for joining to immovable) and due to planning and land readjustment requirements it is expedient to join such land to the bordering immovable, the owner of the bordering immovable has the right to apply for the acquisition of the land for it to be joined to the immovable thereof.” Article 312 section 1 defines the land that is suitable for joining to an immovable: “Land suitable for joining to an immovable is deemed to be a plot of land which is as a rule with a shape of a strip, wedge or other irregular shape or which due to its smallness cannot be used independently, to which there is as a rule no access from public road and which has been created in nature as a rule in the course or in consequence of carrying out land reform mostly due to errors caused by different desk surveys or different surveys used at different times. A plot of land between an immovable and a public road in the ownership or possession of another person and an immovable may also deemed to be land suitable for joining to an immovable if it is not expedient in the opinion of the owner or possessor of the road to include it in the road area.“ This regulation is important for dealing with unreformed land plots located amongst other reformed land plots. However, some of these plots might remain as unreformed for many years or be taken under state responsibility for reform. A complication in resolving these unreformed and often separate plots is that owner(s) of neighbouring land plot(s) may not be interested in acquiring these plots, which may have irregular shape, poor soil quality, swamp conditions, etc.

Although the plot-by-plot management of land reform may have seemed to work, on a theoretical basis, people involved in putting it into practise have criticised the chosen model for implementation of the land reform.

106 106

The conclusion is that plot-by-plot land reformation of land is a most unsuitable system. It has created a situation where workers must move from one place to another; it wastes time and money (Grünberg, 1997). It has been suggested as well that land reforming could be implemented without surveying, according to the existing plans and maps in one area. If, in the future, the property owner wants to make a transaction with that property, then surveying is requested (Kakko, 2013).

Figure 27. Evolution of implementation of the land reform. In summary, if there had been a more systematic approach to the This plot-by-plot resolution brought together the unreformed land plots implementation of land reform in Estonia, perhaps there would not have amongst reformed land plots, as presented in Figure 10. These been so many remaining problematic plots - those of small size, irregular unreformed land plots worried the government, so a new possibility to shapes, lack of access, etc. (Paper V). Unreformed land plots probably reform such land plots was written in the Land Reform Act in 2013. Article would not have been formed amongst reformed land plots and the 22 section 13 states: “If it is not possible to form an immovable which can be used process would have been carried out more quickly. It is generally less independently on land bordering on an immovable in private, municipal or state complicated to carry out the process when plots are large; reform of ownership (hereinafter land suitable for joining to immovable) and due to planning smaller plots takes longer. For instance, one result of Paper III was that and land readjustment requirements it is expedient to join such land to the bordering in municipalities where the proportion of reformed plots was larger, the immovable, the owner of the bordering immovable has the right to apply for the implementation of land reform has proceeded more quickly. acquisition of the land for it to be joined to the immovable thereof.” Article 312 section 1 defines the land that is suitable for joining to an immovable: In some Central and Eastern European countries a more systematic “Land suitable for joining to an immovable is deemed to be a plot of land which is approach was used. For example, in Lithuania and Latvia, land as a rule with a shape of a strip, wedge or other irregular shape or which due to its management plots were established on the map before land restitution smallness cannot be used independently, to which there is as a rule no access from was begun (Astaškin, 1999a; Hartvigsen, 2013). One example was the public road and which has been created in nature as a rule in the course or in land management process in one municipality in Latvia (Astaškin, consequence of carrying out land reform mostly due to errors caused by different desk 1999a), which could have been used as a model for land consolidation surveys or different surveys used at different times. A plot of land between an in Estonia as well. Although the Land Consolidation Act was adopted in immovable and a public road in the ownership or possession of another person and an 1995 (Riigikogu, 1995), its use was still uncommon. Only 26 land immovable may also deemed to be land suitable for joining to an immovable if it is consolidation projects were completed between 1998-2001 in Estonia. not expedient in the opinion of the owner or possessor of the road to include it in the Unfortunately, these projects did not give the impetus to the Estonian road area.“ This regulation is important for dealing with unreformed land government to further develop land consolidation as a tool for wider plots located amongst other reformed land plots. However, some of use. these plots might remain as unreformed for many years or be taken under state responsibility for reform. A complication in resolving these Land restitution in Estonia involved returning the exact land area (same unreformed and often separate plots is that owner(s) of neighbouring location, inside the same borders) to the 1940 owners or their heirs. This land plot(s) may not be interested in acquiring these plots, which may system did not take into account that in 1940, the land use conditions have irregular shape, poor soil quality, swamp conditions, etc. (in Estonia) were not good, as the land consolidation process had been interrupted. In spite of this, it was still decided that land ownership Although the plot-by-plot management of land reform may have seemed should be restored to its status in 1940 (Aasmäe, 1999; Virma, 2004). to work, on a theoretical basis, people involved in putting it into practise This restored previous land use caused problems and in some cases even have criticised the chosen model for implementation of the land reform. intensified these shortcomings as the situation changed over the course

106 107 107 of 50 years (Astaškin, 1999a). Additionally, previous land plots were divided among eligible persons based on restitution and/or privatisation with pre-emption right. The current land use condition in Estonia would be better, with less land plot fragmentation, had land consolidation been used for the implementation of the land reform.

A similar approach to restore the land to the same area was also used in some other Central and Eastern Europe countries (Mathijs, 1997; Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997). However, they usually restored land according to historical boundaries; if this was not possible then eligible persons received comparable land in another location (Swinnen, 1997). This was the case in Lithuania, for example (Hartvigsen, 2013). It was possible to use a similar land exchange process in the case of the restitution in Estonia as well, however this kind of regulation was valid for only a very short time in 1997 before being abolished.

These previously mentioned circumstances created even more land plot fragmentation than there was before 1940 in Estonia. Fragmented land ownership can have long-lasting effects on future land ownership; the reduction of fragmentation, e.g. land consolidation, has often required government intervention (Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997).

In some situations, a single owner may have many small plots, sometimes with long distances between them, which is unsuitable for industrial farming. Large land plots are required to accommodate large modern agricultural machines and to increase economies to a scale that makes production more viable. The unsuitability of land plots for industrial agricultural production, such as an irregular shape or lack of access, may explain why so many people who received land during the reform process sold their plots or gave them over to another person’s use. For example, according to Statistics Estonia (2014) there were 55,702 agricultural holdings in Estonia in 2001 but only 18,755 in 2013. This reduction of almost 40,000 holdings over a twelve year period was no less than remarkable. A similar structural redevelopment is ongoing in neighbouring Latvia, with land ownership fragmentation increasing due to purchased land often not being adjacent to the land already owned (Platonova and Jankava, 2011).

The land tenure situation that has developed since the implementation of land reform must be clarified. Trends and changes are essential

108 108 of 50 years (Astaškin, 1999a). Additionally, previous land plots were references. Western European countries have experienced that land is divided among eligible persons based on restitution and/or privatisation not a “normal” market good and therefore land issues may require with pre-emption right. The current land use condition in Estonia would special regulation and attention (Alexander, 2014; Rabinowicz and be better, with less land plot fragmentation, had land consolidation been Swinnen, 1997; van Dijk, 2007). It means that the implementation of used for the implementation of the land reform. land reform is not the end of the land administration issues in Estonia; the state must continue to address and resolve other challenges inherent A similar approach to restore the land to the same area was also used in in land management. Therefore, knowledge of the development of the some other Central and Eastern Europe countries (Mathijs, 1997; land tenure is an essential basis for the administrative decisions. Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997). However, they usually restored land according to historical boundaries; if this was not possible then eligible persons received comparable land in another location (Swinnen, 1997). This was the case in Lithuania, for example (Hartvigsen, 2013). It was possible to use a similar land exchange process in the case of the restitution in Estonia as well, however this kind of regulation was valid for only a very short time in 1997 before being abolished.

These previously mentioned circumstances created even more land plot fragmentation than there was before 1940 in Estonia. Fragmented land ownership can have long-lasting effects on future land ownership; the reduction of fragmentation, e.g. land consolidation, has often required government intervention (Rabinowicz and Swinnen, 1997).

In some situations, a single owner may have many small plots, sometimes with long distances between them, which is unsuitable for industrial farming. Large land plots are required to accommodate large modern agricultural machines and to increase economies to a scale that makes production more viable. The unsuitability of land plots for industrial agricultural production, such as an irregular shape or lack of access, may explain why so many people who received land during the reform process sold their plots or gave them over to another person’s use. For example, according to Statistics Estonia (2014) there were 55,702 agricultural holdings in Estonia in 2001 but only 18,755 in 2013. This reduction of almost 40,000 holdings over a twelve year period was no less than remarkable. A similar structural redevelopment is ongoing in neighbouring Latvia, with land ownership fragmentation increasing due to purchased land often not being adjacent to the land already owned (Platonova and Jankava, 2011).

The land tenure situation that has developed since the implementation of land reform must be clarified. Trends and changes are essential

108 109 109

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Land reform is a complicated undertaking; implementation of the process is not easy. Land reform is not a new phenomenon and, over time, has been undertaken by many states on several continents for many reasons. The land reform in Central and Eastern-Europe countries happened in conjunction with political change. Since the 1990s, almost all countries in those areas have implemented land reform to a greater or lesser extent and according to a particular plan (Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013). The Baltic States started to implement land reform at the same time. Although the political situation was similar, each of the Baltic countries has implemented land reform differently, addressing issues on the basis of social-economical and land use conditions as well as honouring historical traditions (Astaškin, 1999a; Auzins, 2004).

Land reforms are sometimes handled as agrarian reform (Cox et al., 2003; FAO, 2003; The World Bank, 2007). In Estonia, while the previous land reform from 1919-1926 could be handled as agrarian reform, there are several reasons why that is not currently possible:

The land reform covered all Estonian inland – both rural and urban areas (cf. Figure 28). Rural areas and settlements were previous sovkhozes and kolkhozes. Towns were treated as separate units ordinarily.

The objective of land reform was not only restitution but also privatisation, state and municipal land forming. For instance, building owners have also had the possibility to apply for privatisation of the land with the right of pre-emption. In rural areas it was possible to privatise land up to as much as 50 hectares or, in some cases, more.

Of the total reformed land in Estonia, 89% is considered to be profit- yielding land (cf. Table 9 and Figure 19) consisting of forest (58% of the area) and arable land, natural grassland and other land use types (42%). Looking at numbers of all reformed plots, profit-yielding land plots account for 45% and residential land plots, 39%. It means that reform has resulted in not just in profit-yielding land, but in many residential and other land plots as well.

There is considerable literature and research (a theoretical framework) about land reform as agrarian reform. There are also studies about the

110 110

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS land reform implementation in Eastern and Central European countries from the agricultural perspective (Giovarelli and Bledsoe, 2001; Land reform is a complicated undertaking; implementation of the Hartvigsen, 2014a, 2013; Lerman, 1999; Lerman et al., 2004; Unwin, process is not easy. Land reform is not a new phenomenon and, over 1997; van Dijk, 2003a). However, the theoretical framework (approach) time, has been undertaken by many states on several continents for many for handling implementation of land reform in whole countries, in both reasons. The land reform in Central and Eastern-Europe countries urban and rural areas, is quite poor. It should be possible to further happened in conjunction with political change. Since the 1990s, almost contribute to the theoretical framework dealing with implementation of all countries in those areas have implemented land reform to a greater land reform in a comprehensive way in Central and Eastern European or lesser extent and according to a particular plan (Hartvigsen, 2014a, countries. 2013). The Baltic States started to implement land reform at the same time. Although the political situation was similar, each of the Baltic countries has implemented land reform differently, addressing issues on the basis of social-economical and land use conditions as well as honouring historical traditions (Astaškin, 1999a; Auzins, 2004).

Land reforms are sometimes handled as agrarian reform (Cox et al., 2003; FAO, 2003; The World Bank, 2007). In Estonia, while the previous land reform from 1919-1926 could be handled as agrarian reform, there are several reasons why that is not currently possible: Figure 28. Scope of land reform in Estonia

The land reform covered all Estonian inland – both rural and urban areas The implementation of land reform, anywhere, is complicated and takes (cf. Figure 28). Rural areas and settlements were previous sovkhozes and time; that has been true in Estonia as well. Land reform began in 1991 kolkhozes. Towns were treated as separate units ordinarily. when the Land Reform Act was adopted but, after 26 years, has not yet been finished; it will take more time to complete the final 2% of the The objective of land reform was not only restitution but also reform of Estonian territory (cf. Table 8). privatisation, state and municipal land forming. For instance, building owners have also had the possibility to apply for privatisation of the land The complexity of the process of land reform is reflected in the fact that with the right of pre-emption. In rural areas it was possible to privatise the Parliament has already changed the Land Reform Act 49 times. land up to as much as 50 hectares or, in some cases, more. Unfortunately, it was not possible to predict or designate all possible circumstances at the beginning of the process, and there have been Of the total reformed land in Estonia, 89% is considered to be profit- necessary changes in regulations almost every year of the 26 year period. yielding land (cf. Table 9 and Figure 19) consisting of forest (58% of the In some years there were as many as five changes, as in 2002, for instance area) and arable land, natural grassland and other land use types (42%). (cf. Figure 7). It might have been possible to prevent some amendments, Looking at numbers of all reformed plots, profit-yielding land plots however the issue needs more investigation. It is likely that the Land account for 45% and residential land plots, 39%. It means that reform Reform Act will be changed again before the finishing of the land reform. has resulted in not just in profit-yielding land, but in many residential and other land plots as well. According to the organisational arrangement, the implementation of the land reform could be state-led or community-led. State-led land reform There is considerable literature and research (a theoretical framework) supports a top-down approach while community-led favours a bottom- about land reform as agrarian reform. There are also studies about the up approach (Sikor and Müller, 2009). It is not clearly understood if

110 111 111

Estonian land reform has been state-led or community led. Although implementation of land reform is delegated to the municipalities, the state has worked along with the municipalities concerning the state land. Furthermore, the completion of the land reform has been the task of the state, as municipalities do not have responsibility to deal with unclaimed land plots. It creates confusion, as participants cannot understand who is responsible for what. Therefore, it is important that roles are clearly defined to assure a fluid process and prevent bottlenecks and dis- arrangements.

The following conclusions can be drawn about the implementation of land reform in Estonia and its outcome:

 Land reform represents a rapid and radical change of land ownership and use. The process has fostered conflicts and stress in the society. Moreover, Estonia has chosen a complex path for the implementation of land reform by implementing all land reform activities (restitution, privatisation, land retained to state ownership, land transferred into municipal ownership) at one and the same time.

 Different aims of land reform are stipulated in the Land Reform Act. These aims are discordant or conflict is inherent in the aim. For instance, several eligible persons have rights to the same land plot.

 The complexity of the process of land reform is reflected in the fact that the Land Reform Act has been changed 49 times during 26 years. Likely, the Land Reform Act will be changed again before the completion of the land reform as it lacks essential regulation concerning completion of the process. Unfortunately, it was not possible to predict all the circumstances at the beginning of the process; most of these all amendments could not be avoided. However, countries still planning to implement land reform have access to Estonia’s experience.

 The present land reform covered all Estonian territory, urban and rural areas. Therefore, this land reform cannot be dealt with as only agrarian reform. Agrarian reform and land reform have happened concurrently and have supported each other.

112 112

Estonian land reform has been state-led or community led. Although  Land reform could be state-led or community-led, state-led land implementation of land reform is delegated to the municipalities, the supporting a top-down approach, community-led meaning bottom- state has worked along with the municipalities concerning the state land. up. Although the implementation of the land reform was delegated Furthermore, the completion of the land reform has been the task of the to the municipal level in Estonia, a state-led approach is still used in state, as municipalities do not have responsibility to deal with unclaimed some instances. The capacity of the municipality to make decisions land plots. It creates confusion, as participants cannot understand who has been hampered with strict regulations, with the state monitoring is responsible for what. Therefore, it is important that roles are clearly the activity of municipalities throughout the land reform process. The defined to assure a fluid process and prevent bottlenecks and dis- completion of the land reform has been the task of the state, as arrangements. municipalities have no responsibility for unclaimed land plots. This point is important for Estonia in the future. If a task is necessary to The following conclusions can be drawn about the implementation of be implemented, it is essential to determine the level of delegation of land reform in Estonia and its outcome: responsibilities and the role of different participants. Roles must be clearly defined to assure a fluid process and prevent dis-  Land reform represents a rapid and radical change of land ownership arrangements. and use. The process has fostered conflicts and stress in the society. Moreover, Estonia has chosen a complex path for the  The decision to delegate the implementation of land reform on the implementation of land reform by implementing all land reform municipality level has both positive and negative components. On activities (restitution, privatisation, land retained to state ownership, the positive side, the municipality knows better the local conditions land transferred into municipal ownership) at one and the same time. and includes a greater number of implementers. In contrast, the land reform implementers in municipalities were sometimes unprepared;  Different aims of land reform are stipulated in the Land Reform Act. harmonizing their knowledge and activity has been challenging for These aims are discordant or conflict is inherent in the aim. For the Estonian Land Board over the years. Many land reform instance, several eligible persons have rights to the same land plot. implementers in municipalities lacked the necessary special education and training. This point is important: If there is a specialized task then  The complexity of the process of land reform is reflected in the fact there is need for a qualified specialist as well. that the Land Reform Act has been changed 49 times during 26 years. Likely, the Land Reform Act will be changed again before the  Officials on the municipal level expressed a need to receive more completion of the land reform as it lacks essential regulation information from the state concerning the land reform arrangement concerning completion of the process. Unfortunately, it was not and regulations. This point is worth taking into account if such possible to predict all the circumstances at the beginning of the complicated processes are undertaken, and at different levels, in the process; most of these all amendments could not be avoided. future. It is crucial to provide the implementers with essential However, countries still planning to implement land reform have information, keeping in mind that personnel that implement the task access to Estonia’s experience. can change from time to time. The basic knowledge needs to be repeated over the course of the project.  The present land reform covered all Estonian territory, urban and rural areas. Therefore, this land reform cannot be dealt with as only  Land reform started in Estonia in 1991; plot registration in the land agrarian reform. Agrarian reform and land reform have happened cadastre began in 1993. Currently, land reform is not yet complete. It concurrently and have supported each other. has been an issue over the years as its quick implementation is needed

112 113 113

to support economic development in Estonia. At the beginning of 2017, the amount of unreformed land was 2% of the Estonian inland.

 Land reform implementation moved quickly in years 1997-1999 but decreased every year after 1999; by 2008, only slightly more than 40,000 hectares were registered in the land cadastre. The registered land area was lower only in 1993. However, only 86% of the Estonian land area had been reformed by 2008; 14% (619 855 hectares) still needed to be resolved. Although the registered land area in the land cadastre increased a little after 2008, the issue of the completion of land reform has arisen again more vigorously.

 The municipalities have implemented the land reform with different speeds. The municipalities that implemented land reform quickly and slowly are not distributed evenly throughout Estonia. The quick municipalities are mostly in Central and Eastern Estonia, however there are some slower municipalities as well. Slow municipalities are situated in Western Estonia; there are no quick municipalities in that area.

 The result of the land reform has not only been affected by the activity of local governments but also by state institutions and entitled subjects who have been the driving forces behind the reform. The state’s formation of land plots comprising state forest and protected areas, etc. has also influenced the implementation of land reform. Entitled subjects of restitution and privatisation affected the implementation of land reform by pressing municipalities to process their applications for restitution or privatisation more quickly. The completion of the land reform has often been the task of the state, as municipalities have not had the responsibility to deal with land plots for which nobody applied.

 The main influencing factors on land reform resulting from land use types are arable land, natural grassland and protected areas (based on the percentage of the municipal area). Arable land has been positive while natural grassland and protected areas have negatively affected the results of land reform.

114 114 to support economic development in Estonia. At the beginning of  The result of the case study for quick and slow municipalities 2017, the amount of unreformed land was 2% of the Estonian inland. concerning land reform implementation in Tartu county indicates that the speed of the implementation has depended upon different  Land reform implementation moved quickly in years 1997-1999 but circumstances and these combine variously in each municipality. It is decreased every year after 1999; by 2008, only slightly more than not possible to introduce a fixed model on the basis of these 40,000 hectares were registered in the land cadastre. The registered municipalities. Meanwhile, the implementation of the land reform land area was lower only in 1993. However, only 86% of the Estonian would not have been so drawn out if the whole municipality had been land area had been reformed by 2008; 14% (619 855 hectares) still covered by applications. Problems appeared when there were not needed to be resolved. Although the registered land area in the land applications. In those cases, the municipalities no longer had the cadastre increased a little after 2008, the issue of the completion of responsibility (or right) to implement land reform. That, too, slowed land reform has arisen again more vigorously. the speed of the process.

 The municipalities have implemented the land reform with different  The responsibility of the implementation of land reform was divided speeds. The municipalities that implemented land reform quickly and between state institutions and municipalities. In early stages, the slowly are not distributed evenly throughout Estonia. The quick municipalities did most of the work. The state was not prepared with municipalities are mostly in Central and Eastern Estonia, however a strategy to deal with the remaining unreformed land when that there are some slower municipalities as well. Slow municipalities are became apparent. It is possible to learn from that situation for future situated in Western Estonia; there are no quick municipalities in that administrative challenges of many kinds. area.  Since 2008, the state has increased its activity regarding land reform.  The result of the land reform has not only been affected by the Until 2009, most land registered was the result of restitution and activity of local governments but also by state institutions and entitled privatization. Since 2009, most land registered has been state land. If subjects who have been the driving forces behind the reform. The the state works with the same speed as in previous years, land reform state’s formation of land plots comprising state forest and protected will be completed in the next two years. If the state slows down the areas, etc. has also influenced the implementation of land reform. tempo, more time will be needed to complete the land reform. Entitled subjects of restitution and privatisation affected the implementation of land reform by pressing municipalities to process  In Estonia, the level of land plot fragmentation is even higher than it their applications for restitution or privatisation more quickly. The was pre-1940 due to the chosen land reform approach, which completion of the land reform has often been the task of the state, as supported the widest possible range of interest groups. It was decided municipalities have not had the responsibility to deal with land plots to return properties expropriated post-1940 to the former owners or for which nobody applied. their heirs, whilst at the same time persons who had become owners of buildings during the Soviet era were given the opportunity to  The main influencing factors on land reform resulting from land use privatise land by right of pre-emption. Other countries that plan to types are arable land, natural grassland and protected areas (based on implement land reform can learn from this situation and can avoid the percentage of the municipal area). Arable land has been positive land plot fragmentation if they act smartly. while natural grassland and protected areas have negatively affected the results of land reform.  Land fragmentation is a side-effect of the implementation of land reform in Estonia. A more systematic approach would mitigate the

114 115 115

fragmentation. As the fragmentation has long-term impact at least to agricultural production, the issue needs attention in the near future.

 98% of land reform has been completed to date 2017. Real properties that belong to private and public persons have been created. Mistakes have been made during the process of implementation, however the process has been an essential step toward achieving secure land ownership essential for further economic and social development. The implementation of the land reform does not mean the end of land governance. Several issues still need attention and control, for instance, the diminishing of land fragmentation. That said, it is still possible and useful to learn from the process of the land reform.

Implementation of the land reform has been a complex task, taking in different levels (state, municipality). It has been an essential task of land governance in Estonia. This thesis presents the outcome of the implementation of the land reform. In the process, a major problem was discovered: the existence of bottlenecks that slowed down the implementation of the process. It is possible now to understand how the task was initiated, how it has unfolded, and how the process might be improved. The conclusions reached will provide essential information for further land reform implementation and other land administration issues in Estonia on the state and municipal level. It has been essential learning for Estonia. However, interested and responsible parties in countries that are still implementing or developing plans for a land reform process can also learn from Estonia’s experience as they develop their own system.

116 116 fragmentation. As the fragmentation has long-term impact at least to REFERENCES agricultural production, the issue needs attention in the near future. Aasmäe, K., 2014. Endiste 1940-ndate maaüksuste ning maareformi  98% of land reform has been completed to date 2017. Real properties käigus moodustatud katastriüksuste võrdlemise võimalustest (On that belong to private and public persons have been created. Mistakes the possibilities of comparing former land units and reformed land units) [MSc have been made during the process of implementation, however the thesis]. Estonian University of Life Science. process has been an essential step toward achieving secure land Aasmäe, V., 1999. Kinnisvaraomaniku ABC. Eesti Entsüklopeedia- ownership essential for further economic and social development. kirjastus, Tallinn. The implementation of the land reform does not mean the end of Adams, M., 2000. Breaking Ground: Development Aid for Land land governance. Several issues still need attention and control, for Reform. Oversea Development Institute, London. instance, the diminishing of land fragmentation. That said, it is still Adams, M., 1995. Land Reform: New Seed on Old Ground? [WWW possible and useful to learn from the process of the land reform. Document]. Nat. Resour. Perspect. URL http://www.odi.org/ sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinionfiles/2979. Implementation of the land reform has been a complex task, taking in pdf (accessed 4.30.15). different levels (state, municipality). It has been an essential task of land Alanen, I., 1999. Agricultural Policy and the Struggle over the Destiny governance in Estonia. This thesis presents the outcome of the of Collective Farms in Estonia. Sociol. Ruralis 39, 431–458. implementation of the land reform. In the process, a major problem was doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00117 discovered: the existence of bottlenecks that slowed down the Aleknavičius, A., 2016. Land Reform in Lithuania (Powerpoint implementation of the process. It is possible now to understand how the presentation for Seminar on Land Reform in Tartu in October task was initiated, how it has unfolded, and how the process might be 2016). improved. The conclusions reached will provide essential information Alexander, E.R., 2014. Land-property markets and planning: A special for further land reform implementation and other land administration case. Land use policy 41, 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol. issues in Estonia on the state and municipal level. It has been essential 2014.04.009 learning for Estonia. However, interested and responsible parties in Anaafo, D., 2013. Systems approach to pro-poor land reforms: A countries that are still implementing or developing plans for a land concept paper. Land use policy 35, 421–426. doi:10.1016/ reform process can also learn from Estonia’s experience as they develop j.landusepol.2013.04.016 their own system. Aruväli, E., Biedermann, A., Paiste, P., 2012. Maareformi läbiviimise kiirust mõjutanud tegurid Kambja, Võnnu, Rõngu, Alatskivi, Vara ja Rannu vallas (Factors influencing the speed of carring out land reform in Kambja, Võnnu, Rõngu, Alatskivi, Vara and Rannu rural municipalities) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Astaškin, A., 1999a. Läti, Leedu ja Eesti maareformi iseärasused ja võrdlus. Geodeet 20, 30–32. Astaškin, A., 1999b. Läti maareformi esimese etapi kokkuvõte. Geodeet 18, 28–30. Azorin, J.M., Cameron, R., 2010. The Application of Mixed Methods in Organisational Research: A Literature Review. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 8, 95–105. Auzins, A., 2004. Institutional Arrangements:A Gate Towards Sustainable Land Use. Nord. J. Surv. Real Estate Res. 1, 57–71.

116 117 117

Auzins, A., 2003. The Role of Land Survey in Land Management System, in: Economic Sciance for Rural Development. Latvian University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 51–58. Baxter, P., Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep. 13, 544–559. Bell, C., 1990. Reforming property rights in land and tenancy. World Bank Res. Obs. 5, 143–166. doi:10.1093/wbro/5.2.143 Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., 1998. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Techniques. Addison Wesley. Cox, M., Munro-Faure, P., Mathieu, P., Herrera, A., Palmer, D., Groppo, P., 2003. FAO in agrarian reform. L. Reform L. Settl. Coop. 2, 12– 31. Creswell, J.W., 2014. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi. Csaki, C., Lerman, Z. (Eds.), 2000. Structural Change in the Farming Sectors in Central and Eastern Europe: Lessons for the EU accession. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Daugaliene, V., 2004. Preparation for land consolidation in Lithuania. FIG, pp. 1–12. Deininger, K., 2003. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. doi:10.1007/s00784-003-0213-8 Deininger, K., 1999. Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa. World Dev. 27, 651–672. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00023-6 Deininger, K., Binswanger, H., 1999. The Evolution of the World Bank’s Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges. World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 247–276. Dyer, G., 2004. Redistributive Land Reform: No April Rose. The Poverty of Berry and Cline and GKI on the Inverse Relationship. J. Agrar. Chang. 4, 45–72. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00072.x EAA, 1991a. Ettepanekud ja arvamused maareformi seaduse projekti kohta. I köide. EAA, 1991b. Ettepanekud ja arvamused maareformi seaduse projekti kohta. II köide. Eesti Linnade Liit, 2007. Keskkonna- ja maaküsimuste töörühma protokoll nr 03-07. El-Ghonemy, M.R., 2003. Land reform development challenges of 1963-2003 continue into the twentyfirst century. L. Reform, L.

118 118

Auzins, A., 2003. The Role of Land Survey in Land Management System, Settl. Coop. Bull. 32–42. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 in: Economic Sciance for Rural Development. Latvian University El-Ghonemy, M.R., 1999. The Political Economy of Market-Based of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 51–58. Land Reform, UNRISD Discussion Paper. Baxter, P., Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study FAO, 2004. Operations manual for land consolidation pilot projects in Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep. Central and Eastern Europe (No. 6), Land Tenure Studies. FAO, 13, 544–559. Rome. Bell, C., 1990. Reforming property rights in land and tenancy. World FAO, 2003. Multilingual thesaurus on land tenure. FAO, Rome. Bank Res. Obs. 5, 143–166. doi:10.1093/wbro/5.2.143 Gaudėšius, R., 2011. Sustainable Land Consolidation in Lithuania - The Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., 1998. The Unified Modeling Second Wave of Land Reform. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 3, 39– Language User Guide, Techniques. Addison Wesley. 45. Cox, M., Munro-Faure, P., Mathieu, P., Herrera, A., Palmer, D., Groppo, Giovarelli, R., Bledsoe, D., 2001. Land Reform in Eastern Europe. P., 2003. FAO in agrarian reform. L. Reform L. Settl. Coop. 2, 12– Washington. 31. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., Graham, W.F., 1989. Toward a Conceptual Creswell, J.W., 2014. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educ. Eval. Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE, Los Angeles/London/New Policy Anal. 11, 255–274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 Delhi. Griffin, K., Khan, A.R., Ickowitz, A., 2002. Poverty and the distribution Csaki, C., Lerman, Z. (Eds.), 2000. Structural Change in the Farming of land. J. Agrar. Chang. 2, 279–330. doi:10.1111/1471-0366.00036 Sectors in Central and Eastern Europe: Lessons for the EU Grubbström, A., 2011. Emotional bonds as obstacles to land sale— accession. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Attitudes to land among local and absentee landowners in Daugaliene, V., 2004. Preparation for land consolidation in Lithuania. Northwest Estonia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99, 31–39. doi:10.1016/ FIG, pp. 1–12. j.landurbplan.2010.08.010 Deininger, K., 2003. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. Grünberg, G., 1997. Maareform nii nagu ta on ja nii nagu ta võiks olla. doi:10.1007/s00784-003-0213-8 Geodeet 13, 16–17. Deininger, K., 1999. Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Haldrup, N.O., 2015. Land Use Policy Agreement based land Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa. World Dev. consolidation – In perspective of new modes of governance. Land 27, 651–672. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00023-6 use policy 46, 163–177. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.027 Deininger, K., Binswanger, H., 1999. The Evolution of the World Hans, J., Stjernström, O., 2008. Emotional links to forest ownership. Bank’s Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges. Restitution of land and use of a productive resource in Põlva World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 247–276. County, Estonia. Fennia 186, 95–111. Dyer, G., 2004. Redistributive Land Reform: No April Rose. The Hartvigsen, M., 2015. Experiences with land consolidation and land Poverty of Berry and Cline and GKI on the Inverse Relationship. banking in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (No. 26), Land J. Agrar. Chang. 4, 45–72. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00072.x Tenure. Rome. EAA, 1991a. Ettepanekud ja arvamused maareformi seaduse projekti Hartvigsen, M., 2014a. Land reform and land fragmentation in Central kohta. I köide. and Eastern Europe. Land use policy 36, 330–341. EAA, 1991b. Ettepanekud ja arvamused maareformi seaduse projekti doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.016 kohta. II köide. Hartvigsen, M., 2014b. Land Mobility in a Central and Eastern European Eesti Linnade Liit, 2007. Keskkonna- ja maaküsimuste töörühma Land Consolidation Context. Nord. J. Surveing Real Estate Res. protokoll nr 03-07. 10, 23–46. El-Ghonemy, M.R., 2003. Land reform development challenges of Hartvigsen, M., 2013. Land Reform in Central and Eastern Europe after 1963-2003 continue into the twentyfirst century. L. Reform, L. 1989 and its Outcome in the Form of Farm Structures and Land

118 119 119

Fragmentation (No. 24), FAO Land Tenure Working Paper. Rome. Hedin, S., 2005. Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas in Estonia consequences for land ownership, land use and landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 35–44. doi:10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2003.10.003 Hänni, L., 1995. Omandireformi arengust, in: Omandireform Eestis: Hetkeolukord Ja Tulevikuperspektiivid. Tartu Arenduskeskus, Tartu, pp. 8–15. Jakobson, S., 2010. Maareformi lõpetamise võimalustest Ridala vallas (Possibilities of ending land reform in Ridala Parish) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Jörgensen, H., Grubbström, A., Stjernström, O., 2010. Private Landowners’ Relation to Land and Forest in Two Estonian Counties. J. North. Stud. 2, 33–54. Jürgenson, E., Paršova, V., Aleknavičius, A., 2014. Comparison of the Land Reform Activities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. (Unpublished notes on land reform in Baltic countries). Jürgenson, J., 2010. Riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse vastuolud maa riigi omandisse jätmisel Tallinna linna näitel (Conflicts between state and local government upon retention of land) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Kakko, M., 2013. Maareformist Eesti maamõõtja pilgu läbi. Geodeet 43, 64–68. Kielmann, K., Cataldo, F., Seeley, J., 2011. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology Training Manual. Department of International Development. King, R., Burton, S., 1982. Land fragmentation: notes on a fundamental rural spatial problem. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 6, 475–494. doi:10.1177/030913258200600401 Kink, T., 2009. Reformimata maade olemus Puhja valla näitel (The essence of unreformed land on the example of Puhja parish) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Kuddo, A., 1996. Aspects of the Restitution of Property and Land in Estonia, in: Abrahams, R. (Ed.), After Socialism: Land Reform and Social Change in Eastern Europe. Berghahn Books, pp. 157–168. Kõll, A.M., 1994. Peasants on the World Market. Agricultural Experience of indipendent Estonia 1919-1939. Centre of Baltic Studies at the University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Kütt, J., 2013. Maareformi protseduure puudutavate õiguslike probleemide tekkepõhjuste analüüs Riigikohtu Halduskolleegiumi

120 120

Fragmentation (No. 24), FAO Land Tenure Working Paper. Rome. menetlustoimingute praktika näitel perioodil (The analysis of factors Hedin, S., 2005. Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas causing legal problems related to the land reform procedures on the practice of in Estonia consequences for land ownership, land use and carryng out procedural acts by the administrative board of the Supreme Court landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 35–44. doi:10.1016/ in 2002-2012) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. j.landurbplan.2003.10.003 Lapping, M.B., 1993. The land reform in independent Estonia: Memory Hänni, L., 1995. Omandireformi arengust, in: Omandireform Eestis: as precedent — Toward the reconstruction of agriculture in Hetkeolukord Ja Tulevikuperspektiivid. Tartu Arenduskeskus, Eastern Europe. Agric. Human Values 10, 52–59. doi:10.1007/ Tartu, pp. 8–15. BF02217730 Jakobson, S., 2010. Maareformi lõpetamise võimalustest Ridala vallas Larsson, G., 1991. Land Registration and Cadastral Systems. Longman (Possibilities of ending land reform in Ridala Parish) [MSc thesis]. Group UK Limited. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Lawrence, J.C.D., 1985. Land adjudication, in: Proceedings World Bank Jörgensen, H., Grubbström, A., Stjernström, O., 2010. Private Seminar on Land Iinformation Systems. World Bank, Washington Landowners’ Relation to Land and Forest in Two Estonian DC, pp. 1–39. Counties. J. North. Stud. 2, 33–54. Lerman, Z., 1999. Land Reform and Farm Restructuring: What Has Jürgenson, E., Paršova, V., Aleknavičius, A., 2014. Comparison of the Been Accomplished to Date? Am. Econ. Rev. 89, 271–275. Land Reform Activities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. doi:10.1257/aer.89.2.271 (Unpublished notes on land reform in Baltic countries). Lerman, Z., Csaki, C., Feder, G., 2004. Agriculture in Transition - Land Jürgenson, J., 2010. Riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse vastuolud maa riigi Policies and Evolving Farm Structures in Post-Soviet Countries. omandisse jätmisel Tallinna linna näitel (Conflicts between state and Lexington Book. local government upon retention of land) [MSc thesis]. Estonian Lisec, A., Primožič, T., Ferlan, M., Šumrada, R., Drobne, S., 2014. Land University of Life Sciences. owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction with Kakko, M., 2013. Maareformist Eesti maamõõtja pilgu läbi. Geodeet 43, the results – Slovenian experiences. Land use policy 38, 550–563. 64–68. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.003 Kielmann, K., Cataldo, F., Seeley, J., 2011. Introduction to Qualitative Lüll, A., 2016. Ülevaade maareformi lõpetamisega seotud probleemidest Research Methodology Training Manual. Department of Ida-Virumaa kohalike omavalitsuste näitel. (An overview of land reform International Development. problems in the example of Ida-Virumaa local municipalities) [MSc thesis]. King, R., Burton, S., 1982. Land fragmentation: notes on a fundamental Estonian University of Life Sciences. rural spatial problem. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 6, 475–494. Maandi, P., 2010. Land reforms and territorial integration in post-Tsarist doi:10.1177/030913258200600401 Estonia, 1918–1940. J. Hist. Geogr. 36, 441–452. doi:10.1016/ Kink, T., 2009. Reformimata maade olemus Puhja valla näitel (The essence j.jhg.2010.03.005 of unreformed land on the example of Puhja parish) [MSc thesis]. Estonian Maandi, P., 2009. The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet University of Life Sciences. Estonia: A geographical perspective. Geoforum 40, 454–464. Kuddo, A., 1996. Aspects of the Restitution of Property and Land in doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.003 Estonia, in: Abrahams, R. (Ed.), After Socialism: Land Reform and Macdonald, S., Headlam, N., 2009. Research Methods Handbook. Social Change in Eastern Europe. Berghahn Books, pp. 157–168. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4464.3448 Kõll, A.M., 1994. Peasants on the World Market. Agricultural Mathijs, E., 1997. An historical overview of Central and Eastern Experience of indipendent Estonia 1919-1939. Centre of Baltic European land reform, in: Swinnen, J.F.M. (Ed.), Political Studies at the University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Kütt, J., 2013. Maareformi protseduure puudutavate õiguslike Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, pp. 33–53. probleemide tekkepõhjuste analüüs Riigikohtu Halduskolleegiumi Meyers, W.H., Kauzlauskiene, N., 1998. Land Reform in Estonia, Latvia,

120 121 121

and Lithuania: a comparative analysis, in: Wegren, S.K. (Ed.), Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Routledge, pp. 87–110. Nichols, S.E., 1993. Land Registration: Managing Information for Land Administration [PhD thesis]. University of New Brunswick. Niitra, N., 2017. Omandireformi haavad veritsevad endiselt. Postimees. Paavle, I., 2010. Land ownership in Estonia in the 20th century [WWW Document]. URL http://www.estonica.org/en/Land_ownership_ in_Estonia_in_the_20th_century/ (accessed 4.10.15). Paršova, V., 2016. Latvia: Land Reform (1990-2016) (Powerpoint presentation for Seminar on Land Reform in Tartu in October 2016). Pašakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying land consolidation. Land use policy 27, 545–549. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.008 Piik, R., Taremaa, L., 2012. Maareformi andmete analüüs Võnnu, Rõngu, Meeksi, Konguta, Alatskivi ja Rannu vallas (Data analysis of land reform in the municipalities of Võnnu, Rõngu, Meeksi, Konguta, Alatskivi and Rannu) [BSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Platonova, D., Jankava, A., 2011. Research on the Preconditions of Land Consolidation in Rural Districts. Econ. Sience Rural Dev. 26, 174– 181. Pool, T., 1926. Maareform, in: Eesti. Maa, Rahvas, Kultuur. Haridus- ministeeriumi Kirjastus, Tartu, pp. 445–471. Powelson, J.P., 1987. The Story of Land. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge. Rabinowicz, E., Swinnen, J.F.M., 1997. Political economy of privatization and decollectivization of Central and East European agriculture: Definitions, issues and methodology, in: Swinnen, J.F.M. (Ed.), Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, pp. 1–31. Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo, 1923. Eesti Põllumajandus. Statistiline aastaraamat I. Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo, Tallinn. Riigikogu, 2009. Arupärimine reformimata riigimaade kasutamise kohta (nr 199). Riigikogu, 1995. Land Consolidation Act. Riigikogu, 1994. Land Cadastre Act. Riigikogu, 1993a. Land Register Act. Riigikogu, 1993b. Local Government Organisation Act.

122 122 and Lithuania: a comparative analysis, in: Wegren, S.K. (Ed.), Land Riigikogu, 1991. Land Reform Act. Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Riigikontroll, 2008. Riigi tegevus reformimata maaga. Kas maareformi Routledge, pp. 87–110. lõpp juba paistab? Nichols, S.E., 1993. Land Registration: Managing Information for Land Roosenberg, T., 2013. Künnivaod. Uurimusi Eesti 18.-20. sajandi agraar- Administration [PhD thesis]. University of New Brunswick. ajaloost. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu. Niitra, N., 2017. Omandireformi haavad veritsevad endiselt. Postimees. Sabates-Wheeler, R., 2002. Consolidation Initiatives after Land Reform: Paavle, I., 2010. Land ownership in Estonia in the 20th century [WWW Responses to Multiple Dimensions of Land Fragmentation in Document]. URL http://www.estonica.org/en/Land_ownership_ Eastern European Agriculture. J. Int. Dev. 14, 1005–1018. in_Estonia_in_the_20th_century/ (accessed 4.10.15). doi:10.1002/jid.905 Paršova, V., 2016. Latvia: Land Reform (1990-2016) (Powerpoint Satsi, A., 2009. Maareformi läbiviimine Tallinna linnale kuulunud presentation for Seminar on Land Reform in Tartu in October endistel kinnistutel (Carrying out of the land reform on registered immovable 2016). property previously belonging to the city of Tallinn) [MSc thesis]. Estonian Pašakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010. Towards sustainable rural University of Life Sciences. development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying land Sedik, D., Lerman, Z., 2008. Land Reform, Transition, and Rural consolidation. Land use policy 27, 545–549. Development (No. 11), Development and Transition. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.008 Sikor, T., Müller, D., 2009. The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Piik, R., Taremaa, L., 2012. Maareformi andmete analüüs Võnnu, Rõngu, Introduction. World Dev. 37, 1307–1316. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev. Meeksi, Konguta, Alatskivi ja Rannu vallas (Data analysis of land 2008.08.010 reform in the municipalities of Võnnu, Rõngu, Meeksi, Konguta, Alatskivi Spuul, J., 1935. Eramaade asundamisest ja kaugete maade korrastamisest. and Rannu) [BSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Geodeet 2. Platonova, D., Jankava, A., 2011. Research on the Preconditions of Land Statistics Estonia, 2014. AG S406: Agricultural Land [WWW Consolidation in Rural Districts. Econ. Sience Rural Dev. 26, 174– Document]. URL http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/ 181. Saveshow.asp (accessed 4.20.15). Pool, T., 1926. Maareform, in: Eesti. Maa, Rahvas, Kultuur. Haridus- Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia, 1990. Law on Land Reform ministeeriumi Kirjastus, Tartu, pp. 445–471. in the Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia. Powelson, J.P., 1987. The Story of Land. Lincoln Institute of Land Swinnen, J.F.M., 2009. Reforms, globalization, and endogenous Policy, Cambridge. agricultural structures. Agric. Econ. 40, 719–732. doi:10.1111/ Rabinowicz, E., Swinnen, J.F.M., 1997. Political economy of j.1574-0862.2009.00410.x privatization and decollectivization of Central and East European Swinnen, J.F.M., 1999. The political economy of land reform choices in agriculture: Definitions, issues and methodology, in: Swinnen, Central and Eastern Europe. Econ. Transit. 7, 637–664. J.F.M. (Ed.), Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and doi:10.1111/1468-0351.00029 Eastern Europe. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, pp. 1–31. Swinnen, J.F.M., 1997. The choice of privatization and decollectivization Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo, 1923. Eesti Põllumajandus. Statistiline policies in Central and Eastern European agriculture: Observations aastaraamat I. Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo, Tallinn. and political economy hypotheses, in: Swinnen, J.F.M. (Ed.), Riigikogu, 2009. Arupärimine reformimata riigimaade kasutamise kohta Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and Eastern (nr 199). Europe. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, pp. 363–397. Riigikogu, 1995. Land Consolidation Act. Swinnen, J.F.M., Mathijs, E., 1997. Agricultural privatisation, land Riigikogu, 1994. Land Cadastre Act. reform and farm restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: A Riigikogu, 1993a. Land Register Act. comparative analysis, in: Swinnen, J.F.M., Buckwell, A., Mathijs, E. Riigikogu, 1993b. Local Government Organisation Act. (Eds.), Agricultural Privatisation, Land Reform and Farm

122 123 123

Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 333–373. Tamkivi, J., 2008. Riigi maareservi moodustamise põhimõtted. Taremaa, L., 2014. Maareformi elluviimisega seotud Eesti kohalike omavalitsuste töötajate hariduslik taust ja selle mõju maareformi elluviimise kiirusele (The educational background of Estonian local government employees who were involved in executing the land reform and the influence of said educational background on the speed of executing the land reform) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. The World Bank, 2007. World development report 2008: Agriculture for Development, Agriculture. The World Bank, Washington D.C. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7233-3 The World Bank, 2005. Gender issues and best practices in land administration projects: A synthesis report. Thomas, J., 2014. Safeguarding real property rights and rational use by conflicting private and public interests – the German approach. Geod. Vestn. 58, 517–534. doi:10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2014. 03.517-534 Thomas, J., 2006. What’s on Regarding Land Consolidation in Europe?, in: XXIII FIG Congress. Shaping the Change. FIG, pp. 1–16. Toom, M., 2011. Omandireformi protseduuride modelleerimine (Modeling the procedures of the ownership reform) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. Tuma, E.H., 2012. Land reform [WWW Document]. Encycl. Br. URL https://www.britannica.com/topic/land-reform (accessed 1.28.17). Ulas, T., 2010. Eraomandisse tagasi 1991-2009: erastamise ikka veel lõpetamata lugu - esitlusi, meenutusi, hinnanguid. Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda, Tallinn. Unwin, T., 1997. Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia. J. Rural Stud. 13, 93–112. Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Bäcklund, A.-K., 2009. Exploring the sustainability of Estonian forestry: the socioeconomic drivers. Ambio 38, 101–108. Vabariigi Valitsus, 1995. Determination of intended use of cadastral units. Valdner, R., 2014. Maareformi protsessis osalenud maamõõdu ettevõtete kaardistus Tartu maakonna valdades (The mapping by land surveyor companies that actively participated in land reform process in Tartu county parishes) [BSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. van der Molen, P., 2002. The dynamic aspect of land administration: an

124 124

Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe. Ashgate Publishing often-forgotten component in system design. Comput. Environ. Ltd, pp. 333–373. Urban Syst. 26, 361–381. doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(02)00009-1 Tamkivi, J., 2008. Riigi maareservi moodustamise põhimõtted. van Dijk, T., 2007. Complications for traditional land consolidation in Taremaa, L., 2014. Maareformi elluviimisega seotud Eesti kohalike Central Europe. Geoforum 38, 505–511. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum. omavalitsuste töötajate hariduslik taust ja selle mõju maareformi 2006.11.010 elluviimise kiirusele (The educational background of Estonian local van Dijk, T., 2003a. Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. government employees who were involved in executing the land reform and the Land use policy 20, 149–158. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00082-0 influence of said educational background on the speed of executing the land van Dijk, T., 2003b. Dealing with Central European land fragmentation: reform) [MSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. a Critical Assessment on the Use of Western European The World Bank, 2007. World development report 2008: Agriculture for Instruments. Eubron Delft, Delft. Development, Agriculture. The World Bank, Washington D.C. Wegren, S.K. (Ed.), 1998. Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7233-3 Eastern Europe. Routlege. The World Bank, 2005. Gender issues and best practices in land Virma, F., 2004. Maasuhted, maakasutus ja maakorraldus Eestis. OÜ administration projects: A synthesis report. Halo Kirjastus, Tartu. Thomas, J., 2014. Safeguarding real property rights and rational use by Virma, F., 2000. Maareformi käigus loodud talude maakasutusest. conflicting private and public interests – the German approach. Geodeet 21 (45), 32–35. Geod. Vestn. 58, 517–534. doi:10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2014. Vitikainen, A., 2004. An Overview of Land Consolidation in Europe. 03.517-534 Nord. J. Surveying Real Estate Res. 1, 25–44. Thomas, J., 2006. What’s on Regarding Land Consolidation in Europe?, von der Dunk, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T., Hersperger, A.M., in: XXIII FIG Congress. Shaping the Change. FIG, pp. 1–16. 2011. Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts – A case Toom, M., 2011. Omandireformi protseduuride modelleerimine study from Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 101, 149–156. (Modeling the procedures of the ownership reform) [MSc thesis]. Estonian doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.007 University of Life Sciences. Ülemnõukogu, 1989. Eesti NSV taluseadus. Tuma, E.H., 2012. Land reform [WWW Document]. Encycl. Br. URL Yin, R.K., 2012. Applications of case Study Research, Third. ed. SAGE. https://www.britannica.com/topic/land-reform (accessed 1.28.17). Ulas, T., 2010. Eraomandisse tagasi 1991-2009: erastamise ikka veel lõpetamata lugu - esitlusi, meenutusi, hinnanguid. Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda, Tallinn. Unwin, T., 1997. Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia. J. Rural Stud. 13, 93–112. Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Bäcklund, A.-K., 2009. Exploring the sustainability of Estonian forestry: the socioeconomic drivers. Ambio 38, 101–108. Vabariigi Valitsus, 1995. Determination of intended use of cadastral units. Valdner, R., 2014. Maareformi protsessis osalenud maamõõdu ettevõtete kaardistus Tartu maakonna valdades (The mapping by land surveyor companies that actively participated in land reform process in Tartu county parishes) [BSc thesis]. Estonian University of Life Sciences. van der Molen, P., 2002. The dynamic aspect of land administration: an

124 125 125

SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN

Maareform kui nähtus on eksisteerinud sajandeid ja seda on ellu viidud mitmetes riikides. Küsimus on aga selles, millist tegevust maareformiks nimetatakse. See võib olla tegevus, mille eesmärk on radikaalne maasuhete muutus. Näiteks asendub maa eraomand riigiomandiga või vastupidi. Samas on maareformiks nimetatud ka ümberkruntimist, mille olemuseks on maaomandi ümberkorraldamine. Sellest tulenevalt võib mõiste maareform olla eksitav ja oluline on teada, milline on maareformi käigus tehtavate toimingute sisu.

Pärast iseseisvuse saavutamist 1990ndatel on Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa riikides, sealhulgas Eestis, toimunud märkimisväärsed sotsiaalmajandus- likud muutused. Paljude riikide üheks prioriteediks on olnud maareform. Maareformi eesmärgid on eri riikidel nende ajaloolisest ja poliitilisest kontekstist olenevalt erinevad olnud. Sellest tulenevalt on ka reformi tulemused erinevad olnud. Isegi sarnase ajaloolise taustaga Balti riikides on maareformi tehtud erinevalt.

Maareform on Eestis peaaegu ellu viidud ja seda protsessi ei ole võimalik tagasi pöörata. Sellest hoolimata on maareformi protsessi uurimine väga vajalik. Maareformi elluviimise lõppemine ei tähenda seda, et sellega lõppevad riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse maaga seotud tegevused. Maareform on olnud oluline samm omandiõiguse loomiseks. Eraomand on aluseks vabale ettevõtlusele ja majanduse arengule. Selleks aga, et majanduslik areng jätkuks ja omandiõigus oleks turvaliselt tagatud, vajavad mitmed maaga seotud küsimused ka edaspidi nii riigi kui ka kohaliku omavalitsuse tähelepanu. Parem arusaamine maareformi protsessi juhtimisest ja protsessi toimimisest annab võimaluse sellest tegevusest õppida ning edaspidi rakendada saadud teadmisi teiste sarnaste, kuigi võib-olla väiksemamahuliste ülesannete täitmisel. Lisaks Eestile on teadmine maareformi elluviimisest kasulik nendele riikidele, kes ei ole veel maareformi ellu viinud, aga kaaluvad seda ning soovivad leida oma riigi jaoks parima lahenduse (nt Valgevene, Ukraina, Venemaa jne).

Käesoleva doktoritöö eesmärk on uurida maareformi elluviimist Eestis riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel ning välja tuua maareformi elluviimise tulemused ja selle protsessi kitsaskohad, millest on edaspidi võimalik õppida. Töö eesmärgi saavutamiseks käsitletakse maareformi

126 126

SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN elluviimise institutsionaalset korraldust. Esitletakse maareformi elluviimise tulemusi. Uuritakse, kuidas on mõjutanud maareformi Maareform kui nähtus on eksisteerinud sajandeid ja seda on ellu viidud elluviimise kiirust kohaliku omavalitsuse geograafiline paiknemine, selle mitmetes riikides. Küsimus on aga selles, millist tegevust maareformiks omavalitsuse territooriumil olev maakasutus (sh kõlvikuline koosseis) ja nimetatakse. See võib olla tegevus, mille eesmärk on radikaalne maareformi elluviimise mudel. Määratletakse maareformi elluviimisega maasuhete muutus. Näiteks asendub maa eraomand riigiomandiga või kaasnenud maade tükeldatus maaüksuse tasemel. vastupidi. Samas on maareformiks nimetatud ka ümberkruntimist, mille olemuseks on maaomandi ümberkorraldamine. Sellest tulenevalt võib Maareformi elluviimist käsitletakse käesolevas doktoritöös eri tasemetel: mõiste maareform olla eksitav ja oluline on teada, milline on maareformi riigi, maakonna, kohaliku omavalitsuse ja maatüki tasemel. Seega on käigus tehtavate toimingute sisu. uurimisaladeks kogu riik, maakonnad, kohalikud omavalitsused, piirkonnad kohalikes omavalitsutes. Riigi tasemel on käsitletud kõiki Pärast iseseisvuse saavutamist 1990ndatel on Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa kohalikke omavalitsusi (nii valdasid kui ka linnasid). Ülevaade riikides, sealhulgas Eestis, toimunud märkimisväärsed sotsiaalmajandus- maareformi läbiviijate haridusliku tausta kohta hõlmab andmeid 101 likud muutused. Paljude riikide üheks prioriteediks on olnud maareform. kohaliku omavalitsuse kohta. Maakonna tasemel on käsitletud kõiki Maareformi eesmärgid on eri riikidel nende ajaloolisest ja poliitilisest kohalikke omavalitsusi. kontekstist olenevalt erinevad olnud. Sellest tulenevalt on ka reformi tulemused erinevad olnud. Isegi sarnase ajaloolise taustaga Balti riikides Kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel on uuringusse kaasatud peamiselt vallad. on maareformi tehtud erinevalt. Linnad ja linnalähedased vallad, kus asustustihedus on suurem, on jäetud käesolevast uuringust välja, kuna maareformi läbiviimine hajaasustusega Maareform on Eestis peaaegu ellu viidud ja seda protsessi ei ole võimalik ja tiheasustusega aladel on olnud erinev. Erinevused tulenevad nii tagasi pöörata. Sellest hoolimata on maareformi protsessi uurimine väga seadusandlusest kui ka erinevast maakasutusest. Näiteks on vajalik. Maareformi elluviimise lõppemine ei tähenda seda, et sellega hajaasustusega aladel maaüksused suuremad, tiheasutusega aladel aga lõppevad riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse maaga seotud tegevused. väiksemad ja see toob kaasa erineva maareformi läbiviimise kiiruse. Maareform on olnud oluline samm omandiõiguse loomiseks. Eraomand on aluseks vabale ettevõtlusele ja majanduse arengule. Selleks aga, et Kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel on tehtud mitmesuguseid uuringuid, majanduslik areng jätkuks ja omandiõigus oleks turvaliselt tagatud, mida võib jagada kahte tüüpi: peamiselt statistilistel näitajatel põhinevad vajavad mitmed maaga seotud küsimused ka edaspidi nii riigi kui ka uuringud, kus uuritud omavalitsuste arv on suurem, ja parema ülevaate kohaliku omavalitsuse tähelepanu. Parem arusaamine maareformi saamiseks kasutatud juhtumiuuringud, kus on uuritud detailsemalt protsessi juhtimisest ja protsessi toimimisest annab võimaluse sellest väiksemat arvu kohalikke omavalitsusi. tegevusest õppida ning edaspidi rakendada saadud teadmisi teiste sarnaste, kuigi võib-olla väiksemamahuliste ülesannete täitmisel. Lisaks Maareformi elluviimist tuleb uurida sotsiaalses, ajaloolises ja poliitilises Eestile on teadmine maareformi elluviimisest kasulik nendele riikidele, kontekstis ja seega on käesolev doktoritöö koostatud pragmaatilisest kes ei ole veel maareformi ellu viinud, aga kaaluvad seda ning soovivad maailmavaatest lähtuvalt. Uurimistöö ei ole keskendunud meetoditele, leida oma riigi jaoks parima lahenduse (nt Valgevene, Ukraina, Venemaa vaid pigem on rõhutatud uurimisprobleemi ja kasutatud kõiki võimalikke jne). käsitlusi probleemist arusaamiseks. Kuna maareformi elluviimise uurimine on keeruline ja kompleksne protsess, siis sellest tulenevalt on Käesoleva doktoritöö eesmärk on uurida maareformi elluviimist Eestis antud uurimistöös kasutatud segameetodit (mixed method). Segameetodi riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel ning välja tuua maareformi puhul kasutatakse kvalitatiivseid ja kvantitatiivseid meetodeid koos, elluviimise tulemused ja selle protsessi kitsaskohad, millest on edaspidi selleks et saada paremini aru uurimisprobleemist kui komplekssest võimalik õppida. Töö eesmärgi saavutamiseks käsitletakse maareformi nähtusest. Uuringu kujundamisel on kasutatud konvergentset

126 127 127 paralleelset stiili, kus kvalitatiivset ja kvantitatiivset infot on kogutud ja analüüsitud paralleelselt, tulemus on seejärel ühendatud ning selle alusel on esitatud tulemuste tõlgendus ja selgitus.

Kvalitatiivsetest uurimismeetoditest on käesolevas doktoritöös kasutatud dokumentidel põhinevat uuringut, vaatlusmeetodit, küsitlust, intervjuud, juhtumiuuringut ja tüpoloogia koostamist. Dokumentidel põhineva uuringu käigus on läbi töötatud maareformi käsitlevad raamatud, teadus- ja ajakirjandusartiklid, raportid, seadusaktid ning arhiivimaterjalid. Kuna doktoritöö autor on ise töötanud maareformi valdkonnas üle kahekümne aasta, siis on kasutatud otsest struktureerimata vaatlusmeetodit. Vaatlusmeetod aitab uurijal aru saada uuritavast nähtusest, võimaldab uurijal olla uuritava teemaga kontaktis ning aitab valida andmeid ja informatsiooni, mis annab selgema pildi tegelikust olukorrast selles valdkonnas. Küsitluste puhul kasutati struktureeritud küsimustikke, mis saadeti kohalikele omavalitsustele, et saada infot maareformi läbiviijate haridusliku tausta kohta. Küsitluse kasutamine on populaarne meetod, kuna selle abil on võimalik koguda esmast infot. Tüpoloogia on levinud meetod, mida kasutatakse kompleksse probleemi analüüsimiseks. Antud doktoritöös kasutati tüpoloogiat maareformi käigus moodustatud kinnistute süstemaatiliseks analüüsimiseks.

Töö käigus tehti mitu juhtumiuuringut. Juhtumiuuringuid kasutatakse kompleksse probleemi uurimiseks ja selle käigus on võimalik kasutada erinevaid andmeallikaid. Esimese juhtumiuuringu eesmärk oli aru saada, kas need Tartumaa kohalikud omavalitsused, kes viisid maareformi ellu kiiresti, erinevad nendest kohalikest omavalitsustes, kes viisid maareformi ellu aeglaselt. Selleks analüüsiti esmalt nelja kiire ja nelja aeglase kohaliku omavalitsuse eri näitajaid: kohaliku omavalitsuse, põllumajandusmaa, loodusliku rohumaa, metsamaa, märgalade ja kaitsealade pindala ning keskmist mullaboniteeti. Lisaks võrreldi nende kohalike omavalitsuste maareformi tulemusi üldiselt ja tegevuste kaupa. Esimest juhtumiuuringut täiendati veel kahe juhtumiuuringuga. Esimene nendest täiendas arusaamist maareformi elluviimisest kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel organisatsioonilisest korraldusest lähtuvalt. Selles juhtumiuuringus tehti poolstruktureeritud intervjuud maareformi ellu viinud ametnikega kolmest kiirest ja kolmest aeglasest kohalikust omavalitsusest.

128 128 paralleelset stiili, kus kvalitatiivset ja kvantitatiivset infot on kogutud ja Teine juhtumiuuring andis parema ülevaate reformimata maade analüüsitud paralleelselt, tulemus on seejärel ühendatud ning selle alusel olemusest ühes aeglases kohalikus omavalitsuses ja hõlmas kahte on esitatud tulemuste tõlgendus ja selgitus. uuringuala. Selle uuringu eesmärk oli võrrelda uuritavates piirkondades maaüksuste arvu ja nende pindala enne 1940. aastat ja pärast maareformi Kvalitatiivsetest uurimismeetoditest on käesolevas doktoritöös läbiviimist aastal 2012. Selleks kasutati GIS-analüüsi. Uuring aitas välja kasutatud dokumentidel põhinevat uuringut, vaatlusmeetodit, küsitlust, selgitada, kas pärast maareformi on maaüksuste tükeldatus suurem kui intervjuud, juhtumiuuringut ja tüpoloogia koostamist. Dokumentidel see oli enne maade riigistamist 1940. aastal. põhineva uuringu käigus on läbi töötatud maareformi käsitlevad raamatud, teadus- ja ajakirjandusartiklid, raportid, seadusaktid ning Kvalitatiivsetest meetoditest on kasutatud mitmesuguseid statistilisi arhiivimaterjalid. Kuna doktoritöö autor on ise töötanud maareformi analüüse. Kirjeldavat statistikat kasutati maareformi tulemustest ülevaate valdkonnas üle kahekümne aasta, siis on kasutatud otsest andmisel. Korrelatsioonianalüüsi kasutati leidmaks, milline on olnud eri struktureerimata vaatlusmeetodit. Vaatlusmeetod aitab uurijal aru saada maakasutustingimuste (sh kõlvikute) mõju maareformi tulemustele. T- uuritavast nähtusest, võimaldab uurijal olla uuritava teemaga kontaktis testi kasutati selleks, et analüüsida looduslike tingimuste ja maareformi ning aitab valida andmeid ja informatsiooni, mis annab selgema pildi elluviimise erinevusi kolmekümnes kiiresti ja aeglaselt maareformi ellu tegelikust olukorrast selles valdkonnas. Küsitluste puhul kasutati viinud kohalikus omavalitsuses. struktureeritud küsimustikke, mis saadeti kohalikele omavalitsustele, et saada infot maareformi läbiviijate haridusliku tausta kohta. Küsitluse Doktoritöö eesmärgi täitmiseks on kasutatud mitmesugustest allikatest kasutamine on populaarne meetod, kuna selle abil on võimalik koguda pärinevaid andmeid. Kasutatud on Riigi Teatajas ilmunud seadusand- esmast infot. Tüpoloogia on levinud meetod, mida kasutatakse likke tekste, küsitluse ja intervjuu vastuseid, Statistikaameti, Maa-ameti, kompleksse probleemi analüüsimiseks. Antud doktoritöös kasutati Maanteeameti, Keskkonnaagentuuri ja kohalike omavalitsuste andmeid. tüpoloogiat maareformi käigus moodustatud kinnistute süstemaatiliseks analüüsimiseks. Käesoleva doktoritöö alusel saab väita, et Eesti valitud variant maareformi elluviimiseks on olnud üsna keerukas ja kompleksne. Töö käigus tehti mitu juhtumiuuringut. Juhtumiuuringuid kasutatakse Maareform on kaasa toonud maa omandiõiguse ning kasutuse kiire ja kompleksse probleemi uurimiseks ja selle käigus on võimalik kasutada radikaalse muutuse. Maareformi eri toiminguid (maa tagastamine, erinevaid andmeallikaid. Esimese juhtumiuuringu eesmärk oli aru saada, erastamine, riigi omandisse jätmine ja munitsipaalomandisse andmine) kas need Tartumaa kohalikud omavalitsused, kes viisid maareformi ellu on tehtud samaaegselt. Lisaks on olnud üsna lai nende isikute ring, kellel kiiresti, erinevad nendest kohalikest omavalitsustes, kes viisid on õigus maareformi käigus maad saada. Sageli käsitletakse maareformi maareformi ellu aeglaselt. Selleks analüüsiti esmalt nelja kiire ja nelja põllumajandusreformina. Kui Eestis aastatel 1919-1926 läbiviidud aeglase kohaliku omavalitsuse eri näitajaid: kohaliku omavalitsuse, maareform seda peamiselt oligi, siis käesolev maareform on hõlmanud põllumajandusmaa, loodusliku rohumaa, metsamaa, märgalade ja nii tihe- kui hajaasustusega alasid. Seega on käesolev maareform kogu kaitsealade pindala ning keskmist mullaboniteeti. Lisaks võrreldi nende Eesti territooriumit hõlmav reform. kohalike omavalitsuste maareformi tulemusi üldiselt ja tegevuste kaupa. Esimest juhtumiuuringut täiendati veel kahe juhtumiuuringuga. Esimene Maareformi elluviimine on võtnud Eestis aega üle 26 aasta ja arvatavasti nendest täiendas arusaamist maareformi elluviimisest kohaliku läheb veel mõni aasta, enne kui maareform lõppeb. Maareformi omavalitsuse tasemel organisatsioonilisest korraldusest lähtuvalt. Selles keerukusele viitab asjaolu, et maareformi seadust on muudetud 49 korral. juhtumiuuringus tehti poolstruktureeritud intervjuud maareformi ellu Kuna kõiki asjaolusid ei olnud võimalik maareformi alguses ette näha, viinud ametnikega kolmest kiirest ja kolmest aeglasest kohalikust siis on olnud vajadus teha aegajalt seadusandluses muudatusi. Võib-olla omavalitsusest. oleks olnud võimalik mõnesid muudatusi ka vältida, aga seda aspekti ei ole antud doktoritöös käsitletud ja see vajaks veel täpsemalt uurimist.

128 129 129

Maareformi läbiviimise organisatsioonilise korralduse mõttes võib maareformi ellu viia kas riigi tasemel ehk ülevalt alla või kogukonna tasemel ehk alt üles. Eesti maareformi puhul ei ole päris täpselt selge, kummal tasemel on seda ellu viidud. Maareformi elluviimine on delegeeritud suures osas kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemele, kuid samas on riik teinud järelevalvet ning on ka ise maareformi elluviimises osalenud. Protsessis ladususe tagamiseks ja arusaamatuste vältimiseks eri tasandite vahel peaksid keerulises protsessis täidetavad ülesanded olema selgelt määratletud. See on oluline aspekt, millest annab õppida ja mida tuleks riigi ja kohalike omavalitsuste koostöös täidetavate ülesannete planeerimisel silmas pidada.

Maareformi elluviimise näitest tulenevalt sisaldab ülesannete delegeerimine kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemele endas nii positiivset kui ka negatiivset. Näiteks teab kohalik omavalitsus paremini kohalikke olusid ja maareformi elluviijate arv on olnud suurem. Samas selgus uuringust, et paljudel maareformi elluviijatel kohalikes omavalitsustes on puudunud vastav haridus. Maa-ameti ja maavalitsuste jaoks on teadmiste ühtlustamine olnud väljakutseks. Uuringust selgus ka, et kohalike omavalitsuste ametnikud oleksid tahtnud saada maavalitsuselt ja Maa- ametilt maareformi regulatsioonide ja korralduse kohta rohkem informatsiooni. Kui on vaja täita koostöös keerukaid ülesandeid, siis tuleb ülesannete täitjaid nõustada ja anda neile piisavalt infot.

Kohalikud omavalitsused on viinud maareformi ellu erineva kiirusega. Maareformi tulemus on olenenud mitte üksnes kohaliku omavalitsuse tegevusest, vaid ka riigi ja õigustatud subjektide tegevusest. Riik moodustas riigimaa üksuseid. Tagastamise ja erastamise õigustatud subjektid on mõjutanud maareformi kiirust oma tegevusega. Nende tegevus on avaldanud survet kohalikele omavalitsustele. Maareformi lõpetamine on üldjuhul riigi ülesanne ja kohalikud omavalitsused ei ole saanud tegeleda nende maade reformimisega, mille kohta taotlused puuduvad. Taotluste puudumine on toonud kaasa seisaku maareformi lõpetamises.

Maakasutuse tingimuste poolest on maareformi kiirust kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemel mõjutanud kõige rohkem haritava maa, loodusliku rohumaa ja kaitsealade hulk kohalikus omavalitsuses. Kusjuures haritaval maal on maareformi läbiviimise kiirusega positiivne seos ja looduslikul rohumaal ning kaitsealadel negatiivne seos.

130 130

Maareformi läbiviimise organisatsioonilise korralduse mõttes võib Tartumaa kiirete ja aeglaste kohalike omavalitsuste uuringust selgus, et maareformi ellu viia kas riigi tasemel ehk ülevalt alla või kogukonna ei ole võimalik välja tuua ühte kindlat mudelit, mis oleks taganud kiire tasemel ehk alt üles. Eesti maareformi puhul ei ole päris täpselt selge, maareformi läbiviimise. Selgus, et maareformi elluviimise kiirus on kummal tasemel on seda ellu viidud. Maareformi elluviimine on olenenud mitmetest asjaoludest ja need omakorda on kohalikes delegeeritud suures osas kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemele, kuid samas on omavalitsustes erinevalt kombineerunud. Töös toodi välja kiire riik teinud järelevalvet ning on ka ise maareformi elluviimises osalenud. maareformi elluviimise järgmise eeltingimused: kohaliku omavalitsuse Protsessis ladususe tagamiseks ja arusaamatuste vältimiseks eri tasandite teadlikus ja kompetentsus, aktiivsete õigustatud subjektide olemasolu, vahel peaksid keerulises protsessis täidetavad ülesanded olema selgelt kohaliku omavalitsuse territooriumi kaetus taotlustega, tootliku maa määratletud. See on oluline aspekt, millest annab õppida ja mida tuleks olemasolu ja riigi huvitatus maa riigiomandisse jätmisest. riigi ja kohalike omavalitsuste koostöös täidetavate ülesannete planeerimisel silmas pidada. Maareformi elluviimine ei oleks üldjuhul aeglustunud, kui kogu kohaliku omavalitsuse territoorium oleks olnud kaetud taotlustega. Probleem Maareformi elluviimise näitest tulenevalt sisaldab ülesannete tekkis, kui teatud maade osas ei olnud taotlusi. Sellise maa osas ei saanud delegeerimine kohaliku omavalitsuse tasemele endas nii positiivset kui ka kohalik omavalitsus reformi läbi viia. Seega on taotluste puudumine negatiivset. Näiteks teab kohalik omavalitsus paremini kohalikke olusid maareformi lõpetamist aeglustanud. ja maareformi elluviijate arv on olnud suurem. Samas selgus uuringust, et paljudel maareformi elluviijatel kohalikes omavalitsustes on puudunud Vastutus maareformi elluviimise eest on jagatud kohaliku omavalitsuse vastav haridus. Maa-ameti ja maavalitsuste jaoks on teadmiste ja riigi vahel. Riigil oleks pidanud olema parem valmisolek selleks ühtlustamine olnud väljakutseks. Uuringust selgus ka, et kohalike hetkeks, kui kohalikes omavalitsustes saavad taotlused menetletud. omavalitsuste ametnikud oleksid tahtnud saada maavalitsuselt ja Maa- Viimastel aastatel on maareformi elluviimine olnud riigi kohustus. Riigil ametilt maareformi regulatsioonide ja korralduse kohta rohkem oleks pidanud olema selge strateegia, kuidas maareformi lõpetada. Sellest informatsiooni. Kui on vaja täita koostöös keerukaid ülesandeid, siis asjaolust on võimalik õppida. tuleb ülesannete täitjaid nõustada ja anda neile piisavalt infot. Pärast 2008. aastat on riik olnud aktiivsem ning tegelenud maareformi Kohalikud omavalitsused on viinud maareformi ellu erineva kiirusega. elluviimisega. Aastatel 2009-2016 on maakatastris registreeritud Maareformi tulemus on olenenud mitte üksnes kohaliku omavalitsuse peamiselt riigi maid. Kui riik jätkab tööd sama kiirusega nagu viimased tegevusest, vaid ka riigi ja õigustatud subjektide tegevusest. Riik paar aastat, siis lõpetab riik maareformi juba järgmisel aastal. Kui riik ei moodustas riigimaa üksuseid. Tagastamise ja erastamise õigustatud tegutse nii kiiresti, siis läheb maareformi lõpetamisega veel mõned subjektid on mõjutanud maareformi kiirust oma tegevusega. Nende aastad. tegevus on avaldanud survet kohalikele omavalitsustele. Maareformi lõpetamine on üldjuhul riigi ülesanne ja kohalikud omavalitsused ei ole Maareformi elluviimisega kaasnes Eestis maade tükeldatus. Maareformi saanud tegeleda nende maade reformimisega, mille kohta taotlused läbiviimise mudel, mis toetas võimalikult laia õigustatud subjektide ringi, puuduvad. Taotluste puudumine on toonud kaasa seisaku maareformi tõi kaasa suurema maade tükeldatuse, kui see oli enne maade riigistamist lõpetamises. (enne 1940. aastat). Maareformi alguses otsustati, et maa tagastatakse endistele omanikele või nende pärijatele, ja samas anti õigus erastada Maakasutuse tingimuste poolest on maareformi kiirust kohaliku maad ostueesõigusega nendel isikutel, kes omasid endistel kinnistutel omavalitsuse tasemel mõjutanud kõige rohkem haritava maa, loodusliku hooneid. See aga tõi kaasa endiste kinnistute tükeldamise. Süsteemsema rohumaa ja kaitsealade hulk kohalikus omavalitsuses. Kusjuures haritaval lähenemise kasutamine oleks võinud seda olukorda leevendada. Kuna maal on maareformi läbiviimise kiirusega positiivne seos ja looduslikul maade tükeldatusel on pikaajaline mõju näiteks põllumajanduslikule rohumaal ning kaitsealadel negatiivne seos. tootmisele, siis vajab see küsimus tulevikus lahendamist. Need riigid, kes

130 131 131 planeerivad maareformi elluviimist, võivad sellest olukorrast õppida ja vältida liigset maade tükeldatust.

2017. aasta alguseks oli Eestis maareformi läbinud 98% maismaast. Era- ja juriidilistele isikutele kuuluvad kinnisasjad on loodud. Maareformi elluviimine on olnud oluline samm turvalise omandiõiguse loomise poole, mis on oluline majandusliku arengu seisukohast. Maareformi elluviimine ei tähenda aga seda, et maaga seotud küsimustega ei oleks vaja enam tulevikus tegeleda. Pärast maareformi elluviimist jääb veel mitmeid probleeme, millega tuleb edasi tegeleda. Näiteks maade tükeldatuse vähendamine. Seega on vajalik ja kasulik maareformi elluviimise protsessist õppida.

Maaressurss on riiklik rikkus ja selle otstarbekast kasutamisest oleneb riigi heaolu. Iseseisvuse taastamine tõi Eestis kaasa olulised muutused maade haldamise ja administreerimise institutsionaalses korralduses. Selles valdkonnas on toimunud lühikese aja jooksul väga kiire areng. Süsteemseks arendustegevuseks, mille üheks osaks on ka uuringute läbiviimine, ei ole olnud aega. Käesolev doktoritöö, mis tegeleb maaressursi haldamise ja administreerimise küsimustega, on esimene omalaadne taasiseseisvunud Eesti Vabariigis. Seda teemat on võimalik edasi arendada ja uurida näiteks maareformi protsessis osalenud eri osapoolte panust maareformi läbiviimisesse, seadusandluse muutustega kaasnenud asjaolusid jne. Samas vajavad uurimist ka teised maaressursi haldamise ja administreerimisega seotud teemad, nagu näiteks maa omandiõiguse ja kasutuse registreerimine ja nendega seotud registrid, maaomandi ja -kasutuse muutused ning mitmed teised selle valdkonna teemad.

132 132 planeerivad maareformi elluviimist, võivad sellest olukorrast õppida ja ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vältida liigset maade tükeldatust. This work was carried out at the Department of Geomatics, Estonian 2017. aasta alguseks oli Eestis maareformi läbinud 98% maismaast. Era- University of Life Sciences. The study was partially financially supported ja juriidilistele isikutele kuuluvad kinnisasjad on loodud. Maareformi by base financing project T13003MIGO: The impact of land-related elluviimine on olnud oluline samm turvalise omandiõiguse loomise decisions on the use of land, forest and water resources. poole, mis on oluline majandusliku arengu seisukohast. Maareformi elluviimine ei tähenda aga seda, et maaga seotud küsimustega ei oleks First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my vaja enam tulevikus tegeleda. Pärast maareformi elluviimist jääb veel supervisors. I am sincerely thankful my first supervisor professor and mitmeid probleeme, millega tuleb edasi tegeleda. Näiteks maade rector of Estonian University of Agriculture Henn Elmet, now deceased, tükeldatuse vähendamine. Seega on vajalik ja kasulik maareformi elluviimise protsessist õppida. who encouraged me to start the doctoral studies. His constructive supervising during my master’s thesis laid the foundation to prolong my Maaressurss on riiklik rikkus ja selle otstarbekast kasutamisest oleneb studies. I am sincerely thankful to my supervisor associate professor Siim riigi heaolu. Iseseisvuse taastamine tõi Eestis kaasa olulised muutused Maasikamäe for his willingness to take over the obligations of maade haldamise ja administreerimise institutsionaalses korralduses. supervisor. I am thankful for his guidance and support throughout PhD Selles valdkonnas on toimunud lühikese aja jooksul väga kiire areng. studies. Süsteemseks arendustegevuseks, mille üheks osaks on ka uuringute läbiviimine, ei ole olnud aega. Käesolev doktoritöö, mis tegeleb My special thanks are due to my colleague, associate professor Aive maaressursi haldamise ja administreerimise küsimustega, on esimene Liibusk for her persistent encouragement to complete the doctoral omalaadne taasiseseisvunud Eesti Vabariigis. Seda teemat on võimalik studies and compile the thesis. I am grateful to all my colleagues from edasi arendada ja uurida näiteks maareformi protsessis osalenud eri the University of Life Sciences, especially from the department of osapoolte panust maareformi läbiviimisesse, seadusandluse muutustega Geomatics for they help and support. kaasnenud asjaolusid jne. Samas vajavad uurimist ka teised maaressursi haldamise ja administreerimisega seotud teemad, nagu näiteks maa My special thanks are due to my colleague Morten Hartvigsen from omandiõiguse ja kasutuse registreerimine ja nendega seotud registrid, Denmark for his persistent encouragement and support to publish my maaomandi ja -kasutuse muutused ning mitmed teised selle valdkonna article in the journal Land Use Policy. I am grateful to Stig Enemark and teemad. Hans Mattsson for their helpful comments on this paper and all my colleagues from the department of Geomatics in the Estonian University of Life Sciences who contributed the completion of this paper.

I am thankful to all colleagues from other countries who have shared the issue of land reform. I am grateful to Joachim Thomas for his helpful comments about the published papers. My special thanks go to the colleagues from Latvia and Lithuania for fruitful discussions about the issue of land reform. I am thankful to all my co-authors for their contribution to the published papers. I am thankful to all my master’s students who completed their surveys about the issue of land reform. Our cooperation has been

132 133 133 fruitful and I am happy that they tolerated my requests concerning the master’s thesis. My special thanks go to Kristian Aasmäe, Liis Taremaa, Eveli Arumäe, Piret Paiste and Asta Biedermann, Tereesa Kink, as their master’s works contributed directly the input for this Thesis. I am thankful that I have had possibility to work with the land reform issues in practice as well. My special thanks go to the Estonian Land Board where I worked for 16 years and for the Elva Town Government where I worked for five years. These experiences have been invaluable in explaining the issue of land reform. I am thankful to my friends who continue to support me in my long journey toward my aim. My special thanks are due to my friend Eva Lääne for her patient listening to my discussions over the issues of my Thesis and her supportive debates that frequently supplement our sport activities. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their understanding and persistent encouragement throughout my PhD studies. My special thanks are due to my late grandmother for her support. Her support enabled me to achieve a lot. When I was working and attempting to study, complete my doctoral studies, and care for my small children at the same time, my family was invaluable. There are not enough words to describe my gratitude to them.

134 134 fruitful and I am happy that they tolerated my requests concerning the ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS I master’s thesis. My special thanks go to Kristian Aasmäe, Liis Taremaa, I Eveli Arumäe, Piret Paiste and Asta Biedermann, Tereesa Kink, as their master’s works contributed directly the input for this Thesis. I am thankful that I have had possibility to work with the land reform issues in practice as well. My special thanks go to the Estonian Land Board where I worked for 16 years and for the Elva Town Government where I worked for five years. These experiences have been invaluable in explaining the issue of land reform. I am thankful to my friends who continue to support me in my long journey toward my aim. My special thanks are due to my friend Eva Lääne for her patient listening to my discussions over the issues of my Thesis and her supportive debates that frequently supplement our sport activities. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their understanding and persistent encouragement throughout my PhD studies. My special thanks are due to my late grandmother for her support. Her support enabled me to achieve a lot. When I was working and attempting to study, complete my doctoral studies, and care for my small children at the same time, my family was invaluable. There are not enough words to describe my gratitude to them.

134 135PUBLICATIONS 135

Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S. 2009. Progress of Land Reform in Es- tonian Rural Municipalities – Results of Preliminary Study. In Rural De- velopment 2009 (Vol. 4, pp. 121-127). Kaunas: Lithuanian University of Agriculture. 136 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities – Results of Preliminary Study

Evelin Jürgenson, Siim Maasikamäe Estonian University of Life Sciences

Abstract

The land reform has been an important activity for the post-communist countries. This is the case for Estonia, too. However, the process and the results of the land reform in Estonia are not thoroughly studied yet. The completion of the land reform is facing certain problems and the remaining part of the land reform seems to be complicated. The solution for the remaining land reform problems depends, among other factors, on the understanding of the processes in the past. This is the reason to pay more attention to the studies of land reform issues. The study is based on statistical data about the land reform results in Estonia. The study deals with the general process and regional differences of the land reform results in Estonia. The regional differences are handled on county and municipality levels. The outcomes of the study show that the results of the land reform in various counties are similar on average, but there are big differences if to compare the success of the land reform in municipalities. Our study disclosed that the progression and processes of the land reform need more attention and, thus, should be investigated further Key words: land reform, results of land reform, the speed of land reform

Introduction

Land reform is an important activity for society development, in general, and for rural development, in particular. The aims, main features and the course of land reforms may differ depending on the period, and its content may vary from state to state. The essence of land reform has changed also: if the 20th century land reform was mostly redistributive, then today, it means land settlement or resettlement programmes on a publicly owned land, land registration, consolidation of fragmented holdings, tenancy improvement, and land taxation in addition to redistribution. (El-Ghonemy, 2003, Sikor et al. 2009) However, land reform in post-communist countries has its specifi c features. Firstly, the land reform relates to all national land funds and all types of land uses, including all rural and urban areas. Secondly, the private ownership over land is re-established. It means fundamental changes of legislation and social attitude. The land reform in Estonia started in 1991 after Estonian parliament had passed some important legal acts. One of the main acts – Principles of Ownership Reform Act of the Republic of Estonia was passed on 13 June 1991 and the second one, Land Reform Act, was passed on 17 October 1991. The content of land reform was stated in The Land Reform Act’s subdivision 3 of section 1 which reads as follows: In land reform, unlawfully expropriated land is returned to its former owners or their legal successors or they are compensated, therefore, land is transferred for or without charge into the ownership of persons in private law, legal persons in public law or local governments, and the land to be retained in state ownership is determined. The realisation of the land reform is a complicated activity. The parliament has changed the land reform related to legislation many times during the 18 years of reform. The rapid completion of the land reform has been a topical issue for many Estonian politicians at the end of the nineties and at the beginning of the current decade. The ministers responsible for the land reform repeatedly promised to conclude the land reform fairly quickly. However, the land reform in Estonia is not yet fi nished and there are no clear visions about any further steps. The completion of the land reform has been more actively discussed recently. It is desirable to shortly complete the process but necessary methods for that are ambiguous. Many problems have emerged in the course of the land reform and, thus, disturbed its rapid completion. Daugaliene (2007) has referred to the same characteristics for the Lithuanian land reform. The outcomes of the land reform are not well investigated in Estonia at present. It is primarily valid if speaking about the property formation throughout the land reform and property rights. Various landscape related issues have been researched in Estonia, for example, the connection between landscape and soil (Uuemaa et al., 2008), landscape changes and monitoring (Roose et al., 2007, Sepp et al., 1999), landscape protection (Palang 2007, Palang et al., 2005, Mander et al., 1999) and rural area changes (Unwin, 1997). There are some surveys on land type structure and average area used by agricultural enterprises (Maasikamäe et al., 2005, Sippo, 2005), and problems of land consolidation and fragmentation are handled as well (Maasikamäe, 2005, Maasikamäe et al., 2003). There are only statistical overviews of the process of land reform in Estonia while surveys and analysis concerning the results of the land reform are missing. Static offi cial statistics alone cannot give a broader view of the land reform. Thus, the actually existing conditions must be investigated (Borras, 2006). The progress of land reform and its outcomes can be evaluated in different ways. One must distinguish the progress and results of the land reform from a quantitative and qualitative point of view. This is important because high quantity does not necessarily correspond to good quality. Furthermore, high quantity can result in low quality. However, the fi rst step to understand the land reform results is to analyse land reform statistics. It will lay the ground for further studies including the investigation of qualitative aspects of the land reform. It is necessary to notice that one must not confuse the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of the land reform and the quantitative and the qualitative methods of research. The quantitative and the qualitative methods of research can be used for investigation of the quality of the land reform, for example.

121

137 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

The aim of our study is to focus on the general course and the results of the land reform in Estonia, and particularly, we focus on the rural municipalities. We only deal with quantitative aspects of the results of the land reform. The paper was called “preliminary” because of the results of the study, indicating the need for more solid investigations in this fi eld.

Materials and methods

Statistical data of the Estonian Land Board and Estonian Statistical Board about the land reform results were used to analyse the general progress and the results of the land reform. The area and the ratio (percentage) of land that is registered in cadastre and the average size of parcels (cadastral units) are the main indicators that characterise processes of the land reform. For this purpose, the following was done: - The general process and trends of the land reform and the changes of the average size of parcels since 1993 to 2008 for whole Estonia are presented; - The general results of the land reform (dated by December 31st 1998 and December 31st 2008) on the county level are compared. Then, the results of the course of the land reform in four counties have been presented as different examples of the process; - The results of the land reform (dated by December 31st 2008) in rural municipalities are compared on the county level and certain extreme cases of the land reform results are compared on the municipality level; - Finally, land reform results in 10 most and least successful rural municipalities have been compared. All 227 municipalities (including towns and rural towns are included for the general description of the land reform for the whole Estonia. Land reform results on the county level also included data about towns. However, examples of extreme land reform results refer solely to rural municipalities. It is necessary to mention that land reform results in some towns are worse than in rural municipalities presented in our study. We exclude from our study some semi-urban municipalities where the share of urban areas is fairly large. Such municipalities evolve as a result of an urban type settlement and the surrounding rural municipality integration. Finally, in our municipality level survey, we used data of 188 rural municipalities. However, it has to be considered that these 188 municipalities may still comprise towns and rural towns.

Results

The land reform started in 1991 in Estonia after the necessary legislation was adopted by the parliament, but the fi rst parcels were registered in land cadastre only in 1993. Therefore, the presented in fi gure 1 progression of the land reform starts from the year 1993. This fi gure shows the changes of two indicators describing the land reform progression. It is the land area registered in cadastre and the number of parcels per year for the whole Estonia.

Figure 1. The intensity of land reform since 1993 to 2008

In the beginning, the speed of the land reform was relatively slow and the results were modest, but after 1996, the land area registered in cadastre and the number of parcels increased considerably. The peak of the land reform was in 1998 when over 600 000 hectares of land and more than 75 000 parcels were registered in land cadastre. The speed of land reform started to decrease after this year and this process has continued. Only 38 000 hectares of land were reformed in 2008, which is 15 times less than in 1998, not mentioning the starting years of the land reform. The dynamics of the registered in cadastre land area and the number of parcels is generally similar. However, one can distinguish three different periods in fi gure 1. The fi rst period lasted from the beginning of the land reform in 1991 to its peak in 1998. The remarkable increase of the land reform speed is characteristic of this period. The second period was from 1999 to 2004 when the both indicators of intensity of the land reform decreased. A considerable decrease of registered in cadastre land area was from 1999 to 2000. The third period of the land reform started in 2005 and has lasted

122

138 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends so far. Low speed and meagre average size of the parcels are among major characteristic features of this period. Slightly more than 18 000 parcels were registered in 2008 what is 4 times less than in 1998. The registered in cadastre reformed land area in 2008 was 15 times less than in 1998. The fi gure 2 shows the changes of the average size of the parcels that were formed in the course of the land reform and were registered in cadastre from 1993 to 2008. The general trend is a decrease in average sizes of the new formed parcels. Data in the fi gures 1 and 2 correspond to each other. However, unlike fi gure 1, the three periods of the land reform cannot be differentiated here.

Figure 2. The dynamics of average size of formed in course land reform parcel

The decrease of the average size of the parcels formed in the course of the land reform is considerable. For example, in 1996 and 1997 the average size of parcel was more than 11 hectares, but in 2008 it was only 2 hectares. Therefore, the results of the land reform in recent years are not so impressive because they fail to correspond with the effort made for the land reforming (a lot of small parcels but low results, according to the area). The presented numbers about the size of parcels are generalized and there is a need for a deeper investigation of the reasons that caused such circumstances. The progression of the land reform varies not only by years but by the regions, also. Table 1 presents the ratio of the land area registered in cadastre in the end of 1998 and 2008 by counties. We choose two years for the comparison of the results of the land reform. The year 1998 was selected as a pick of the land reform and for 2008 we have the newest data.

Table 1. The percentage of registered in cadastre land area in 1998 and 2008 and the average size of cadastral units (all municipalities of Estonia) Percentage of registered in cadastre land area (%) Average size of cadastral units (ha)

County Difference between Difference between 31.12.1998 31.12.2008 31.12.1998 32.12.2008 1998 and 2008 1998 and 2008 Harjumaa 20.9 80.4 59.6 2.7 2.7 0.0 Hiiumaa 43.9 88.6 44.8 12.6 6.6 -6.0 Ida-Virumaa 47.0 82.5 35.5 20.9 6.8 -14.1 Jõgevamaa 47.4 90.6 43.2 13.7 8.9 -4.8 Järvamaa 34.0 84.2 50.2 11.3 9.4 -1.9 Läänemaa 37.0 82.0 45.0 9.8 7.7 -2.1 Lääne-Virumaa 47.3 94.1 46.8 13.3 8.6 -4.8 Põlvamaa 64.0 92.2 28.2 11.4 7.9 -3.5 Pärnumaa 60.3 89.8 29.5 16.4 9.1 -7.3 Raplamaa 19.8 85.5 65.7 5.4 8.4 3.0 Saaremaa 20.9 82.0 61.1 7.0 5.4 -1.6 Tartumaa 36.3 87.5 51.2 5.5 5.0 -0.5 Valgamaa 50.1 92.5 42.4 12.8 9.5 -3.2 Viljandimaa 50.3 92.6 42.3 13.5 10.2 -3.3 Võrumaa 47.5 90.7 43.2 11.6 8.1 -3.5 Average for Estonia 41.4 87.4 46.0 9.8 6.7 -3.2 Data source: Estonian Statistical Board and Land Board

123

139 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

The data of Table 1 provides a more profound understanding of the land reform progression. For example, in 1998 the percentage of registered in cadastre land area varied by counties to a greater extent than in 2008. The lowest percentage of reformed land (19,8 percent) was in Raplamaa county and the highest percentage (64 percent) –in Põlvamaa county. The difference between those two numbers is 44.2. In 2008, the lowest percentage of reformed land (80,4 percent) was in Harjumaa county and the highest percentage (94,1 percent) – in Lääne-Virumaa county. The difference between percentages for the above mentioned two counties is 13.7. In 2008, the differences between counties are no longer as big as in 1998. One can see also that the counties have reformed land at a different speed. Põlvamaa county was the most successful in 1998 and the increase of the reformed land was only 28.2 percent from this time to 2008. Raplamaa county, on the contrast, only had 19.8 percent of the reformed land in 1998. The increase of the reformed land since that time to the 2008 was 65.7 percent. Table 1 also contains the average size of cadastral unit in 1998 and 2008 by counties. The smallest average size of a parcel (2.7 hectares) was in 1998 in Harjumaa county. The biggest average size of a parcel (20.9 hectares) was in Ida- Virumaa county. The difference between average sizes of parcels in the mentioned counties is 18.2 hectares and this is a remarkable fi gure. In 2008, the differences were not that remarkable. The smallest average size of a parcel (2.7 hectares) was continuingly in Harjumaa county and the biggest (10.2 hectares) — Viljandimaa county. This is also a sign that the land reform has stabilized. The differences of the land reform progression on the county level are presented in fi gure 3, too. Four counties (Harjumaa, Lääne-Virumaa, Põlvamaa and Raplamaa) with a different type of the land reform development were selected. The shapes of the lines that describe the course of the land reform, vary from one county to another. It means that they differ in land reform progression.

Figure 3. Trend lines of land reform in counties of Harjumaa, Lääne-Virumaa, Põlvamaa and Raplamaa from 1993 until 2008

Nevertheless, there are some similarities, too. The speed of the land reform reaches its peak in 1997 for Lääne- Virumaa and Põlvamaa counties. For Raplamaa county, the peak was in 1999. All the three counties have clear peaks in the course of the land reform process. In Harjumaa county, there is no clear peak in the development of the land reform process. The most successful was the year 2002, while 2000 and 2004 were quite similar. The land reform success on municipality level varies more than the one on county level. The data of table 2 and table 3 prove that. The land reform results in most and least successful rural municipalities are compared with the average level of the land reform results of counties in table 2. The average percentage of the reformed land for the counties in table 1 and table 2 is slightly different. The reason for that is the fact that the average number for table 1 includes data about all (227) municipalities but the data in table 2 provide an overview of the situation in rural (188) municipalities only. The average percentage of registered in cadastre land in the rural municipalities on the county level varies from the 81 percent to 93 percent which is not a large number. The data in table 1 are similar. At the same time, the difference among municipalities is much bigger. The biggest share of registered in cadastre land is 99 percent in municipality of Surju in Pärnu county and the lowest fi gure is only 47 percent in Piirissaare municipality of Tartu county, respectively. The difference between minimum and maximum percentage of registered in cadastre land is considerable. This difference is remarkably big even if Piirissare municipality is excluded from the comparison due to its untypicality and data of Peipsiääre municipality in Tartu county used instead.

124

140 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

Table 2. The percentage of registered in cadastre land by counties of Estonia (dated 31.12.2008). The name of corresponding municipality is in the brackets after the ratio Percentage of registered in cadastre land (%) Average County Extreme results of municipalities percentage of counties Minimum Maximum Difference (max-min) Harjumaa 82 72 (Keila) 90 (Kernu) 18 Hiiumaa 88 80 (Pühalepa) 93 (Kõrgessaare) 13 Ida-Virumaa 85 70 (Aseri) 93 Tudulinna 23 Järvamaa 90 82 (Kareda) 95 (Türi) 13 Jõgevamaa 91 85 (Torma) 98 (Pala) 13 Läänemaa 81 71 (Kullamaa) 91 (Lihula) 20 Lääne-Virumaa 90 84 (Rakke) 96 (Laekvere) 12 Pärnumaa 90 63 (Lavassaare) 99 (Surju) 36 Põlvamaa 92 70 (Mikitamäe) 97 (Ahja) 27 Raplamaa 86 79 (Kohila) 92 (Käru) 13 Saaremaa 82 70 (Kärla) 93 (Ruhnu) 23 Tartumaa 89 47* (Piirisaare); 62 (Peipsiääre) 98 (Võnnu) 51* or 36 Valgamaa 93 90 (Tõlliste) 97 (Palupera) 7 Viljandimaa 93 87 (Halliste) 98 (Kõpu) 11 Võrumaa 91 87 (Lasva) 94 (Rõuge) 7 Total in Estonia 88 47* (Piirissaare); 62 (Peipsiääre) 99 (Surju) 52 or 37 * Data for Piirissaare municipality. It is a fairly small and untypical Estonian municipality characterised by certain specifi c features and situated on an island in Lake Peipsi.

Table 3, as well, reveals signifi cant differences in land reform results among municipalities. Rural municipalities were arranged by the percentage of the reformed land in a decreasing order: 10 most and least successful municipalities were included into table 3. The density of population has been added to table 3 to illustrate general conditions of the land reform in municipalities.

Table 3. The municipalities with the highest and lowest percentage of land registered in cadastre (dated 31.12.2008) Share of land Number of Average size Population density, NR of Area registered Municipality County registered in the parcels registered of parcels inhabitants per square order in cadastre (ha) cadastre, % in cadastre (ha) kilometre 1 Surju Pärnu 98.9 1 347 35 426 26.3 2.8 2 Kõpu Viljandi 98.4 908 25 453 28.0 3.1 3 Pala Jõgeva 98.2 1 766 15 373 8.7 8.3 4 Võnnu Tartu 97.9 1 319 22 770 17.3 5.1 5 Ahja Põlva 97.3 1 050 7 009 6.7 15.5 6 Palupera Valga 96.9 1 330 11 993 9.0 9.2 Vastse- 7 Põlva 96.9 1 255 11 942 9.5 10.2 Kuuste 8 Põlva 96.8 1 597 19 393 12.1 7.6 9 Õru Valga 96.7 650 10 112 15.6 5.2 10 Karksi Viljandi 96.5 2 747 31 100 11.3 12.6

179 Keila Harju 71.9 6 003 12 948 2.2 21.2 180 Tahkuranna Pärnumaa 71.6 2 532 7 381 2.9 19.3 181 Puhja Tartumaa 71.5 1 499 12 016 8.0 13.6 182 Nissi Harju 71.2 1 907 19 304 10.1 12.2 183 Kullamaa Läänemaa 71.0 1 343 15 990 11.9 6.0 184 Aseri Ida-Viru 70.5 1 035 4 733 4.6 31.9 185 Mikitamäe Põlva 69.6 1 574 7 323 4.7 9.6 186 Kärla Saaremaa 69.2 2 480 15 139 6.1 7.4 187 Peipsiääre Tartu 64.2 1 061 1 990 1.9 27.3 188 Piirissaare Tartu 54.0 155 416 2.7 9.9

125

141 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

The percentage of registered in cadastre land is between 96.5 and 98.9 percent for the group of most successful rural municipalities and the average for this group of municipalities is approximately 97.4 percent. The average size of a parcel is 13.6 hectare and the population density is 7.1 inhabitants per square kilometre. The results in the group of backward municipalities differ considerably. The percentage of the reformed land is between 54.0 and 71.9 percent and the average size of a parcel is only 5.0 hectare. The average sizes of parcels differ more than 2.5 times in compared groups. The situation concerning the average density of population is similar to the one mentioned above. The density of population in the group of backward municipalities is about 13.4 inhabitants per square kilometre. It is almost twice as high as in the group of successful municipalities.

Discussion

Almost 90 percent of land was registered in land cadastre at the end of 2008 but the completion of the land reform is not easy despite the fact that the remaining part of the not reformed land is not very large. The speed of the land reform in Estonia has varied with its decreases and increases but its fi nalising seems to be problematic. The speed of the land reform has differed according to regions of the country, too. Some regions have been successful and the reform there is almost complete. The slowdown of the land reform speed can be explained by the fact that the area of the reformed parcels is decreasing. More efforts are needed for the formation of new parcels in the course of the land reform. The decrease of the average size of registered in cadastre parcels is the evidence of that. Another reason for the slowdown of the land reform speed is that certain complicated cases have not been solved yet. The Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia conducted a survey in 2008 to understand the state of the land reform and the main problems that prevent it from being fi nalised. According to that report (Overview of …, 2008), the main reasons why restitution or privatization has not been fi nished, are related to court cases, inheritance or land surveying issues. The completion of the land reform will take numerous years if its speed remains the same as throughout the previous years. This is actually an unacceptable situation. Different Estonian authorities have recently indicated the necessity to fi nish the land reform in the near future. For example, National Audit Offi ce of Estonia has revealed some reasons for the importance of fi nishing the land reform: land without a fi xed ownership is out of use and, thus, its economic potential is unused and also, every year, the state spends millions of Estonian crowns on land reform activities (State regulatory authority report 2008). In our study, we mainly used two indicators to describe and analyse the results of the land reform: the percentage of registered in cadastre land and the average size of parcels. However, this simple study provided us with a new understanding of the land reform processes and results, and the new information has been added to the existing knowledge. The information about the land reform results must be handled in the context of the general view of land administration process. It is worth remembering that “Until information on land use is improved, development planning will remain without an adequate basis on many major issues.” (Young, 1998:48). The investigation of the progression of the land reform processes is important for its successful completion. More investigations on this fi eld are, obviously, needed.

Conclusions

The preliminary study indicated the existence of the land reform problems in Estonia to be investigated more carefully. However, the following conclusions were drawn from our research: 1. There are no big differences in the general results of the land reform if to compare counties, the results are similar. The ratio of the registered in cadastre land varies from 80.4 to 94.1 percent. However, the land reform speed has decreased and the date of its completion is so far unclear. 2. The land reform results vary to a greater extent in different Estonian municipalities and this is a problematic issue. The differences between successful and backward municipalities are remarkable in respect of the land reform. 3. The deep study of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the land reform results is necessary for a better understanding of land related processes and better reasoning of further decisions. There are too many unclear land related issues today.

References

Borras JR., S., M. (2006). The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications. Journal of Agrarian Change 1, pp. 69-101. Daugaliene, V. (2007). Legal framework of land management in Lithuania after 1990. UNECE WPLA Workshop Munich, Germany, May 24th – 25th 2007. El-Ghonemy, M. R. (2003). Land reform development challenges of 1963-2003 continue into the twenty-fi rst century. Land Reform 2, pp. 33-42. Land Reform Act. Available at: www.riigiteataja.ee (Last access 25 June 2009). Maasikamäe, S. (2005). Assesment of Land Fragmentation. In: “Vagos”, Proceedings of the Lithuanian University of Agriculture, nr 67 (20), pp. 75-82, Akademija. Kauno.

126

142 Rural Development 2009 Rural Landscape Management Trends

Maasikamäe, S., Mugu, E. (2003). Is there a Need for Land Consolidation in Estonia? In: Transaction of the Estonian Agricultural University 216, Baltic Surveying ’03. Tartu, pp. 23 – 32. Maasikamäe, S., Sippo, I. (2005). Study of land type structure of non-contiguous parcels of agricultural properties. In: Balticsurveying’05, Proceedings. The International Scientifi c-Methodical Conference of Agricultural Universities in the Baltic States and other countries, the 12th and 13th May, 2005. Jelgava, pp. 35-42. Mander, Ü; Mikk, M; Külvik, M. (1999). Ecological and low intensity agriculture as contributors to landscape and biological diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 46, pp. 169-177. Palang, H. (2007). Landscape and rural heritage. SIXTH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE OF THE WORKSHOPS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION, Sibiu, Romania, 20-21 September 2007. Available at: http://www.coe. int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Source/Conventions/Landscape/Sibiu_Provisional_proceedings_actes_provisoires_24oct07.pdf (Last access 25 June 2009). Palang, H., Helmfrid, S., Antrop, M., Alumae, H. (2005). Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies. Landscape and Urban Planning 1-2, pp. 3-8. Riigikontrolli aruanne Riigikogule: riigi tegevus reformimata maaga (2008). Riigikontroll. Available at: www.riigikontroll.ee/upload/failid/ka_40050_ maareform_12.06.2008_lopp.pdf (Last access 25 June 2009). Roose, A., Sepp, K., Saluveer, E., Kaasik, A., Oja, T. (2007). Neighbourhood-defi ned approaches for integrating and designing landscape monitoring in Estonia. Landscape and Urban Planning 79, pp. 177–189. Sepp, K., Palang, H., Mander, Ü., Kaasik, A. (1999). Prospects for nature and landscape protection in Estonia. Landscape and Urban Planning 46, pp. 161-167. Sikor, T., Müller, D., 2009. The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction. World Development, doi: 10.1026/j.worlddev.2008.08.010 Sippo, I., 2005. The analysis of agricultural properties fragmentation. Master thesis of Estonian University of Life Sciences, 105 p. (in Estonian). Unwin, T., 1997. Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia. Journal of Rural Studies, 1, 93-112. Uuemaa, E., Roosaare, J., Kanal, A., Mander, Ü., 2008. Spatial correlograms of soil cover as an indicator of landscape heterogeneity. Ecological indicators, 8, 783-794. Ülevaade omandireformist. (2008). Eesti Vabariigi Rahandusministeerium. (manuscript) Young, A., 1998. Land resources. Now and for the future. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Evelin JÜRGENSON. MSc, lecturer of land administration, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences; acting advisor, Estonian Land Board. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. +372 7 313 123. E-mail [email protected] Research interests: land administration, land reform and land acquisition for the public needs. Siim MAASIKAMÄE. PhD, head of the Department of Geomatics, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. + 372 7 313 120. E-mail [email protected] Research interests: land management (land fragmentation and land consolida tion particularly) and the land use planning.

127

143 III

PUBLICATIONS 144 Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S. 2010. The Impact of Land Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Mu- nicipalities. VAGOS, 86, 65-70. 145 ISSN 1648-116X LŽU MOKSLO DARBAI. 2010. Nr. 86 (39) TECHNOLOGIJOS MOKSLAI

The Impact of Land Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Municipalities

Evelin Jürgenson, Helena Hass, Siim Maasikamäe

Estonian University of Life Sciences

The speed of the land reform in different municipalities of Estonia has been different. In some municipalities, almost all land has already been re- formed and registered in cadastre, while in other municipalities, the land reform completion time is yet not clear. On the other hand, the fast completio n of the land reform is the major aim for many politi cians and stakeholders. In Estonia, no special studies of the impact of land fund characteristics on t he land reform results have been carried out. However, if such impact exists it can explain the differences among Estonian municipalities in land reform re- sults. The hypothesis is that land fund characteristics have a certain impact on the land reform result. The simple and multiple correlation analyses have been used to prove this hypothesis. The ratios of different land use types (like arable land, forest land, etc.) and CORINE land cover data and the distance of municipalities from Tallinn and county centre are used to describe the land fund characteristics of municipalities. The ratio of land registered in ca da- stre (the percentage of the reformed land in municipalities) is used to describe the success of the land reform. The results of the study show a low to me- dium correlation (r = 0.21 to r = 0.77) between the results of the land reform and the land fund chara cteristics. It means that the impact of land fund c ha- racteristics causes up to 50 per cent of variations in land reform results in Estonian municipalities. The results of the study also show different impac t of land fund characteristics on the results of various land reform activities (restitution of land, privatization etc.). Land reform outcomes, land fund characteristics, correlation analysis.

Introduction The second important question concerning the land reform speed refers to the impact of different factors. In The success of the land reform is an important issu e other words: what are the factors influencing the rate of when it has once been initiated. This is characteristic to all land reform? The topic has not been investigated properly countries and nations around the world where the land yet. The previous study by E. Jürgenson and S. - reform is completed or halfway through the process. The kamäe (2009) shows that the land reform was more suc- aims of land reform are different but two important ques- cessful in some municipalities of Estonia while in other tions can be always asked. The first one relates to the municipalities this was not the case. The present paper is achievement of the set aims. Are the aims of the land reform the logical continuation of the previous research. met and how is it done? This is an important issue from eco- The aims of land reforms differ with countries as it nomic, social and political viewpoints. The researchers tend was mentioned above. The aim of the Estonian land reform to pay more attention to those aspects of the land reform. is stated in two important legal acts: a) Act of Ownership K. Deininger and H. Binswagner (1999) examined the evo- Reform Principles of the Republic of Estonia (passed on 13 lution of the World Bank’s policy recommendations and the June 1991) and b) Land Reform Act (passed on 17 October land reform was one of the topics in this paper. 1991). The Land Reform Act (section 1, subdivision 3) Z. Lerman (2009) investigated the impact of land provides the following aims of land reform: reform policies on agricultural performance in some post- • The restitution of the rights to unlawfully expropriated communist countries. E. Lahiff (2007) critically analysed land to the former owners or their legal successors or the market lead land reform in South Africa. S. Sauer the compensation of the land value, (2009) found in his study that the land reform by the World • The transfer of land for or without charge into the Bank model failed in Brazil. I. Buzdalov (2009) examined ownership of persons in private law, the land reform problems and drew back factors for • The transfer of land into the ownership of legal per- present-day Russian agricultural sector. The land reform sons in public law, issues have been discussed in many papers of FAO Land • The transfer of land into the ownership of local gov- Reform, Land Settlements and Cooperatives bulletins. The ernments, papers by L. Greber and R. Giovarell (2005) and by • The determination of the land to be retained in state M.R. El-Ghonemy (2003) are just two examples of that. ownership. The politicians and administrators often focus on the One must remember that besides statements in legal statistical aspects of the land reform. They talk a bout the acts, the land reform has always had political, social, eco- hectares and the percentages of the land registered (or not nomical, and technical aims (aspects), too. However, occa- yet registered) in cadastre. The Estonian Land Board even sionally, those aims are not stated fairly clearly. The estab- publishes land reform results weekly on the web site lishment of private ownership in land and creation of land (www.maaamet.ee). The reasons of the land reform success market is the most important aim for some politicians. The or setback are rarely analysed. However, official statistics share of the reformed (registered in cadastre) land has al- alone cannot explain the impact of the land reform driving ways been the most important indicator of the land reform factors. M. Saturnino, J. R. Borras (2006) points out that the results in Estonia. actually existing conditions must be investigated.

65

146 The hypothesis of the study is that the land characte- palities) have been calculated for the following land types: ristics (e.g. the ratio of arable land and the density of road arable land, grassland, forest land, wetland, yard and land network in municipalities) make one of the groups of fac- under roads. The ratio of protected areas is calculated fol- tors that have an impact on the results of land reform in Es- lowing the Estonian Land Board data. This is done in order tonia. The aim of the study arises from this hypoth esis and to describe the land fund features in municipalities in a the intention of the authors is to show that differ ent land comparable way. The density of roads (m/ha) is derived fund characteristics have an impact on the land reform re- from the Estonian Road Administration data. It should be sults in rural municipalities of Estonia. mentioned that both the ratio of land under roads and the density of roads describe road conditions, however, from Method and Materials different aspects. There can be a large area under the roads in case of the main roads (they occupy a wide strip) but the The correlation analysis was used to achieve the study length of roads per area unit is not so big. The da tabase of aim. Initially, the simple correlation analysis was performed the Estonian Statistical Board provides data on the dis- to find the correlation between land reform results and the tances of municipalities from Tallinn (the capital of the land characteristics. Furthermore, multiple regression analy- country) and from county centres. sis was used to find multiple correlations between the land The CORINE Land Cover database (Land Cover of reform results and land fund characteristics. The Statistica Estonia, 1999) is the source for the second group of data. (version. 8.0) software was used for this purpose. Different indicators have been derived from the Land Cov- The study embraced 155 (out of 227) rural municipali- er database to describe the land use features in municipali- ties in Estonia. Three criteria were used to compile the list of ties. The MapInfo GIS software is applied to perform the rural municipalities for the study sample. First, rural munici- necessary calculations. Initially, the average size of palities with urban type settlements on their territory were mapped land units is calculated for all land cover types to- excluded from the study. The reason to exclude those muni- gether and for different land cover types separately. The cipalities was the fact that urban conditions for the land second task is to calculate the coefficients of compactness reform differ from purely rural ones. Second, stable boun- for all mapped land units and for different land cover types daries of municipalities for at least the last five years. The separately. Finally, the ratios (per cent of the municipali- municipalities (even totally rural) that had been merged ty`s total area) of land cover types are calculated for all were excluded from the sample. Finally, five municipalities land cover types. Only the indicators having significant were excluded from the sample because of contradictions correlations with the land reform results are presented in (obvious errors) in the data on the land reform results. results and discussion parts of this paper. Source data for the study comprised generally two sets: The formula for the coefficient calculation of land • The data on the results of the land reform, units’ compactness ( et al., 1967, p.81) is as fol- • The data describing land fund characteristics and lows: location of municipalities. P K = , (1) Statistical data of the Estonian Land Board about the 4 × S land reform results was used to describe the results of the where: K – coefficient of compactness of land unit, land reform. In general terms, the measure of the land P – perimeter of the land unit, reform success was the share of the land registered in cada- S – area of the land unit. stre. This share was calculated as a ratio (percentage) of reg- istered in cadastre area in relation to the total area of muni- There are some similarities in the data content be- cipalities. The following ratios (percentages) were used: tween the first and the second group. For instance, the ratio • The ratios of all land registered in cadastre, of arable land (in the first group) and the ratio of agricul- • The ratios of the land returned to its former own- tural land (the second group) are somewhat similar but ers or their legal successors in course of the land reform, they do not duplicate each other. The use of similar data • The ratios of the land retained in state ownership but from different sources can support the validation of the in course of the land reform, conclusions. • The ratios of municipalized land in course of the land reform, Results • The ratios of privatized (on open auctions and on the basis of pre-emption right to privatize) land. The general outcome of the performed study indicates The ratios of all land registered in cadastre can be low to medium influence of land fund characteristics over treated as overall results of the land reform in municipali- the results of the land reform. The detailed results of the ties. All other ratios of the land registered in cadastre are performed study are presented in three steps. Firstly, the the components of the whole land reform. impact of different land fund characteristics on the total re- Statistical data describing land fund characteristics and sults of the land reform (all registered in cadastre land) and location of municipalities comes from different sources. on the separate components of the land reform is shown in Two groups of data can be distinguished in this respect. Table 1. The land fund characteristics that have a signifi- The data on the land fund features from different state au- cant correlation (p < 0.01) with the total results of the land thorities comprises the first group. On the basis of the land reform or with at least one its components are included in- fund data of the Estonian Land Board, the ratios of differ- to Table 1. ent land types (as percentage from the total area of munici-

66

147 Table 1. Correlation coefficients that describe the relation between the results of land reform and land fund characteristics

Results of land reform Ratio of land Ratio of land Ratio of land re- Ratio of mu- Ratio of pri- The land fund characteristics registered in returned to tained in state nicipalized vatized land cadastre former owners ownership land The ratio of arable land 0.27* 0,24* -0.47* 0.11 0.77* The ratio of grassland -0.37* 0.32* -0.44* 0.21* 0.08 The ratio of forest land -0.03 -0.14 0.38* -0.22* -0.54* The ratio of wetlands -0.13 -0.41* 0.52* -0.06 -0.51* The ratio of yards 0.12 0.28* -041* 0.38* -0.48* The ratio of land under roads -0.01 0.07 -0.18 0.33* 0.25* The density of roads (m/ha) 0,03 0.44* -0.56* 0.16 0.49* The ratio of protected areas -0.15 -0.15 0.33* -0.03 -0.52* Distance of municipalities from 0.20 0.33* -0.10 -0.07 -0.03 Tallinn Distance of municipalities from the -0.18 0.02 0.06 -0.16 -0.28* county centre * Marked correlations are significant at p < 0.01

The data presented in Table 1 shows that the separated The impact of land fund characteristics on the separated components of the land reform results better correlate with components of the land reform results is converse in certain the land fund characteristics than with general results of the cases. The ratio of arable land has a positive correlation with land reform. Only two characteristics of land fund have a the ratio of privatized land whilst the correlation with the ra- significant correlation with the ratio of all land registered in tio of the land retained in state ownership is negative. cadastre. The components of the land reform have signifi- The second step is to show the influence of land cover cant correlations with at least four land fund characteristics. features on the results of land reform. The data presented The ratio of privatized land is most correlated with var- in Table 2 verifies that in Table 1. The correlations be- ious land fund characteristics. There are only two land fund tween land fund characteristics and results of land reform characteristics (ratio of grassland and distance of municipali- are partly similar. Characteristics of the used land fund as ties from Tallinn) that do not have any significant correla- presented in Table 2 differ from those in Table 1. The most tions with the ratio of privatized land. The correlation be- important difference is due to the additionally used average tween the ratio of the privatized land and the rati o of the ar- size of mapped units and the compactness coefficients able land (r=0.77) is the highest one indicated in Table 1. from CORINE database.

Table 2. Coefficients of correlation between the results of land reform and the CORINE Land Cover data

Results of land reform Ratio of land Ratio of land Ratio of land re- Ratio of Ratio of The land fund characteristics registered in returned to tained in state municipa- privatized cadastre former owners ownership lized land land Average size of mapped land units -0.03 -0.43* 0.54* -0.07 -0.45* Average size of mapped agricultural land 0.17 0.07 -0.22* 0.25* 0.44* units Average size of mapped forest land units -0.06 -0.10 0.26* -0.13 -0.42* Average size of mapped semi-natural land -0.31* -0.29* 0.30* 0.05 -0.44* units Average compactness of forest land units -0.02 -0.04 0.23* -0.15 -0.39* Average compactness of semi-natural land -0.09 0.08 0.10 0.15 -0.35* units Average compactness of all mapped land -0.09 -0.06 0.21* 0.12 -0.36* units Ratio of agricultural land 0.27* 0.31* -0.51* 0.16 0.73* Ratio of forest land -0.09 -0.23* 0.45* -0.20 -0.58* Ratio of semi-natural land -0.42* -0.20 0.26* -0.07 -0.54* * Marked correlations are significant at p < 0.01.

The data presented in Table 2 shows that the ratio of with the ratio of land registered in cadastre. The ratio of the land that is registered in cadastre is not well correlated privatized land has significant correlation with all land with the land fund characteristics. Only average size of fund characteristics at the same time. Table 2 also reveals mapped semi-natural land units has significant correlation that the compactness of mapped CORINE land units (all

67

148 land units, forest land units and semi-natural land units) fund characteristics on the land reform results in a more has some impact on the land reform results. This is, firstly, complex way. The results of preformed calculations are valid for the privatization of land. shown in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The results of mul- The third step is to present results of multiple correla- tiple correlation analysis would not be reported here if they tion analysis. The multiple correlation (and regression) were not significantly better compared with the results of analysis enables to find out the impact of different land simple correlation.

Table 3. Relative importance of independent variables and regression equation parameters in multiple correlation between the ratio of all land registered in cadastre and the data that describes land fund characteristics

Independent variables Beta Std. Err of Beta B Std. Err of B t p-level Intercept x x 88.940 1.6104 55.229 0.000000 The ratio of wetlands -0.4208 0.0729 -0.597 0.1035 -5.766 0.000000 Distance from Tallinn 0.2733 0.0729 0.030 0.0080 3.745 0.000255

The ratio of all land registered in cadastre has the high- gest. The beta coefficients presented in Table 3 show that est correlation with the ratio of grassland (r = - 0.37, see Ta- the impact of independent variables on the ratio of all land ble 1). The inclusion of the distance between municipalities registered in cadastre is comparable. and Tallinn into the multiple correlation calculations as an The density of roads (m/ha) and the ratio of wetlands as independent factor increases the value of the correlation (R the land fund characteristics have the best correlations (r = = 0.46). The further inclusion of independent variables into 0.44 and r = -0.41 respectively) with the ratio of all land re- the calculations is not reasonable because of the correlation turned to its former owners. However, those factors are not between the independent variables. However, the analysis included into the calculations of multiple correlation coeffi- shows that the distance between municipalities and Tallinn cients because of their high intercorrelation (r = -.47) and be- (the capital) has a more significant impact on the general re- cause of their correlation with other land fund characteristics. sults of the land reform than simple correlation analysis sug- The correlation coefficients vary from r =|0.22| to r =|0.77|.

Table 4. Relative importance of independent variables and regression equation parameters in multiple correlation between the ratio of land returned to its former owners or their legal successors throughout the land reform and the data that describes land fund characteristics

Independent variables Beta Std. Err of Beta B Std. Err of B t p-level Intercept x x 12.264 3.3005 3.715 0.000285 Distance from Tallinn 0.2900 0.0706 0.053 0.0130 4.106 0.000066 The ratio of grassland 0.3171 0.0713 0.755 0.1699 4.446 0.000017 The ratio of arable land 0.2896 0.0703 0.281 0.0682 4.117 0.000063

The data of Table 4 shows that the inclusion of thr ee impact of the land fund characteristics on the land reform factors (the distance from Tallinn, the ratio of grassland results. The beta coefficients in Table 4 indicate that im- and the ratio of arable land) into the calculations of corre- pact of different factors, included into the calculation of lation coefficients provides a better overview of the impact multiple correlation coefficient, on the ratio of land re- of land fund characteristics on the restitution of land in turned to its former owners is similar. It is necessary to course of the land reform than it is in the case of the ratio note that the ratio of arable land and the ratio of grassland of wetland or the density of roads separately. The differ- is not well correlated (r = - 0.12). ence is not immense but the core of the problem is better The retention of land in state ownership has a medium described and interpreted if three factors are used instead correlation with the density of roads, see Table 1. The den- of the one mentioned above. The correlation coefficient in- sity of roads is well correlated with most of the land fund creases from the r = 0.44 to the R = 0.52 only. Another im- characteristics and, therefore, is not included into the mul- portant point is that both coefficients of the simple correla- tiple correlation analysis. The results are shown in Table 5. tion and the coefficients of multiple correlation indicate the

Table 5. Relative importance of independent variables and regression equation parameters in multiple correlation between the ratio of land retained in state ownership in course of the land reform and the data that describes land fund characteristics

Independent variables Beta Std. Err of Beta B Std. Err of B t p-level Intercept x x -11.551 4.7564 -2.428 0.016326 The ratio of wetlands 0.5514 0.0604 1.271 0.1393 9.125 0.000000 The ratio of forest land 0.4160 0.0604 0.582 0.0846 6.883 0.000000

The joint impact of the ratio of wetlands and the ratio of lands and ratio of forest land are not correlated (r = -0.05). forest land on the ratio of the land retained in st ate owner- The beta coefficient presented in Table 5 shows that impact ship is a little bigger than the impact of the density of roads. of the ratio of wetland and the ratio of forest land does not The correlation coefficient increases from r =-0.56 to the differ much. R = 0.67 if the multiple correlation is used. The ratio of wet-

68

149 Discussion relation to the county centre is also important. The com- pactness of mapped units of CORINE land types has only a It is impossible to start over the land reform in Esto- minor impact on the ratio of the privatized land (see Table nia. One can ask, therefore: why is it necessary to analyse 2). This impact on the ratio of the land retained in state the processes that cannot be repeated and the mistakes be ownership is insignificant. avoided? Asking questions about the land reform in such a The general outcome of the study is detection of the way is not particularly relevant. There are at least two is- impact of land fund characteristics on the land reform re- sues to remember: a) completion of the land reform does sults. This is valid, first of all, for the ratio o f the land re- not mean the end of dealing with land issues and b) the turned to former owners, for the ratio of the land retained conducted studies of the land reform processes helps better in state ownership and for the ratio of the privatized land as understanding of the evolution of the whole picture of land components of the land reform. 19 per cent of the variance issues in Estonia. Thus, the results of the accomplished of the ratio of the land returned to former owners in Esto- study have some practical value, too. Even though the land nian municipalities can be explained by the impact of at reform cannot be started again, the land fund characteris- least one land fund characteristic (r2 = 0.19). The explained tics still have the impact on all land related tasks. The re- variance increases to 25 per cent (r2 = 0.25) if more land sults of this study should be evaluated in the general con- fund characteristics are considered. text of the land administration. I. Williamson et al. (2010, 31 per cent of the variance of the ratio of the retained in p. 30) has mentioned that “…land administration is not state ownership land can be explained by the impact of at least land reform, but it is an important precondition to success- one of the land fund characteristics (r2 = 0.31) and for the ratio ful reforms.” However, as the land fund characteristics in- of the privatized land those figures are respectively 59 per fluence the land reform results, they will effect the land cent and r2 = 0.59. The explained variance of the ratio of the administration processes in the future. retained in state ownership land increases to 44 per cent The low to modest correlation between the land fund (r2 = 0.44) if more land fund characteristics are considered. characteristics and land reform results is in line with the There are regional differences in Estonia, even though, expectations. The land reform is a complicated process af- it is not a big country. Some results of this study have not fected by various factors, including social, economical, and been reported yet but there are some signs requiring more political ones. Besides, the study shows that the land proper investigation of these regional differences. Other reform comprises different activities (components) and it is important points for further studies are various aspects of necessary to analyse these components separately but not the land reform results. The share of the reformed land in only focus on general results of the land reform. municipalities and generally in Estonia cannot be the uni- The ratio of the land registered in cadastre has the best versal and the only measure of assessment of the land correlation with the land cover of semi-natural type (r = - reform results: the quality of the land reform results, is an 0.41) and with the ratio of grassland (r = -0.37). The land important issue, too. cover of semi-natural type has a significant negative im- pact on the privatization of land (r = -0.54). It reveals a low Conclusions or no interest in becoming an owner of this type of land. The statistically significant impact of land fund cha- The following conclusions can be made from the racteristics on the ratio of the land returned to former own- completed study: ers and on the ratio of the land retained in state ownership • The land fund characteristics have an impact on the is converse. If the land fund characteristics have the posi- results of the land reform in Estonian municipalities. 25 – tive impact (correlation) on the ratio of the land returned to 50 per cent of the variance in land reform results in Esto- former owners then the impact on the ratio of the l and re- nian municipalities can be explained by the impact of land tained in state ownership is negative. The mentioned above fund characteristics. differences can be explained by different drivers of the • The impact of land fund characteristics on various land reform processes for the private sector and for the land reform activities (components) is different and some- state. It is necessary to consider that large forest areas were times even reverse. The retention of land in state owner- in state ownership before land expropriation in 1940 and ship is more extensive in the areas with a higher ratio of the retention of the land in state ownership can be handled forests and wetlands while the privatization in those areas as a particular kind of restitution. is not active. The impact of land fund characteristics on the ratio of • Land reform as a process must be split into its com - the land transferred into the municipal ownership is not ponents if the results of the land reform are inves tigated. fairly clear. It should be mentioned that the ratio of the This helps better understanding of the processes and gives land transferred into the municipal ownership depends, to a better results. great extent, on the initiative of local governments. How- ever, the land transfer into the municipal ownership has References been more intensive in the areas with a higher ratio of land 1. BUZDALOV, I. 2009. Land Reform. A Look Through the Prism of In- under yards and under roads. These are mostly areas with a tentions. Problems of Economic Transition, vol. 51, no. 12, p. 42–57. high population density. 2. DEININGER, K.; BINSWAGNER, H. 1999. The Evolution of the The ratio of privatized land as a component of the land World Bank’s Land Policy: Principles, Experience and Future Chal- reform is most affected by different land fund characteris- lenges. The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 247–276. 3. EL-GHONEMY, M.R. 2003. Land reform development challenges of tics. The correlation coefficients show the interest of 1963-2003 continue into the twenty-first century. Land Reform, Land people to privatize arable land. The location of such land in Settlements and Cooperatives: FAO Bulletin, no. 2, p.32–43.

69

150 4. GREBER, L.; GIOVARELLI, R. 2005. Land reform and ma rkets in 9. SATURNINO, M.; BORRAS, JR. 2006. The Philippine Land Eastern Europe. Land Reform, Land Settlements and Cooperatives: Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodo- FAO Bulletin,, no 1, p. 64–77. logical Implications. Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 6, issue 1, p. 5. JÜRGENSON, E.; MAASIKAMÄE, S. 2009. Progress of land 69–101. reform in Estonian rural municipalities – results of preliminary study. 10. SAUER, S. 2009. Market-led ‘agrarian reform’ in Brazil: a dream has In Rural development 2009: the fourth international scientific confe- become a debt burden. Progress in Development Studies, vol. 9, no. rence: proceedings. Akademija, vol. 4, book 2, p 121–127. 2, p. 127–140. 6. Land Cover of Estonia. 1999. Implementation of CORINE Land 11. WILLIAMSON, I., et al. 2010. Land Administration for Sustainable Cover Project in Estonia. Tallinn. 132 p. Development. Redlands (California): ESRI Press Academic. 487 p. 7. Land Reform Act. [Last access 28 December 2009]. Available at: 12. Republic of Estonia Principles of Ownership Reform Act. [Last www.riigiteataja.ee. access 28 December 2009]. Available at: www.riigiteataja.ee. 8. LERMAN, Z. 2009. Land reform, farm structure, and agricultural 13. , . .; , . .; , . . 1967. performance in CIS countries. China Economic Review, vol. 20, p.     - 316–326.   . : . 287 .

Evelin Jürgenson, Helena Hass, Siim Maasikamäe

Žems fondo charakteristik taka žems reformos rezultatams kaimiškosiose savivaldybse Estijoje

Santrauka

Žems reformos darb sparta skirtingose savivaldybse Estijoje yra nevienoda. Kai kuriose savivaldybse beveik visame plote žems reforma atlik- ta, ir duomenys apie sklypus registruoti kadastre. Kitose savivaldybse žems reforma nebaigta, nors greita žems reformos pabaiga yra pagrindinis dau- gumos politik deklaruojamas tikslas. Estijoje nebuvo atlikti tyrimai, analizuojantys žems fondo charakteristik tak žems reformos rezultatams. Ši ssaja galt bti nevienod žems reformos rezultat skirtingose savivaldybse priežastis. Straipsnyje iškeliama hipotez, kad žems fondo charakteris- tikos turi tam tikr tak žems reformos rezultatams. Žems fondo charakteristikoms apibdinti buvo panaudotas skirtingo žems naudojimo plot san- tykis (pvz. ariamoji žem, miškai ir t. t.), CORINE žems dangos duomen bazs duomenys ir atstumai nuo savivaldybi iki Talino ir apskrii centr. Žems reformos rezultatams apibdinti panaudoti kadastre registruotos žems ploto procentiniai duomenys. Analizs rezultatai parod, kad egzistuoja mažas arba vidutinis ryšys (r=0,21 – 0,77) tarp žems reformos rezultat ir žems fondo charakteristik. Tai rodo, kad žems fondo charakteristikos daro tak iki 50 proc. žems reformos rezultat skirtumams Estijos savivaldybse. Žems reformos rezultatai, žems fondo charakteristikos, regresin analiz.

 ,  ,  

           



        .      -      ,           ,     -          .     ,    -        . ,    ,           .     ,           .          .             (,  ,   ..),        CORINE,   -       .         , -   .         (r=0,21 – 0,77)   -      .  ,       50%         .    ,           ( ,   ..) .   ,   ,  .

Gauta 2010 m. vasario mn., atiduota spaudai 2010 m. kovo mn.

Evelin JÜRGENSON. MSc, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences; acting advisor, Estonian Land Board. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. +372 7 313 123. E-mail: [email protected] Helena HASS. MSc, Department of Geomatics, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. + 372 7 313 720. E-mail: [email protected] Siim MAASIKAMÄE. PhD, head of the Department of Geomatics, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Es- tonia. Phon. + 372 7 313 120. E-mail: siim. [email protected]

70

151 IIII

PUBLICATIONS 152 Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S. 2011. Land Reform Imple- mentation in Estonia: Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics between Municipalities. In Rural Development 2011 (pp. 440-445). 153 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions

Land Reform Implementation in Estonia: Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics Between Municipalities

Evelin Jürgenson, Helena Hass, Siim Maasikamäe Estonian University of Life Sciences

Abstract

In order to better understand the factors affecting the implementation of land reform, a detailed analysis must be carried out. So far, relatively little substantive analysis has been conducted which would allow a better understanding of the complexity of the land reform process and also a better understanding of the factors affecting the speed of implementation of land reform. The aim of this study is to investigate why some municipalities are quicker than others in terms of implementing land reforms. The 30 quickest and 30 slowest municipalities have been chosen to determine whether there are characteristic differences. Three types of data have been used to analyse these differences: firstly, the geographical location of the municipalities; secondly, the groups of municipalities characterised by the land reform procedure data (land remaining under state ownership, privatised land, land returned to the former owners, average size of plot); and thirdly, the comparison of groups of municipalities defined as land stock characteristics (arable land, forest land, grassland, protected areas, land under the roads, water bodies, wetlands, yards and other type of land). The results of the research indicate that fast and slow municipalities are not distributed evenly throughout Estonia. The proportion of land that belongs to the state and which is privatised is higher in quicker municipalities, and the average sizes of plots have been bigger over the years in such municipalities. The results of land reforms have not only been affected by the activities of local governments, but also by state institutions and those who have been the driving forces behind the reforms. The main influencing factors on land reform resulting from land stock characteristics are arable land, natural grassland and protected areas (based on the percentage of the municipal area). Key words: land reform, the speed of implementation of land reform, Estonia

Introduction

Defining the concept of land reform in a universal way is somewhat complicated. The nature of land reform can be understood differently; it depends on the range of operations conducted. Some authors (Sikor et al. 2009, Adams 1995) have presented in their articles a concept of land reform which is carried out at various times and in various places. Therein, specific attention is paid to the “Eastern European style” of land reform implementation. These articles point out that post-totalitarian countries have engaged in their own style of land reform. In the former communist bloc, land reform has a mixture of objectives: economy efficiency and the need to move to a market economy; to raise revenue from private property; the restitution of rights to former owners that were expropriated by the state; and social justice for farm workers (Adams 1995). By its nature, the land reform process is a complex one involving political, economic, social and technical aspects. As such, it is possible to approach issues related to such reforms from different perspectives as well as to explore different aspects of the process itself. Several authors have dealt with issues related to the implementation of Estonian land reform. Some have focused on how land reform affects agriculture (Unwin, 1997; Meyers & Kauzlauskiene, 1998), while others have written on subjects related to forest land restitution and privatisation (Jörgensen & Stjernström, 2008) and land restitution in former Swedish settlement areas (Hedin, 2005). This study focuses on the issue of land reform implementation in Estonia, which mainly concerns the speed of implementation at the local government level. The aim of the study is to investigate why certain municipalities have been quicker than others in terms of such implementation. The study is based on two land reform-related studies previously conducted by the author (Jürgenson & Maasikamäe 2009, Jürgenson et al. 2010). The first article (Jürgenson & Maasikamäe 2009) establishes that variations in land reform results at the county level are not as great as at the local government level. Therefore, this study excludes the county level. The groups under investigation were formed on the basis of local government in order to highlight the differences between the groups in land reform implementation and land stock characteristics. The second article (Jürgenson et al. 2010) indicates that the correlation is low to medium when comparing land reform results with some land stock characteristics. This study examines whether there are statistical differences in terms of land stock characteristics in fast and slow municipality groups and which land stock characteristics indicate these differences. In the early 1990s the decision to restructure the former socialist economic system and move towards a market- based economy was taken in Estonia. This led to property and land reform, resulting in a plurality of forms of ownership and owners. The purpose of land reform is to provide an owner for each plot. The manner chosen by Estonia for carrying out land reform was not one that was easy to accomplish: on the one hand, the rights of former owners (from a time prior to the assets being nationalised) were taken into account, but on the other the rights of new owners (who had buildings on the land constructed during the Soviet era) also needed to be legalised. This led to a situation where the interests of old and new owners were in conflict. In 1991, when the Republic of Estonia Land Reform Act and Principles of Ownership Reform Act were adopted, it was not expected that the implementation of property and land reforms would prove as complex or take as long. The implementation of land reform is influenced by several factors. Legislation provides the legal basis, while parties implementing it (the organisational role) are also needed to achieve the desired result. This study does not take into

440

154 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions account the above-mentioned aspects. The main focus is on how extensive the impact of the geographical location of local governments and land stock characteristics connected with regions have been on the implementation of land reform. An important factor in implementing such reform is speed, since it influences how rapidly new landowners can begin using their property and creates a basis for a functioning land market and other economic-based market relations. The speed of land reform implementation in Estonia has been criticised since its inception (Veetõusme 1995, Hänni 1995, National Audit Office of Estonia 2008). Speed remains a key indicator of the implementation of land reform, as a result of which the emphasis in this research is on the indicator which shows the proportion of reformed land in a local government area, expressed as a percentage of land reform. Land reform is carried out by the Government of the Republic via the Land Board and local governments on the basis of the Land Reform Act and pursuant to the procedure established by the Government of the Republic. The majority of preliminary operations for land reform implementation have been delegated to local governments, which can therefore be regarded as substantial players in carrying out land reform. In order to understand the factors affecting the speed of land reform implementation, a detailed analysis must be conducted at this level. The 30 quickest and 30 slowest municipalities in terms of their speed of implementation of land reform (hereafter called ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ municipalities respectively) were selected to determine whether there are characteristic differences between the groups. The municipalities were classified on the basis of their speed of implementation, which refers to the ratio of land registered in the cadastre and the area of the local government, or in other words the percentage of land reform (data as of 31.12.2009). In Estonia there are a total of 226 municipalities. 149 sets of municipal data were used to identify the fast and slow municipalities. Some were excluded: densely populated areas like cities; rural municipalities which contain both scattered populations and urban areas; municipalities where there have been changes to the municipal area or the administrative boundary; and municipalities where land reform implementation could have been influenced by characteristics specific to certain regions (e.g. municipalities influenced by the proximity of the capital, small islands, small towns/boroughs and regions which are different from a cultural perspective). This study compares the geographical location, results of land reform activities and land stock characteristics of the groups of fast and slow municipalities. The aim of investigating geographical location is to determine whether the outcome of land reform depends on the location of the municipality. To illustrate the location of the fast and slow municipalities, a map has been prepared (Figure 1). The activities of land reform have been compared to identify the differences between the outcome of land reform sub-activities (remaining land under the state ownership, returning land to former owners and land privatisation). The purpose of investigating land stock characteristics is to look at those which have influenced the speed of land reform. Both land reform and land stock characteristics were analysed using the Microsoft Excel data analysis tool T-test (two-sample unequal variance). The data on land reform and land stock characteristics used in the study was obtained from the Estonian Land Board; the data on protected areas is from the information page of the Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS); the data on the density of roads is from the Estonian Road Administration (ERA) National Road Databank; and the data on the distances of municipalities from Tallinn (the capital) and country centres is from the database of the Estonian Statistical Board.

Results of research

The area of the Republic of Estonia is 45,227 km2. It is rather a small country, so you might expect that the results of carrying out land reform to be similar. In reality, however, they differ by municipality. Figure 1 visualises the geographical locations of the fast and slow municipalities, which are not evenly distributed throughout the country: rather, they appear to be located in cluster-like formations. Slow municipalities are mostly situated in Western Estonia and on the island of Saaremaa, with some between Ida-Viru County, Lake Peipus and the Baltic Sea in Eastern Estonia. There are no fast municipalities in Western Estonia – these are more dominant in Central and South-Eastern Estonia, although there are slow municipalities here, too. In addition to the analysis of the geographical location of the municipalities, the T-test results (Table 1) indicate that predominantly fast municipalities are closer to county centres (an average of 22.11 km) compared to slow municipalities (an average of 29.62 km). At the same time, fast municipalities are further from the capital (an average of 172.48 km) than slow municipalities (an average of 142.72 km). At this point, it is also important to mention that the differences in the probability of the latter parameter are slightly below 95% (p = 0.058). The following outcomes of analysis relate to differences in land reform implementation activities between fast and slow municipalities (Table 1). The percentage of land reform varies between these municipalities over the years. As at 31 December 1999, 70.26% of land had been reformed in fast municipalities and just 39.80% in slow municipalities; as at 31 December 2004, the same indicators were 92.20% and 69.18% respectively; and as at 31 December 2009, 96.15% and 78.42%. At the end of 1999 the proportion of land remaining under state ownership of the total area of municipalities was higher in fast municipalities (an average of 30.94%) than slow municipalities (just 16.41%). Five years later, these figures were 33.61% and 19.88% respectively; and five years later again, by the end of 2009, the same indicators had risen to 35.15% and 23.58%.

441

155 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions

Analysis indicates that the proportion of privatised land in the municipal total in fast municipalities has been higher over the years. If we look at the average percentage therein, as at 31 December 1999 the indicator was 10.16%, compared to 5.44% in slow municipalities. By the end of 2004 these indicators were 15.97% and 10.28% respectively, rising to 17.10% and 11.75% by the end of 2009. Looking at the proportion of land returned to former owners in the groups of fast and slow municipalities, significant differences only emerge in 1999, when the amount of such restituted land was 27.74% in fast municipalities and 15.94% in slow municipalities. In subsequent years the differences between the groups were not as evident. The average area of a plot has been greater in fast municipalities over the years. For example, at the end of 2004 the average area of a plot in these municipalities was 12.9 ha, compared to 9.75 ha in slow municipalities. By the end of 2009 the same indicators were 11.25 ha and 8.58 ha respectively.

Figure 1. Location of fast and slow municipalities

The following outcomes of analysis relate to land stock characteristics in fast and slow municipalities. The proportion of arable land in local government areas is higher in fast municipalities (29.09%) than slow municipalities (22.54%). The proportion of natural grasslands is lower in fast municipalities (7.83%) than slow municipalities (12.07 %). The amount of protected areas is higher in slow municipalities (18.67%) than fast municipalities (12.37%). Additionally, a comparison was carried out in order assess differences in the proportions of forest land, yards, land under roads, water areas, wetlands and other types of land, but no statistical differences were found in regard to these indicators. It can be seen from these results that the geographical location of municipalities has influenced the implementation of land reform. For example, municipalities located in Central and South-Eastern Estonia have carried out land reform faster than other parts of the country. Western Estonia seems to be slow in carrying out these reforms. It is also important to turn attention to special features: for example, Tartu County has both 4 fast and 4 slow municipalities. The fast municipalities are closer to the county centre than the slow municipalities, but at the same time the fast municipalities are further from the capital. The fast municipalities had reformed 70% of land by 2000, while the indicator for slow municipalities was app. 40%. The difference between these percentages had diminished by 2010, but still existed. It can be seen that fast municipalities launched land reform activities earlier than slow municipalities. To gain a clearer picture of land reform implementation, it is also important to compare the outcomes of land reform activities (returning land to former owners, retaining land in state ownership and land privatisation). At the end of 2009, an average of 30.94% of the total land areas of fast municipalities and 23.58% of slow municipalities remained under state ownership, from which we can conclude that the land retained in fast municipalities becomes greater than in slow municipalities during the land reform process. The actions of state institutions in retaining land have been one of the factors affecting the speed at which land reform has been carried out. It is primarily state institutions that are involved in retaining land in state ownership; the input of local governments here is relatively small compared to other land reform procedures (such as restitution and privatisation) conducted at this level.

442

156 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions

By 2000, fast municipalities were showing more progress in land privatisation than slow municipalities. In fact, 10% of the land area of fast municipalities had been privatised by 2000, while slow municipalities only reached this level five years later, by the end of 2004. Based on the results it can be seen that there has been more interest in land privatisation in fast municipalities and that the subjects of privatisation have been one of the driving forces behind the speed at which land reform has been carried out. By the end of 1999 fast municipalities had returned a greater amount of land to former owners compared to slow municipalities, giving them the lead in driving the land reform process. Slow municipalities had caught up by 2005, when the differences between the groups were no longer significant. In the intervening years (2000-2005) fast municipalities had the opportunity to devote more time to the implementation of other land reform acts, such as privatisation. Based on data analysis it can be seen that privatisation, returning land to former owners (restitution) and retaining land in state ownership have been conducted in fast municipalities to a greater extent (the proportion of the area has been larger) than in slow municipalities. However, significant differences in returning land to former owners could only be seen in 1999. According to the results it can be concluded that the proportion of land which is privatised and retained under state ownership becomes greater in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities during the land reform process. Therefore, state institutions and the subjects of privatisation have also been one of the driving forces behind the implementation of land reform.

Table 1. Outcomes of T-test (comparison of groups of fast and slow municipalities)

The reformed land area of plots is greater in fast municipalities over the years. This indicates that implementation has been faster in municipalities where the reformed land area of plots is greater. In addition, it can be seen that the average size of a plot and the amount of land remaining under state ownership also correlate. Former state forests are retained by the state, which mostly involves large areas of land units. This study highlights the fact that where there is a greater amount of land retained in state ownership, the area of cadastral units is also larger.

443

157 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions

A previous study (Jürgenson et al. 2010) found a strong correlation (r = 0.77) between the ratio of arable land and the ratio of privatised land. This study also indicates that the proportion of both privatized and arable land is higher in fast municipalities, but at the same time that the proportion of natural grasslands in local government areas is lower in fast municipalities than it is in slow municipalities. The productivity of natural grassland is not comparable to arable land, which is why there is less interest in the acquisition of such land. Therefore, the slower progress of land reform here can be explained by the lack of motivated people interested in acquiring the land. A previous study (Jürgenson et al. 2010) revealed a negative correlation (r = -0.37) between the ratio of grassland and the ratio of land registered in the cadastre, which shows that the subjects of land acquisition were not interested in becoming owners of this type of land. The proportion of natural grassland is higher in slow municipalities, so this study confirms these findings. The greater amount of protected areas in slow municipalities indicates that there are areas in which no one is interested in becoming an owner or that the areas are not intended to be privatised or returned to their former owners. At the same time, the state government itself has been unable to carry out land reform regarding these areas. A previous study (Jürgenson et al. 2010) indicates a low correlation (0.33) between the ratio of protected areas and the ratio of land remaining under state ownership, which shows that wherever there are protected areas, a greater amount of land has been retained by the state. It can be concluded that there are restrictions on converting protected areas to private ownership, and therefore that the land will gradually be retained in state ownership. A comparison was carried out in order to assess the differences in the proportion of forest land, yards, land under roads, water areas, wetlands and other types of land in fast and slow municipalities, but no statistical differences were found. It can therefore be said that these indicators are similar in fast and slow municipalities. In order to better understand the factors affecting the implementation of land reform, a detailed analysis must be carried out in further studies. The findings of this study highlight several aspects which deserve further investigation (the impact a region could have on land reform implementation; the reasons for the proportion of privatised land being greater in fast municipalities; et al.). Also, other factors affecting the implementation of land reform which did not fall within the scope of this study should be investigated.

Conclusion

Land reform represents a rapid and radical change of ownership and land use. As such, it is a complex process embracing various aspects – political, social, economic and technical. Moreover, Estonia chose to carry out land reform in a way that made the situation even more complicated, trying to solve all of the related matters at once: privatising land, retaining land under state ownership, returning land to former owners, municipalising land and compensating land. Implementing land reform in this way has led to many conflict situations, which is why the process has become so complex. As early as 1995, former Minister of Property Reform Liia Hänni made this very point, as did Tiit Ulas in 2010. Local governments have assumed a great deal of responsibility in carrying out land reform. As a result, it has depended in many ways (but not entirely, since legal regulations are also external) on the activities of local governments. It could be said that local governments have been key figures in the implementation of land reform, which gives rise to a need to analyse their activities in a more detailed way. As mentioned previously, land reform embraces various aspects (returning land to former owners, retaining land in state ownership, land privatisation and land municipalisation), which provides local governments with different sets of responsibilities. For example, returning land to former owners and land privatisation are much more involved tasks than retaining land in state ownership. Therefore, the diversity of these procedures must be taken into account when analysing the activities of local governments. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study: - Over the years the proportion of land retained under state ownership in local government areas has been higher in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities. Local governments play a smaller part and also have fewer commitments in terms of procedures related to retaining land in state ownership compared to other procedures (returning land to former owners and land privatisation). Generally, a state institution or enterprise is responsible for retaining land in state ownership (for example, the State Forest Management Centre deals with the formalisation of forest land). Therefore, state institutions themselves have been one of the driving forces behind the speed at which land reform is carried out. - The proportion of privatised land has been greater in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities. The reason here may be that the proportion of arable land has been higher and the proportion of natural grasslands has been lower in fast municipalities. The availability of productive land units has generated greater interest among entitled subjects of privatisation, and they have also influenced the activities of municipalities. The greater amount of protected areas in slow municipalities indicates that the existence of protected areas has led to slower progress in land reform. - The proportion of forest lands, land under roads, water areas, wetlands, yards and other types of land does not differ between fast and slow municipalities. It can be seen that these land stock characteristics are similar in the different municipality groups. - Over the years the average areas of plots registered in the land cadastre have been greater in fast municipalities than in slow municipalities. Although the difference between the average areas of plots has decreased over the years, it

444

158 Rural Development 2011 Rural Application of Advanced Geomatical Solutions remains higher in fast municipalities. It takes less time to reform larger land units because the process of documentation must be carried out for each unit separately, whatever its size. However, the contribution of land units with smaller areas to a reduction in unreformed land has been lower.

References

1. Adams, M. (1995). Land reform: New seed on old ground? ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 6. Available at http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/ download/2163.pdf 2. Hedin, S. (2005). Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas in Estonia consequences for land ownership, land use and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, pp. 35-44. 3. Hänni L. (1995). Omandireformi arengust. Konverentsi “Omandireform Eestis: hetkeolukord ja tulevikuperspektiivid” materjalid. Tartu Arenduskeskus, pp 8-15. 4. Jörgensen, H., Stjernström, O. (2008). Emotional links to forest ownership. Restitution of land and use of productive resource in Põlva County, Estoania. FENNIA International Journal of Geography 2, pp. 95 – 111. 5. Jürgenson E., Maasikamäe S. (2009). Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities – Results of Preliminary Study. Rural Development 2009, pp.121-127. 6. Jürgenson E., Hass H., Maasikamäe S. (2010). The Impact of Land Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Municipalities. Vagos 86 (39), pp. 65-70. 7. Meyers, W. H., Kauzlauskiene, N. (1998). Land reform in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: a comparative analysis. Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, pp 87-110. 8. National Audit Office of Estonia. (2008). Government activities relating to unreformed land. Is the end of the land reform near? Available at http:// www.riigikontroll.ee/DesktopModules/DigiDetail/FileDownloader.aspx?FileId=11008&AuditId=2042 9. Sikor, T., Müller, D. (2009). The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction. World Development 37, pp. 1307-1316. 10. Ulas T. (2010). Eraomandisse tagasi 1991-2009: erastamise ikka veel lõpetamata lugu – eritlusi, meenutusi, hinnanguid. Tallinn: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda. 166 lk. 11. Unwin, T. (1997) Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia. Journal of Rural Studies 1, pp. 93-112. 12. Veetõusme, H. (1995). Eesti omandireformi kolm aastat. Konverentsi “Omandireform Eestis: hetkeolukord ja tulevikuperspektiivid” materjalid. Tartu Arenduskeskus, pp 7.

Evelin JÜRGENSON, MSc, lecturer of land administration, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences; acting advisor, Estonian Land Board. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. +372 7 313 118. E-mail [email protected]. Research interests: land administration, land reform and land acquisition for the public needs. Helena HASS, MSc, assistant of land administration, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. +372 7 313 118. E-mail [email protected]. Research interests: land management and land use planning. Siim MAASIKAMÄE, PhD, head of the Department of Geomatics, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Address: Kreutzwaldi street 5 Tartu 51014 Estonia. Phon. + 372 7 313 120. E-mail [email protected]. Research interests: land management (land fragmentation and land consolidation particularly) and the land use planning.

445

159 IIV

PUBLICATIONS 160 Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E. 2014. The Typology of Property For- mation in Course of Land Reform in Estonia. In Research for Rural Development 2014 (Vol. 2, pp. 283-288). Jelgava: Latvia University of Agriculture. 161 ECONOMICS

THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA

Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson Estonian University of Life Sciences [email protected]

Abstract The implementation of land reform has influenced the formation of property structure. The main procedures of land reform activities are stated in Estonian legislation. However, the provisions for determining the area and the boundaries for properties to be formed in the course of land reform are stated in legal acts in an unsystematic way. The aim of this study is to systematize the parcel area and the boundaries determination procedures that are used in the course of land reform for property formation. The examination of the relationships among different property formation procedures are part of this study. The methodology of the study was a systematic analysis of the property formation procedures provided by the Estonian Land Reform Act. The results of the study show that property formation during the course of land reform can be easy and simple in some cases. In other cases, property formation may be complicated. The determination of the area and boundaries of parcels to be formed is often an issue of discretion in such cases. The results of the study support the basis for better understanding land reform outcomes. It gives some explanation of the land fragmentation that is one of the outcomes of land reform. The results of the study also serve as a basis for future studies of land reform issues. Key words: typology, land reform, property formation.

Introduction persons in public law …’ (in further text - Different aspects have been topics of the research on privatization); land reform. The impact of land reform on agriculture − transfer of land ‘… into the ownership of has been a topic for several researchers (Unwin, 1997; … local governments … ‘ (in further text – Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998). Hartvigsen (2014) municipalisation); and van Dijk (2003), for example, investigated land − retention of land ‘… in state ownership is fragmentation as a result of land reform. Jürgenson et determined’ (in further text - retention of land al. (2009, 2010 and 2011) investigated the speed of the in state ownership). implementation of land reform in Estonia. However, Compensation for unlawfully expropriated land is it is difficult to find literature on the procedures of also a part of land reform procedures, but it does not property formation in the course of land reform. create a new property. According to our knowledge, there are no studies in Different approaches are available for the study Estonia on that topic. of land reform related property formation problems, The determination of both area and boundary and the analyses of property formation typology locations are the key issues in all kinds of land is one of them. As a rule, ‘typology is the result of property formation. The location of boundaries a grouping process (Kluge, 2000). The purpose of in turn will determine several land use conditions typology construction varies widely, and some of the of parcels for the future. In the text that follows following examples illustrate that. Farm typology has property formation as a concept means both the been constructed for reporting and research purposes determination of the area for new properties (Hoppe and MacDonald, 2013). Rourke et al. (2012) that were established over the course of land worked to find if farm typologies are important for a reform and the determination of the boundaries of more targeted approach to agri-environment and rural such parcels. development policies. The use of typology is widely The content of land reform is stated in article 3 implemented in architecture and in linguistics. of the Land Reform Act (Available at http://www. The specific feature of property formation in the legaltext.ee/et/andmebaas/document.asp?ptyyp=R land reform process is the fact that the formation of T&q2=maareformi&order=TA&tyyp=X&query=& one property is often related to an existing property display=1&nupp=Otsi%21). According to this act, or to a property to be created later. For this reason the following basic property formation activities are the focus of this study is on the investigation of prescribed: property formation types and on the construction of − return of land ‘… to its former owners or typologies. The different options for main land reform their legal successors …’ (in further text - activities (first level types of land reform procedures) restitution); are divided into more detailed options (second and − transfer of land ‘… for or without charge into third level subtypes of land reform procedures). All the ownership of persons in private law, legal those options are settled in legislation. However,

RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 283 162 THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA legislation (e.g. the Land Reform Act) does not give The methodology of this research is not only the systematic typology with the subtypes of the land focusing on the setting up of the property formation reform procedures. The main feature of the legal acts types and the description of them. The interdependency from the point of view of the typology is the fact that among the different property formation types is also many statements that characterize particular land analyzed. The reason for doing that arises from the fact reform activity are stated in different articles of the that in the course of land reform there often was (and legal act. is) competition between different persons to acquire The aim of the paper is to map the main possible the same area of land. The cross table is created to situations of properties formation in the course of show the mentioned conflicting interests. land reform and to find out interdependencies among those situations. The key variables of the study are Results and Discussion the determination of property area and boundaries. It In this part of the paper, first an overview about should be mentioned that there are some differences subtypes of the property formation procedures has of land reform procedures for urbanized (densely been given. The main land reform activities have been populated) and rural (sparsely populated) areas. The divided into subtypes and the basic determinants of study focuses on land reform activities in rural areas. property formation have been presented in tables 1 to Economic, social and other technical aspects of land 4. Secondly, the interdependency of different property reform are beyond the scope of this study. formation procedures has been provided. Finally, the general results of the study have been discussed. Materials and Methods The Table 1 gives an overview about the subtypes The methodology of the study is built upon the of property formation in the case of land restitution. systematic analysis of four basic types of property Full restitution means that it is possible to restitute all formation that occurred during the land reform. land that was unlawfully expropriated. Other persons Those basic property formation procedures have been (including state and local governments) do not have mentioned above. The main data source for this study any rights to apply for that land. This is a simple case is the Land Reform Act, which gave basic provisions of property formation because area and location of for property formation in the course of land reform. boundaries are unequivocally determined. However, The Land Reform Act was amended 49 times, and in in the case of two or more entitled subjects, the land this study the last version (valid on 1.03.2014) of the to be restituted can be split into separated properties if act has been used. the entitled subjects do not want to have co-ownership The general typology of property formation of the land. In such a case, the boundary of the division activities follow directly from the Land Reform Act of the former property is the result of negotiations and it can be easily established. However, the Land among entitled subjects of restitution. Reform Act does not list all the possible combinations Partial restitution can also be made (see of property formation that can occur during the land Table 1). This is the second subtype of restitution. reform. In this study the basic options (types) of The reasons for partial restitution can be different. It property formation were split into subtypes according is a simple case if there are no other persons interested to the conditions for defining the property areas and in ownership of the same land plot. In other cases a boundaries. The conditions for area and boundary contradicting interest arises and property formation determination are the key variables for the creation of procedures are more complicated. The basic reasons property formation subtypes. for partial restitution are the right of building

Table 1 Subtypes of property formation in case of land restitution

Second level Parameters of property formation subtypes Third level subtypes of of property property formation Determination of parcel area Determination of parcel boundaries formation Full restitution One entitled subject Area of expropriated land Boundaries of expropriated land Many entitled subjects Area of expropriated land and Boundaries of expropriated land the share of entitled subject for and agreement among entitled restitution subjects Partial One entitled subject Area of expropriated land and the Available for restitution land Restitution Many entitled subjects right of other persons to apply for in limits of expropriated land land boundaries

284 RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 163 THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson

Table 2 Subtypes of property formation in the case of land privatization

Second level Parameters of property formation subtypes Third level subtypes of property Determination of parcel of property formation Determination of parcel area boundaries formation Privatization Privatization of land to buildings Upper limit of area set by Boundaries of vacant land by right of pre- in sparsely populated areas if law and the extent of former and the former registered emption there is vacant land registered immovable immovable. Privatization of land to buildings Upper limit of area for Boundaries of vacant land in sparsely populated areas privatization set by law, the and the former registered if there is an application for availability of vacant land and immovable restitution of land the extent of former registered immovable Privatization of land to buildings Upper limit of area for Boundaries of vacant land in sparsely populated areas if privatization set by law, the there are many applications to availability of vacant land privatize the same land Privatization of land to structure The land under a structure Location and purpose of the if there is no building site and the smallest necessary structure. and sufficient amount of land Location of boundaries surrounding the structure, decided by the local which is necessary to ensure the government purposeful and safe use of the structure Privatization of Privatization of land on closed Availability of vacant land and The existence of vacant land. land on auction auction limits set by law Location of boundaries Privatization of land on open Availability of vacant land decided by the local auction government Privatization of free arable land Availability of vacant agricultural land Privatization of free forest land Availability of vacant forest land owners to privatize land for building, the right of the can be closed or open. The main precondition for municipality to apply land into municipal ownership formation of properties for privatization via auctions in some cases and the interest of the state to retain land is the availability of vacant land. It is valid for all in state ownership. In some cases it is not possible to subtypes of the privatization of land on auction. restitute the land because it is under road, airport, or However, the parcels prepared for privatization other construction. must meet some criteria set by the law. For example, The privatization of land is the most diverse group the parcel for privatization as free arable land must of tasks among the land reform activities. Table 2 consist of mainly arable land. The inclusion of other gives an overview of the main subtypes of property land types into such parcels is very limited. formation procedures related to the land privatization. The subtypes of property formation for Privatization of land by right of pre-emption is not a municipalization are presented in Table 3. The complicated task if there is vacant land. The legislation distinction among different possibilities for land (the Land Reform Act, first of all) provides quite clear municipalization has been made on the second provisions for property formation in such cases. The level only. The possibilities for property formation situation becomes more complicated if there is no are quite clearly provided in law. The formation of vacant land or the area of vacant land is insufficient. land properties for buildings that belong to the local It can happen, for example, that the owner of the government is settled clearly in law and there is no building applies for the privatization of land by right need for discretion, for example. Somewhat unclear is of pre-emption to the building, and the entitled subject the formation of properties in the case of agricultural of restitution wants to get back the land. Such cases land, necessary for the performance of the duties of an lead to partial restitution, which was discussed earlier. agency administered by a local government. The second subtype for land privatization in the The main subtypes of property formation for the course of land reform is through auction. The auctions retention of land for state ownership are presented in

RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 285 164 THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA

Table 3 Subtypes of property formation in case of land municipalization

Second level subtypes of property Parameters of property formation formation Determination of parcel area Determination of parcel boundaries Parcels of land for buildings and The area is determined by the needs for Location and the purpose of the structures in municipal ownership serving the buildings and structures building or the structure. Parcels of land under water bodies in The actual extent of the body of or the Location of the body of water or municipal ownership and public land location of public land or the planned the location of public land or the area of public land planned area of public land Parcels of agricultural land necessary Not settled clearly in law Not settled clearly in law for the performance of the duties of an agency administered by a local government Parcels of land which were in the The area of former ownership by a The boundaries of former ownership of a local government on 16 local government or the area of former ownership by a local government or June 1940 or common land which was in ownership by a village community the boundaries of former ownership the ownership of a village community on by a village community 16 June 1940 Parcels of land which are necessary for The area is determined by needs of The boundaries are determined in the performance of the functions and local government to perform particular compliance with planning and land development of the local government functions readjustment requirements

Table 4. The area and boundaries of state forest land Some protected land (an area that is not so strongly on 16 June 1940 are the main determinants of property protected) can be restituted or privatized, for example. formation for state forest land parcels. The property It depends on the will and interests of persons who formation of those parcels is clear and unequivocal. will become the owners of the area under protection. The property formation of parcels for land under The formation of properties for serving state-owned state protection and land adjacent to objects under buildings and structures or the formation of properties state protection are not always unequivocally defined. with other land necessary for the performance of state

Table 4 Subtypes of property formation in case of retention land in state ownership

Parameters of property formation Second level subtypes of property Determination of parcel formation Determination of parcel area boundaries Parcels of state forest land The area of a former state forest Former boundaries of state forest and the boundaries of parcels for privatization of land to buildings Parcels of land under state protection The area of land under protection or needed to The boundaries are determined and land adjacent to objects under serve the object under protection by the needs of the state and state protection decided by state authorities Land for parcels of state-owned The area is determined by the needs for serving buildings, structures and other the buildings and structures or by the needs for enterprises. ensuring the functioning of the state-owned enterprises or agencies Parcels of public land, national The area is determined by the needs of national defense land and other land that is defense and the needs of the state to fulfill needed for the state certain duties Parcel of land on which a usufruct is The area of vacant land for creation of parcels established Parcel of land for constitution The area that is needed for serving the building superficies State land reserve The area of vacant land (no claim for restitution, The boundaries are determined privatization, municipalization and retention in with already established state ownership for definite purpose parcels

286 RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 165 THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson

Table 5 Examples of interdependencies of property formation procedures

Property formation procedure Possible constraints of property formation Property formation for land restitution Right of other entitled subjects for restitution of a share of the same land to be restituted The right of a house owner to privatize land to the building The presence of protected land that can not be restituted The need of the state to retain land in state ownership The right of local governments to municipalize land Property formation for land privatization Right of entitled subjects for restitution of the same land Right of other persons to privatize the same land The needs of the state to retain the land in state ownership The needs of local governments to municipalize land Property formation for land Right of subjects for land restitution municipalization The right of a house owner to privatize land to the building. The needs of state to retain the land in state ownership Property formation for retention of land Right of subjects for land restitution in state ownership The right of a house owner to privatize land to the building. The right of local governments to municipalize land duties is decided by state authorities. The state has the case of available vacant land. However, the vacant a prior right in such cases. The state does not have land is not always available and property formation is in all cases the prior right to decide the extent of the a complicated process of negotiations and discretions. area and the location of boundaries of the land to be In this study we also found that all property retained in state ownership. This is the case with state formation activities can be divided into two types land reserves, for example. depending on the rate of complexity of the particular Some examples of interdependency among case. The first type of case can be called easy different property formation procedures are presented (indubious) determination of boundaries of new in Table 5. The table shows the possible constraints parcels. Those cases can also be called simple cases. of property formation by the main land reform No conflict of interest and disputes about the location procedures. Some of those interdependencies were of boundaries among different persons exist. The discussed above, for example, the problems of second type of property boundaries determination is boundary determination in the case of restitution of difficult cases. They can be also called complicated a former property to more than one owner. The prior cases. The conflict of interest by different persons who right to municipalize the land or to retain the land in want to own the same particular area of land is the state ownership in the case of claims for the return of main feature of difficult cases. The negotiations and land or privatization with the right of pre-emption can consideration of different circumstances should be be implemented only in certain cases. placed in the difficult cases and the decisions based The examples in Table 5 do not cover all of the on discretion. possible combinations of interdependencies among The holistic analysis of property formation property formation activities. They just illustrate the typology shows that procedures provided in the complicated nature of property formation procedures Land Reform Act in many cases lead to the land over the course of land reform. fragmentation. There are several provisions in law It follows from the study that four basic land for the division of a particular plot of land among reform procedures (restitution, privatization, several interested parties. For example, it can be the municipalization and retention of land in state case if there is more than one person applying for ownership) can combine in reality in very different land restitution or in the case of an application for ways. Very often the formation of properties is not the privatization of a plot of land with an application possible to do one by one. The main reason for that for restitution. The knowledge of the typology of are the rights of different people to apply for the same property formation procedures will support a better pieces of land. There can be, for example, applications understanding of the results of land reform. by more than one person for restitution and more than The results of the current study can also serve as a one person can have the right to privatize the same basis for comparative studies in future. It will be easier plot by right of pre-emption. The problem can be to compare land reform outcomes, for example, in the solved in a way that interested parties are satisfied in Baltic States, if the typology of property formation is

RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 287 166 THE TYPOLOGY OF PROPERTY FORMATION IN Siim Maasikamäe, Evelin Jürgenson COURSE OF LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA clearly stated and presented in a systematized format. typical feature of simple cases is the absence of Even though the typology of Estonian land reform conflicting interest among different parties. In procedures does not match to similar procedures in complicated cases the location of boundaries and other countries, some unclear things become clearer if the extent of an area of properties to be formed are the typology is known. the issues of negotiation among interested parties The current study was a purely qualitative one. and discretion. However, the study laid the foundation for more 2. The boundaries of properties unlawfully profound investigations of the topic in the future. expropriated in 1940 and the boundaries of The results of this study can be treated as a first step building sites from the Soviet period are the basic for working out an elaborated typology of property determinants of boundary location and the extent formation over the course of land reform. The current of an area for property formation in simple cases. study is also the basis for different quantitative studies There is no place for discretion in those cases. in future. 3. The provisions of the Estonian Land Reform Act can often lead to the division of a particular Conclusions land area among different interested parties. The To sum up the results of the study the following division of land in such cases in turn led to land conclusions can be made: fragmentation. 1. There are simple and complicated cases of property 4. The knowledge about the typology of property formation during the course of land reform. In formation procedures will support the better simple cases the boundaries of properties to understanding of land reform results and can be be formed are determined unequivocally. The implemented as a basis of further studies.

References 1. Hartvigsen M. (2014) Land reform and land fragmentation in Central and Eastern Europe. Land Use Policy, 36, pp. 330 – 341. 2. Jürgenson E., Maasikamäe S. (2009) Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities - Results of Preliminary Study. In: Rural Development 2009: The Fourth International Scientific Conference Proceedings. Volume 4, Book 2, Kaunas, pp. 121 – 127. 3. Jürgenson E., Hass H., Maasikamäe S. (2010) The Impact of Land Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Municipalities. Vagos, 86 (39), pp. 65 – 70. 4. Jürgenson E., Hass H., Maasikamäe S. (2011) Land Reform Implementation in Estonia: Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics Between Municipalities. In: Rural Development 2011. The Fifth International Scientific Conference Proceedings. Volume 5, Book 2, Kaunas, pp. 440 – 445. 5. Kluge S. (2000) Empirically Grounded Construction of Types and Typologies in Qualitative Social Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 1, No 1 (ISSN 1438-5627). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1124/2500, 25 February 2014. 6. Land Reform Act (1991) Unoficcial translation. Available at: http://www.legaltext.ee/et/andmebaas/ document.asp?ptyyp=RT&q2=maareformi&order=TA&tyyp=X&query=&display=1&nupp=Otsi%21, 1 March 2014. 7. Meyers W.H., Kauzlauskiene N. (1998) Land reform in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: a comparative analysis. Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, pp. 87 – 110. 8. Hoppe R.A., MacDonald J.M. (2013) Updating the ERS Farm Typology, EIB-110, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2013. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib110.aspx#.UxIRnM4nYto, 20 February 2014. 9. Rourke E.O., Kramm N., Chisholm N. (2012) The influence of farming styles on the management of the Iveragh uplands, southwest Ireland. Land Use Policy, 29 (4), pp. 805 – 816. 10. Unwin T. (1997) Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia. Journal of Rural Studies 1, pp. 93 – 112. 11. van Dijk T. (2003) Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy. 20 (2), pp. 149 – 158.

288 RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014, VOLUME 2 167 IV

PUBLICATIONS 168 Jürgenson, E. 2016. Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land consolidation in Estonia. Land Use Policy 57, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.030. 169 Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land consolidation in Estonia

Evelin Jürgenson ∗

Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Department of Geomatics, Kreutzwaldi 5, Tartu 51014, Estonia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Land fragmentation has been shown to limit agricultural production and more broadly rural develop- Received 4 May 2015 ment in many countries across the world. In the Central and Eastern European countries that gained Received in revised form 31 March 2016 independence during the early 1990s, land fragmentation has often occurred as a side-effect of land Accepted 25 April 2016 reforms aimed at restoring land ownership to the pre-WWII situation. This article provides an overview Available online 31 May 2016 of the Estonian approach to land reform, an analysis of how this has led to more fragmented land tenure compared to 1940 and a discussion of the prospects for land consolidation in Estonia. The analysis was Keywords: based on archival records, legal acts, and a comparison of two study areas using a GIS. In both study areas, Land reform Land fragmentation post-1990 land reform had led to: (i) an increase in the number of land plots; (ii) a reduction in the aver- Land consolidation age area of land plots. Most Western European and some Central and Eastern European countries have Estonia long traditions of land consolidation with the main objective being reducing the disadvantages caused by land fragmentation. In Estonia land consolidation projects were implemented after independence in 1919 and again during the 1990s. Unfortunately this activity has stopped and land consolidation tools have not been developed further. To develop a modern land consolidation tool, political will is required, as is the awareness of politicians, government institutions, land owners and land users and there is a need to amend the existing legal framework to make it fit for purpose. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction situation of the 1940s. Estonia decided that land expropriated dur- ing the collectivization process was to be returned to the former The concept of land reform can vary depending on region and owners or their legal successors. Those who had become the owner state. Authors (Adams, 1995; Adams, 2000; Sikor and Müller, 2009) of the building during the Soviet era are protected by law and have have presented concepts of land reform carried out at various times the right to privatise the land. In this paper I will argue that the land in various places. These articles also point out that post-totalitarian reform implemented in Estonia has led to increased land tenure states have engaged in their own style of land reform and land fragmentation compared to 1940. It is the first and most in-depth reform has a mixture of objectives. study in Estonia. Other studies have compared the land tenure sit- Central and Eastern European Countries, including Estonia, have uation in the 1980s with the present day, but not with land tenure faced remarkable socioeconomic changes since obtaining indepen- as it far back as 1940. dence in the early 1990s (Unwin, 1997; Csaki and Lerman, 2000; Fragmented land tenure often results in negative impacts upon Giovarelli and Bledsoe, 2001; van Dijk, 2003, 2007; Hartvigsen, land use, for example additional production costs to farmers, 2013, 2014). There was a relatively fast transition to a market econ- land abandonment. Even the market for land is depressed when omy in most of the countries in the region. One important priority land plots are very small and highly fragmented (FAO, 2004). was carrying out land reform. Counterintuitively land concentration may result from fragmented Property and land started to return to private ownership during land tenure. For example, land reform implementation in Central the 1990s in most Central and Eastern European countries. Some and Eastern Europe has encouraged the creation of large farms researchers (Sabates-Wheeler, 2002; van Dijk, 2003; Hartvigsen, (Swinnen, 2009) despite one of the aims of land reform begin to 2014, 2015) have indicated that land fragmentation in these coun- go from large collective farms to a European family farms model. tries was a side-effect of land reforms aimed at restoring the tenure In general, four main factors trigger fragmentation of land tenure: (i) inheritance; (ii) population growth; (iii) land markets; (iv) historical/cultural perspectives (Bentley, 1987). However, other situation specific factors can also play a part. In Central and East- ∗ Correspondence to: J. Kärneri 41, Elva, 61508 Estonia. E-mail address: [email protected] ern European countries the factors that have driven the land http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.030 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

170 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 35 fragmentation process include the different activities employed (Lapping, 1993; Hedin, 2005; Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Maandi, to implement land reform, for example restitution, privatisation 2009; Jörgensen et al., 2010; Maandi, 2010; Grubbström, 2011). and state agricultural land re-distribution—either in terms of land The essence of previous land reform carried out from 1919 to 1926 shares or physical parcels to the rural population (van Dijk, 2003; was expropriation of large households (manors) to the state. The Swinnen, 2009; Hartvigsen, 2014). expropriated land formed the state reserve, which was divided up Land tenure fragmentation has been an issue for all capital- to form new farms that were distributed to the rural population ist, free market-oriented countries since the nineteenth century to use. (Virma, 2004; Paavle, 2010) Since 1925 land users had the (Thomas, 2006). According to Alexander (2014): “Land and property possible to buy this land from the state (Virma, 2004). are not ‘normal’ market goods, because they do not share the defining It was generally understood after the 1919–1926 land reform characteristics of the goods and services that are the objects of com- that land plots were scattered and did not meet the conditions petitive market transactions.”, i.e. land issues need intervention from necessary for effective agricultural production (Pool, 1926; Spuul, the state. 1935). The next step was to conduct land consolidation. The Land Land consolidation has been an important instrument of rural Consolidation Act was first adopted in Estonia in 1926 and later development for more than a century throughout Europe (FAO, amended in 1937. According to these acts 23,741 farms with a 2004; Vitikainen, 2004; van Dijk, 2007; Hartvigsen, 2015). For total area of 475,595 ha were consolidated between 1926 and 1940 example, land consolidation can be used to increase the competi- (Virma, 2004). Unfortunately a lot of land remained outside of the tiveness of agriculture and forestry by increasing farm sizes. Land land consolidation process and after re-parcelling the average size consolidation also helps the organisation of environmental man- of land unit was still only 20 ha-with an average of 2.4 parcels per agement and melioration, and can improve access to the plot. Some farm (Virma, 2004). The Soviet annexation in 1940 resulted in the countries use land consolidation as a measure to encourage rural nationalization of all private land (Virma, 2004; Paavle, 2010). development. Several authors have discussed issues related to the implemen- tation of land reform in Estonia since 1991. Some have focused on 3. Current land reform approach how land reform has affected agriculture (Unwin, 1997; Meyers and Kauzlauskiene, 1998; Alanen, 1999), while others have writ- After gaining independence in 1991, a decision was taken in ten on subjects related to the restitution and privatisation of forest Estonia to carry out property and land reform. Before an adoption (Hans and Stjernström, 2008; Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund, 2009; of a land reform act was considered, there were serious discussions Jörgensen et al., 2010; Grubbström, 2011). There are some stud- over the possible approaches to land reform. It was suggested that ies o restitution in former Swedish settlement areas (Hedin, 2005; land should be privatised to the local residents who had become Grubbström, 2011). The question why some municipalities were building owners during the Soviet time, and returned only the per- quicker than others in terms of implementing land reform has also sons eligible for restitution, who were local residents. However, been investigated (Jürgenson and Maasikamäe, 2009; Jürgenson some people were of the opinion that land should be returned to et al., 2010; Jürgenson et al., 2011), as has the typology of prop- its former owners through restitution and no privatisation should erty formation as a result of land reform presented (Maasikamäe take place. Discussions were based on several arguments. One of and Jürgenson, 2014). the concerns was how to ensure the sustainability of agriculture. Hartvigsen (2014) presented an overview of land reform Following these disputes, it was decided to carry out land reform approaches and fragmentation issues in a Central and Eastern Euro- in such a way that both the pre-1940 land owners and building pean context (for 25 countries), focusing on the causality between owners from Soviet times were favoured. If the previous owner the chosen land reform approach and the resulting land fragmen- could not get the land back by restitution because a property had tation. However, a detailed country based investigation of the subsequently been built on it, the previous owner had a right to coherence between the chosen land reform approach and land compensation (EAAa, 2016; EAAb, 2016). This means that Estonia fragmentation is currently lacking (Hartvigsen, 2013). This present chose a complex approach of land reform (Hänni, 1995; Ulas, 2010; study is the first to compare land tenure fragmentation before 1940 Jürgenson et al., 2011) trying to solve all related matters at once. and after last land reform (since 1991). The Land Reform Act was passed in 1991. It was the begin- The main purpose of this article is to give an overview of ning of the transition from centrally planned economy to a market Estonia’s approach to land reform and how land reform implemen- economy in Estonia. Pre-1991 all land belonged to the state real tation has led to a more fragmented land tenure situation than in properties and private ownership were established through land 1940. I analysed the land reform implementation approach used in reform activities (Fig. 1). Land was redistributed in four ways: (i) Estonia based on documentation, legal acts and my own empirical given back to its former owners (restitution); (ii) privatised (pri- knowledge of this issue. I present the results of a comparison study vatisation); (iii) given to municipality ownership; iv) retained in of two areas based on the number of land plots and their average state ownership. Privatisation took place through the sale of land to size in 1940 and during the current land reform. Estonian citizens and Estonian legal person in private law. Privati- The article is organised as follows: first, a historical overview sation was divided into subclasses: (i) privatisation by the right of of land reforms in Estonia is presented; second, the present land pre-emption; (ii) privatisation through auction (closed or public); reform approach is introduced; third, the research methodology (iii) privatisation of vacant forest or agricultural land. applied in the investigation of the study areas is explained and the In order to carry out land reform, every plot passed through one results given; fourth, a discussion on the outcomes of land reform of the four activities of land reform. These reform activities can take and the possibilities to use land consolidation as a tool for diminish- place simultaneously. ing land tenure fragmentation in Estonia is presented; fifth I provide Procedures are different for each activity, but property for- my conclusions. mation always takes place that can be theoretically divided into the following stages: land plot adjudication; mapping; registra- tion (van der Molen, 2002). Adjudication is the process whereby 2. Historical overview of land reforms in Estonia all existing rights to a particular parcel of land are authoritatively determined (Lawrance, 1985). The adjudication process can be sys- The historical development of Estonia has affected land tenure. tematic or sporadic (Larsson, 1991). As land reform in Estonia was Estonia has had a number of land reforms over the centuries implemented plot by plot and not by region, implementation of

171 36 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43

Fig. 1. The pattern of land reform in Estonia post-1990, based on the Land Reform Act. land reform has been more sporadic than systematic. Land reform was carried out in the order of submission of applications or where local governments had all the documents necessary for plots to start property formation. When a plot of land has passed through one of the four land reform activities, then land reform of that specific plot is over and a real property has been formed, with the plot then registered in the land cadastre whereby it is given a cadastral number and registered in the title book that records the property number. One property may consist of one or many cadastral units. Estonia has a dual regis- tration system where the Land Board is responsible for the cadastre and the Courts maintain the title book. The chosen approach of land reform created situations where different persons had the right to the same land plot. For exam- ple, in the case of restitution, the basis was property ownership as it existed in 1940. But at the same time it was possible that per- son eligible for privatisation by pre-emption also had the right to Fig. 2. Organisational scheme and implementation of land reform in Estonia post- part of the land plot. The Land Reform Act (1991) includes rules 1990. for solving such situations. Maasikamäe and Jürgenson (2014) sys- tematised the different parcel area and boundary determination procedures that have been used in the course of land reform prop- the legitimate needs and interests of the residents considering the erty formation. There have been simple and complicated cases of specific development requirements of the area. property formation during the land reform process. The municipalities had to find out to whom, to what extent and The organisation (Fig. 2) of land reform implementation in how they could reform land units. Reforming a land unit was set to Estonia via legal acts agreed upon in Parliament has given the legal follow the logic of the Land Reform Act (Fig. 3). First it was checked acts. The Estonian Land Board the state body that has guided the whether the land unit was necessary for the state. The preeminent activity. Every county governor (state representative) in each of right of the state to land only existed in certain cases. For exam- the 15 counties in Estonia, have monitored, controlled and guided ple, for the land under government buildings and constructions land reform activities and implemented some tasks (e.g. made pri- and the land for servicing them, land under state protection (e.g. vatisation contracts). Municipalities have played a very important preservation of nature or national heritage), and land adjacent to role regarding the implementation of land reform. Municipalities objects under state protection if the established protection makes have done preliminary work and implemented land reform case- it impossible for another person to use the land, land under bod- by-case. Eligible persons who wanted restitution of land rights or ies of water retained in state ownership, public land important for to privatise land submitted applications to the municipalities. national defence, state forest land, agricultural land of state compa- Municipalities are the first level of self-government in Estonia. nies and state agencies, and land deposits of national significance According to the Estonian Local Government Organisational Act within the limits of existing areas with an extraction permit. If a (1993), municipalities (rural or city) have the right, authority and land unit belonged to one of these categories, it was retained in duty as democratically formed bodies of power, to independently state ownership-if not, then the process moved on. organise and manage local issues pursuant to law and based on The municipalities also had a first right to land plots if they were under or required for servicing buildings and constructions

172 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 37

Fig. 3. Order of land reform activities in Estonia according to the Land Reform Act. retained in municipal ownership, under bodies of water retained for restitution. If no restitution claims applied, then land would be in municipal ownership or needed for recreation (e.g. green areas). privatised by a right of pre-emption. If there were restitution and In this case, the municipality had to apply for transfer of ownership pre-emption applications, then the local government had to deter- from the state to the municipality. mine the plot borders regarding all persons eligible for restitution If the municipality did not require the land it then had to check and privatisation in accordance with the scope of the Land Reform if they had received applications for privatisation by a right of Act. pre-emption. Persons who have been granted land for perpetual If there was only an application for restitution, then the munic- use pursuant to the Estonian SSR Farm Act (adopted in 1989) or ipality had to give back the land plot to the eligible person. If there have the right to purchase land as the owner of a construction or were several applicants for restitution, then the land plot had to plantation may privatise land by the right of pre-emption. Residen- be given back to several people for joint ownership or be divided tial building, apartment, garage, cottage or gardening associations between the persons eligible for restitution into individual plots. could also privatise by right of pre-emption any land in the com- Persons (or their successors) whose land was unlawfully expro- mon use of members of the association not claimed for restitution. priated had the right to the land. If there were no previous owners If there was application for privatisation by a right of pre-emption alive, then the sisters and brothers of the former owner had the right then, the local government had to check if claims had been received to claim the return of land (or their descendants, if their parents

173 38 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43

Fig. 4. Theoretical land restitution to its former property boundaries. Fig. 5. Theoretical land restitution to several eligible persons who agree to a division. were dead). Sometimes the persons eligible for restitution were very close relative, but in others cases they hardly knew each other. The range of eligible persons who had the right to claim restitution was wide. The state had the right to decide whether to retain land in state ownership if there were no applications for privatisation by pre- emption or restitution. Land was then retained in state ownership as state land reserves. The municipality could submit an application for land plots in certain cases where there were no other applications. It was an opportunity to obtain land necessary to perform the functions of and develop the municipality. However, such transfer of land from state to municipalities had to be justified by municipality develop- ment plans. If there were no other interests, it was possible to privatise vacant forest and agricultural land. Later, Parliament amended the regulation on vacant agricultural land and instead of privatisation Fig. 6. Theoretical land restitution and privatisation by right of pre-emption inside an usufruct is established. former property boundaries. Next, it was possible to privatise land plots in either a closed or public auction organised by the county governor. At a public or closed action, a contract of sale will be established with the person who agreed with the established conditions of sale and who offered the highest purchase price. If there are no applications for land plots, then they remain in state ownership. These structured activities are necessary to com- plete the land reform.

4. Outcome of land reform

Land reform started in 1991 and has been ongoing for more than 20 years. According to the data from the Estonian Land Board (Estonian Land Board, 2015b) at the end of 2014, 93 percent of Estonian territory had been reformed (Table 1). The highest por- tion of land has been retained in state ownership (37%), followed by land transferred to private ownership through restitution (33%) and privatised land (22%)-mainly by the right of pre-emption. Fig. 7. Theoretical land restitution and privatisation inside and outside former prop- According to the Land Reform Act both persons eligible for resti- erty boundaries. tution and privatisation by right of pre-emption have a right land. If only one person eligible for restitution applied, then land was returned according to its former boundaries (Fig. 4). It was also ownership. If the entitled persons agreed on the division of land, possible that one former property was divided between multiple the land was returned according to the agreement. persons eligible for restitution (Fig. 5). If several entitled persons Person eligible for privatisation by pre-emption also have the claimed the return of land, including a residential lot, the land was right to request land within the borders of former properties being returned into their common ownership according to their shares, claimed by restitution. In this case, land has been divided between unless otherwise agreed by the entitled persons. The local govern- persons eligible for restitution and privatisation by pre-emption ment would then set a term of one month for the entitled persons (Fig. 6). A similar situation occurs if a person eligible for privatisa- to enter into an agreement. If the entitled persons failed to agree tion by pre-emption cannot get the allowed quantity of land outside within the specified term, the land was returned into their common the former borders of the property (Fig. 7), with land within the bor-

174 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 39

Table 1 Status of land reform in Estonia on 31/12/2014 after the majority of land reform activities.Processes of land reform.

Processes of land reform Hectares Percentage of the total area of Estonian mainland

Restituted land 1,503,644 33% Privatised land 987,318 22% from this privatisation by a right of pre-emption 642,101 14% vacant forest land privatisation 104,130 2% vacant agricultural land privatisation 151,217 3% privatisation in auction 89,871 2% Land retained to state ownership 1,651,868 37% Land is transferred into municipal ownership 41,036 1% Total 4,183,866 93%

Source: Estonian Land Board ders of the former property divided between the persons eligible The digitalized land plots were compared with the first topographic for restitution and privatisation by pre-emption. maps (scale 1:25,000) of the Soviet Union produced in 1947 and Owner of residential buildings are entitled to privatise land up 1948. The old buildings, roads and sometimes property boundaries to two hectares by right of pre-emption. If the owner of a residential were visible on these topographic maps, which matched the current building situated on unlawfully expropriated land wishes to pur- cadastral maps. If a plot had shifted and its borders did not cor- chase more land, but the person(s) entitled to restitution do not respond to natural or infrastructure objects, then land plots were want to withdraw, then after the term set by the local government adjusted to the boundaries on the topographical map. for both parties to come to an agreement the owner of the resi- When the preparatory work had been finalized, all land units dential building can privatise up to 50 ha of vacant neighbouring and their sizes were calculated for each area. This data was then land. If the owner of the residential building cannot privatise 20 ha used to calculate the total area and the average plot size for each including bordering land, the owner has the right to privatise addi- study region. tional land out of the unlawfully expropriated land to make up the Second, a layer of reformed land plots was created using digital deficit (to 20 ha), but not more than the land remaining to the enti- cadastre maps obtained from the Land Board. Unfortunately not tled subject. If there is no bordering vacant land, the land is divided all shapes had been digitally archived, so digital cadastre layers between the entitled person and the owner of the residential build- from different years had to be used to fill in any gaps. The cadastral ing as equally as possible, with the owner of the residential building layer of land plots for 2002 was taken as a base, with the remaining no longer having the right to claim more than 20 ha of land. If several parcels added from cadastral layers for subsequent years. In this residential buildings are situated on unlawfully expropriated land layer there were also some plots not yet reformed, but it was still and the owners of the residential buildings wish to privatise more possible to define their concurrent shapes. than two hectares of land, they may in the case of non-existence or The reformed and not reformed land plots were also counted shortage of vacant land privatise up to one half of the unlawfully and their sizes found. According to this data, the average size of expropriated land, but not more than 20 ha in total. Upon privati- reformed and not reformed land plots was calculated. sation of land pursuant to this subsection, a registered immovable property together with a residential building is formed if the right 6. Results of the study of pre-emption of other persons are not violated. There are however a lot of different options under the law for Table 2 presents an overview of the size characteristics of the how land can be divided between various eligible subjects (state; land plots in the two study areas for 1940 and after land reform municipalities; subjects with a right to restitution; subjects with a from 1991 to 2012. right to privatisation by pre-emption) and both simple and com- The number of land plots in one study area was 191 in 1940 and plicated cases of property formation occurred during the course of 879 in 2012 (of which 18 were unreformed plots). This meant that land reform (Maasikamäe and Jürgenson, 2014). Multiple claims this area had 4.6 times more land plots after the recent land reform often results in the splitting up of former properties and has led to than in 1940. The average size of plots was 4.5 times smaller in more fragmented land use than in 1940. 2012 (2.5 ha) than 1940 (11.3 ha). The number of land plots in the other study area was 90 in 1940 5. Research method for the study areas and 235 in 2012 (of which 15 were unreformed land plots). This meant that this area had 2.6 times more land plots after land reform Two study areas were chosen for investigation of land tenure than in 1940. The average size of plots was 2.6 times smaller than fragmentation in terms of number and size of plots. The study areas in 2012 (5.3 ha) than in 1940 (13.8 ha). were located in Tartu County (Fig. 8). One area was in the Ülenurme parish and totalled is 2219 ha. The other was in the Rõngu parish 7. Discussion and totalled is 1267 ha. The study areas were selected owning to having data available for 1940. Land tenure varies in different countries because of different As land plots borders from 1940 and post 1991 did not always historical developments, overall organisation and existing poli- match, natural (e.g. waterbodies, holdings) and artificial (for exam- cies. For example, a number of land reforms have shaped land ple roads) cognisable border objects were used to demarcate the tenure throughout history in Estonia (Virma, 2004). The goals of external borders of the case study areas. land reforms have been different: in 1919 the objective was to dis- This work was part of the master’s thesis of Aasmäe (2014). The tribute large units into smaller units; small units were then grouped work was carried out using MapInfo GIS software. together into large state owned units during collectivization post- First a land units layer for 1940 was digitised using histor- WWII; finally restitution of state land to its former owners and ical maps (before 1940) from the Estonian Land Board website privatisation by local residents occurred from 1991 (Virma, 2004; (Estonian Land Board, 2015a). Unfortunately these old maps are Paavle, 2010). All of these changes have left their mark on land not always correct, with land plots often misplaced or distorted. tenure and have often led to problems with today’s land tenure.

175 40 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43

Fig. 8. Location of study areas in Estonia and in Tartu county.

Table 2 Data about the two study areas.

Number of plots Total area (hectares) Average area of plots (hectares)

Study area 1 Land plots before 1940 191 2163 11.3 Land plots in 2012 861 2143 2.5 Unreformed land plots 18 20 1.1 Study area 2 Land plots before 1940 90 1238 13.8 Land plots in 2012 220 1172 5.3 Unreformed land plots 15 66 4.4

The selected approach of land reform at the beginning of the reform in Estonia, perhaps not as many small land plots would have 1990s in former post-socialist countries differed from country to been formed and the process would have been speedier. country (Hartvigsen, 2014). Approaches were dependent on the When land reform was planned in Estonia the possible outcomes perceptions of the people in these countries, such as the desire for were considered, but only on a rather general level. Example, how to historical justice (Swinnen and Mathijs, 1997). Estonia chose a com- compensate the injustice done by illegal expropriation of property plex approach to land reform (Hänni, 1995; Ulas, 2010; Jürgenson during the Soviet era, whilst at the same time ensuring sustainable et al., 2011), trying to solve all related matters in one integrated farming. No attention was paid to how land tenure would look after process, i.e. returning land to or compensating the former own- land reform. This may be the reason why land reform was carried ers or their successors, privatising land, retaining land under state out parcel-by-parcel in Estonia. Land reform was carried out in the ownership and or transferring land to municipalities. The chosen order of submission of application or was started with those units approach of land reform created a situation where different eligi- where all required documents existed. ble persons often had the right to the same land plot. The Land Land reform implementation covered different activities, Reform Law provides rules for solving such situations. There have including land adjudication, mapping and registration. Land adjudi- been simple and complicated cases of property formation during cation can be sporadic or systematic (Larsson, 1991). Larsson (1991) the course of land reform (Maasikamäe and Jürgenson, 2014). The has pointed out that systematic adjudication has many advantages chosen approach to land reform has created a more fragmented compared to sporadic adjudication, for example from a cost effi- land tenure situation in Estonia than in 1940. ciency point of view. Land reform implementation parcel-by-parcel Fragmentation of land can occur for a variety of reasons. In as Estonia has used is a rather sporadic approach. Land reform led most Central and Eastern Europe countries-land fragmentation has to the fragmentation of land units, what means that parcel sizes are occurred as a side-effect of land reform (Sabates-Wheeler, 2002; smaller than in 1940. van Dijk, 2003; Hartvigsen, 2014, 2015). One reason is that states The small land plots that have resulted from the recent land went back to the land tenure structure as it existed in 1940. In the reform are often unsuitable for modern farming. Bigger land parcels case of Estonian, it was decided to restore land tenure to as it was are required for large agricultural machines and for production to in 1940 and give the land back to the former owners or their suc- be economically viable. The impact of fragmentation in the two cessors. At the same time the right to privatisation by pre-emption study areas is therefore even worse than the difference between was given to persons who had become the owner of a building plots sizes in 1940 and 2012 indicates. The unsuitability of land during the Soviet era. Land plots from as they were in the 1940s plots for agricultural production, their irregular shape and or lack of were often divided between different persons who were eligible access may be reasons why so many landowners who received land for restitution or privatisation by pre-emption right. This led to in the reform process have sold their plots or given them over to more fragmented land plots than in 1940, (a situation confirmed another person’s use. For example, according to the data of Statis- by my results from two study areas). In the study areas there were tics Estonia there were 55,702 agricultural holdings in Estonia in two-four times more land plots in 2012 after recent land reform 2001 and 18,755 in 2013. The reduction in the number of hold- compared to 1940. The average plot size was also two-four times ings during this twelve year period was almost 40,000 (Statistics smaller in 2012 than 1940. Estonia, 2014). The proportion of leased land in agricultural pro- If land plots are smaller, then there may be an impact upon the duction is also large- currently 60–70% and increasing (Ministry of speed of land reform as the larger the size of reformed land plots the Agriculture, 2014). easier it is for the municipalities to carry out the process (Jürgenson et al., 2011). If there had been a more systematic approach to land

176 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 41

7.1. Perspectives for land consolidation in Estonia 2014) does not include land consolidation as a measure eligi- ble for support. At the same time, Rural Development in Bavaria Land consolidation occurred in the Republic of Estonia before 2007–2013 treated land management, including consolidation, as annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. After land reform from a core part of rural development (Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture 1919 to 1926, land tenure in Estonia was not suitable for farming and Forestry, 2006). and so a process of land consolidation was carried out nationwide There are some bachelor’s and master’s thesis in Department of (Virma, 2004). Geomatics in the Estonian University of Life Sciences regarding the The Land Consolidation Act was adopted in 1926 and formed question of land fragmentation and the need for land consolidation the basis for the organisation of private land and regulated the in Estonia. For example, Jõgi (2010) interviewed 50 farmers and exchange of state and private land. The Land Consolidation Act was 70% of them wanted to change the shape of their land parcels, with amended in 1937, but the content was largely similar. According 54% wanting land parcels amalgamated. The main factors they gave to these land consolidation acts, 23,741 farms were consolidated as hampering farming were roads, ditches, sharp corners, curved with a total area of 485,596 ha (Virma, 2004). boundaries, drainage wells and lack of access to plots. The tool of land consolidation was well developed in that time The main obstacle to the development of a land consolidation period. Procedure was set into law and the organisation well run. tool has been the absence of a responsible authority. The distri- Land consolidation projects were carried out by charted surveyors bution of responsibilities in the current Land Readjustment Act is (Virma, 2004). unclear and not operational, as none of the institutions see land After independence in 1991, the main aim was the restoration consolidation as part of their core duties. The current Land Read- of private land ownership. It was therefore decided to carry out justment Act is outdated and needs amending. This act was adopted the land reform. Land consolidation was not considered so impor- in 1995 shortly after independence was regained and the under- tant and remained into the background. A Land Readjustment Act standing of and skills in this field were quite limited. The absence was adopted in 1995, but this act handled only real properties, i.e. of a responsible authority does not help with renewal of the law. those that had already been through the land reform process. Reg- The land consolidation process according to the existing law is ulation for land consolidation during land reform was added to too complicated. The current Land Readjustment Act (1995) del- the Land Readjustment Act in 1999. Nevertheless, the use of land egates responsibility to local governments. At the same time the consolidation during land reform remained rare. local governments do not have the finances for this activity. Prac- There were 26 land consolidation projects implemented from tice has shown that the delegation of responsibility to the level 1998 to 2001. Four of them were made with the assistance of of local government has not been the best solution. In addition to Arcadis Euroconsult and the Government Service for Land and financial shortages, local governments lack specialists with land Water Management (DLG) of the Netherlands. The aim of these consolidation skills. Furthermore, as specialists are not needed in projects was wider than just land re-parcelling. The rehabilita- all municipalities, it would be more reasonable if the activity was tion of the drainage system was part of the consolidation process organised at a national level. (DLG and ARCADIS, 2001). The other 22 land consolidation projects Officials regard land consolidation as not needed because farm- were funded by World Bank loans, with the aim only to readjust ers do not request the instrument. However, farmers have little land plots, and were implemented without international technical knowledge of land consolidation or how they could benefit. No state assistance. These projects covered 3050 land units. institution has readily disseminated this information to farmers or Unfortunately, these projects did not give the impetus to the rural communities. Estonian government to further develop the tool of land consol- Today, the construction of a new railway route (Rail Baltic) is idation and its wider use. Rather, these projects often had poor under discussion. Farmers whose business will be threatened have outcomes owing to the inexperience of the officials involved. Imple- been protesting against it. Several farms would be split by the new mentation of these projects resulted in a lot of problems. Negative high-speed railway, with land on one side and the homestead and attitudes towards land consolidation is shown by a Supreme Court production buildings on the other side of the tracks. Farmers are not judge’s comment (Varul et al., 2014), in which he treats land con- being offered the opportunity of land consolidation in connection solidation as a special type of expropriation. Lawyers and judges with the acquisition of land for the project. Today, only compensa- do not see the necessity of land consolidation in Estonia. According tion for the land under the railway tracks is discussed, which is not to them, there are voluntary opportunities for transactions accord- enough for active farmers. ing to the Civil Code. As Alexander (2014) stated however, land is The current land reform approach has resulted in grater land not a “normal” market good and therefore land issues may require fragmentation than in 1940 and other disturbing conditions for special regulation. farmers in Estonia. New infrastructure or environmental projects Fragmented land tenure and other land use disadvantages can may also bring about disturbance to land ownership and use (e.g. be minimized by using land management tools including land con- splitting of properties, restrictions on the use of a property). Land solidation. Western and Northern European countries have decades consolidation is a tool which in other European countries, including of experience in land consolidation (Vitikainen, 2004; Thomas, in the for example in Lithuania (Hartvigsen, 2015), has 2006; Hartvigsen, 2015). Former post-socialist countries have less helped to reduce land fragmentation and the other negative con- experience with land management tools. However, many of these ditions of ownership and use of small parcels of land. To introduce countries have introduced land consolidation instruments since the this tool in Estonia, awareness amongst politicians and officials beginning of transition from centrally planned economies towards needs to be raised to produce the will to deal with the subject. market economies in the early 1990s (Hartvigsen, 2006, 2015). Rural communities and especially farmers also have to be informed There has been not comprehensive research into land con- about the possible benefits. The next step should be to determine solidation in Estonia, because no authority has been interested a responsible authority, to develop land consolidation strategy and in carrying out this kind of study. It is also not clear which subsequently an Estonian land consolidation programme. Other authority should be responsible for any future land consolida- countries have successfully developed land consolidation strate- tion programme in Estonia. The Estonian Rural Development Plan gies that embedded land consolidation instruments in the overall 2007–2013 (Ministry of Agriculture, 2008) did not include land land policy of the country, e.g. Lithuania, Serbia and Finland. Dur- management or consolidation. Furthermore the draft of the Esto- ing the first stage of developing a land consolidation strategy, the nian Rural Development Plan 2014–2020 (Ministry of Agriculture, situation where consolidating land would be of benefit and which

177 42 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 kind of land consolidation (e.g. compulsory, voluntary, simple, inte- Siim Maasikamäe for technical support with GIS. Additionally, I grated) is best suited to each situation needs identifying, as is when am grateful to Stig Enemark and Hans Mattsson for their helpful and how much money the state should allocate for land consolida- comments on this paper and all my colleges from department of tion, e.g. through the Rural Development Programme where 75% EU Geomatics in the Estonian University of Life Sciences who con- co-funding is secured. The existing land Readjustment Act should tributed to the completion of this paper. Special thanks to Morten be reviewed and amended using the most suitable examples from Hartvigsen for his helpful reviews, comments and questions during other European countries. the writing process.

8. Conclusion

In Estonia the approach to land reform supported the widest References possible range of interest groups. It was decided to return proper- ties expropriated in 1940 to the former owners or their heirs. At Aasmäe, K., (2014). Endiste 1940-ndate maaüksuste ning maareformi käigus moodustatud katastriüksuste võrdlemise võimalustest. Eesti Maaülikool. the same time, persons who had become the owner of buildings Adams, M., 1995. Land Reform: New Seed on Old Ground? Natural Resource during the Soviet era were given the opportunity to privatise land Perspectives, Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org. by right of pre-emption. Often therefore the interests of different uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2979.pdf. Adams, M., 2000. Breaking Ground: Development Aid for Land Reform. Oversea eligible subjects (by restitution or privatisation by pre-emption) Development Institute, London, Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi. overlapped. Several eligible persons often had a right to the same org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8124.pdf. parcel of land and in such cases the plot was divided between them. Alanen, I., 1999. Agricultural policy and the struggle over the destiny of collective farms in Estonia. Sociol. Ruralis 39 (3), 431–458, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ Such divisions of land has resulted in greater land fragmentation 1467-9523.00117. compared to in 1940. Alexander, E.R., 2014. Land-property markets and planning: a special case. Land Land reform was carried out plot-by-plot, which was a rather Use Policy 41, 533–540, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.009. Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006. Rural Development in Bavaria, sporadic approach and did not allow for regional planning solu- Retrieved May 30, 2015, from http://www.landentwicklung.de/fileadmin/ tions. The first land units were formed without regard to what sites/Landentwicklung/Dateien/Internationales/by ruraldev.pdf. followed, but subsequent formation of land units depended on Bentley, J.W., 1987. Economic and ecological approaches to land fragmentation: In the boundaries of the first formations which had not always been defense of a much-Maligned phenomenon. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 16 (1), 31–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.000335. determined rationally. So land reform implementation the plot-by- Csaki, C., Lerman, Z. (Eds.), 2000. Lessons for the EU Accession. The World Bank, plot created new problems and hindered comprehensive solutions Washington, D.C, Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10. involving also neighbouring parcels. 1596/0-8213-4733-0. DLG and ARCADIS. (2001). Integrated drainage and land Development pilot in These preconditions for the implementation of land reform in Estonia – Project completion report. Estonia has led to fragmentation of land tenure and also brought EAAa, Estonian Historical Archives, (2016) fonds R-3, inventory 7 record1704. about other inconveniences to land ownership and use (for example EAAb, Estonian Historical Archives, fonds R-3, (2016). inventory 7 record1705. Estonian Land Board, 2015a. Ajalooliste Kaartide Rakendus, Retrieved April 10, lack of access, irregular shapes of land parcels, distance between 2015, from http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/est/Teenused/Kaardirakendused/ parcels). Today, it is scarcely possible to reverse most of what has Ajalooliste-kaartide-rakendus-p157.html. been done in the course of land reform, however a solution must Estonian Land Board, 2015b. Maareformi Statistika Aastate Kaupa, Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://www.maaamet.ee/index.php?lang id=1&page be found to improve the current situation. id=147&no cache=1428665253. Land management tools can help reduce fragmentation and FAO, 2004. Operations Manual for Land Consolidation Pilot Projects in Central and other inconveniences of land tenure. One of the most widespread Eastern Europe Organization. FAO, Rome, Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/fao/010/ai142e/ai142e00.pdf. land management tools in Europe is land consolidation. Whilst Giovarelli, R., Bledsoe, D., 2001. Land Reform in Eastern Europe Seattle, Retrieved one can hope that the free market eliminates the disadvantages April 30, 2015, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad878e/ad878e00.HTM. of the current landuse situation, in reality this seldom occurs this Grubbström, A., 2011. Emotional bonds as obstacles to land sale—attitudes to land is the reason why many countries, including in Central and East- among local and absentee landowners in Northwest Estonia. Landscape Urban Plann. 99 (1), 31–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.010. ern Europe, have introduced land consolidation as an instrument Hänni, L., (1995). Omandireformi arengust. In Omandireform Eestis: hetkeolukord to address these problems. ja tulevikuperspektiivid (pp. 8–15). Tartu: Tartu Arenduskeskus. Estonia has had a Land Readjustment Act since 1995. Some land Hans, J., Stjernström, O., 2008. Emotional links to forest ownership. Restitution of land and use of a productive resource in Põlva County, Estonia. Fennia 186 (2), consolidation projects were carried out during the land reform 95–111, Retrieved from http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/fennia/article/viewFile/ process, but this tool has not been used after land reform. The cur- 3707/3495. rent Land Readjustment Act is outdated and the processes of land Hartvigsen, M., 2006. Land Consolidation in Central and Eastern European Countries XXIII FIG Congress, Retrieved May 30, 2015 from http://www.fig.net/ consolidation unclear and not operational. Estonia needs to devel- pub/fig2006/papers/ts71/ts71 04 hartvigsen 0882.pdf. opment a land consolidation tool that would help to reduce the Hartvigsen, M., 2013. Land Reform in Central and Eastern Europe After 1989 and negative aspects of land reform derived fragmentation. This tool Its Outcome in the Form of Farm Structures and Land Fragmentation FAO Land Tenure Working Paper 24. Rome, Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/ will also be needed in the future for new infrastructure or environ- 017/aq097e/aq097e.pdf. mental projects or to support rural development. To develop a land Hartvigsen, M., 2014. Land reform and land fragmentation in Central and Eastern consolidation tool political will is needed and therefore increased Europe. Land Use Policy 36, 330–341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2013.08.016. awareness of the issue amongst politicians, officials and land own- Hartvigsen, M., 2015. Experiences with land consolidation and land banking in ers is required. The development of a land consolidation strategy Central and Eastern Europe after 1989. Land Tenure Working Paper, 26. FAO. should take into account what situations would benefit and what Hedin, S., 2005. Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas in Estonia kind of land consolidation should be used in different cases, plus consequences for land ownership, land use and landscape. Landscape Urban Plann. 70, 35–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.003. when and to what degree the state should finance land consolida- Jõgi, H., 2010. Põllumajandustootjate Maakasutuste Ruumiliste Omaduste Analüüs tion. The Land Readjustment Act should be modernised along the Kolme Põlvamaa Valla näitel. University of Life Sciences, Estonian. lines of successful programmes from other European countries. Jörgensen, H., Grubbström, A., Stjernström, O., 2010. Private landowners’ relation to land and forest in two estonian counties. J. North. Stud. 2, 33–54. Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S., 2009. Progress of land reform in estonian rural Acknowledgments municipalities – results of preliminary study. Rural Development 2009, vol. 4. Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kaunas, pp. 121–127. Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S., 2010. The impact of land fund I thank Kristjan Aasmäe, who did his master’s work on the same characteristics on the land reform results in estonian rural municipalities. subject and helped answer many technical questions. I also thank VAGOS 86 (86), 65–70.

178 E. Jürgenson / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 34–43 43

Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S., (2011). Land Reform Implementation in Sikor, T., Müller, D., 2009. The limits of state-led land reform: an introduction. Estonia: Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics World Dev. 37 (8), 1307–1316, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08. Between Municipalities. In Rural Development 2011 (pp. 440–445). 010. Land Readjustment Act. (1995). Riigi Teataja. No14, 169. Spuul, J. (1935). Eramaade asundamisest ja kaugete maade korrastamisest. Land Reform Act. (1991). Riigi Teataja. No 34, 426. Geodeet, 2. Lapping, M.B., 1993. The land reform in independent Estonia: memory as Statistics Estonia, 2014. AG S406: Agricultural Land, Retrieved from precedent—toward the reconstruction of agriculture in Eastern Europe. Agric. http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/Saveshow.asp. Human Values 10 (1), 52–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02217730. Swinnen, J.F.M., Mathijs, E., 1997. Agricultural privatization, land reform and farm Larsson, G., 1991. Land Registration and Cadastral Systems. Longman Group UK restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe – a comparative analysis. In: Limited. Agricultural Privatisatio, Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Central and Lawrance, J.D., 1985. Land adjudication. In: In Proceedings World Bank Seminar on Eatern Europe. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot. LIS, Washington DC: World Bank, pp. 1–39. Swinnen, J.F.M., 2009. Reforms, globalization, and endogenous agricultural Local Government Organisational Act. (1993). Riigi Teataja. No 37, 558. structures. Agric. Econ. 40, 719–732, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862. Maandi, P., 2009. The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet Estonia: a 2009.00410.x. geographical perspective. Geoforum 40 (3), 454–464, http://dx.doi.org/10. Thomas, J., 2006. Property rights, land fragmentation and the emerging structure 1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.003. of agriculture in Central and Eastern European countries. J. Agric. Dev. Econ. 3 Maandi, P., 2010. Land reforms and territorial integration in post-Tsarist Estonia (2), 225–275, Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/112607/ 1918–1940. J. Hist. Geogr. 36 (4), 441–452, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg. 2/ah757e00.pdf. 2010.03.005. Ulas, T., 2010. Eraomandisse Tagasi 1991–2009: Erastamise Ikka Veel lõpetamata Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., 2014. The typology of property formation in course Lugu Esitlusi, Meenutusi, Hinnanguid. Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda, Tallinn. − of land reform in Estonia. IResearch for Rural Development 2014, vol. 2. Latvia Unwin, T., 1997. Agricultural restructuring and integrated rural development in University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 283–288, Retrieved from http://www2. Estonia. J. Rural Stud. 13 (I), 93–112. llu.lv/research conf/Proceedings/20th volume2.pdf. Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Bäcklund, A.-K., 2009. Exploring the sustainability of estonian Meyers, W.H., Kauzlauskiene, N., 1998. Land reform in Estonia, Latvia, and forestry: the socioeconomic drivers. Ambio 38 (2), 101–108, Retrieved from Lithuania: a comparative analysis. In: Wegren, S.K. (Ed.), Land Reform in the http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717125. Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Routledge, pp. 87–110. Van Dijk, T., 2003. Scenarios of central european land fragmentation. Land Use Ministry of Agriculture, 2008. Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007–2013, Policy 20 (2), 149–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00082-0. Retrieved from http://www.agri.ee/en/estonian-rural-development-plan- Van Dijk, T., 2007. Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central erdp-2007-2013. Europe. Geoforum 38 (3), 505–511, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006. Ministry of Agriculture, 2014. Eesti Maaelu Arengukava 2014–2020, Retrieved 11.010. from https://valitsus.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/arengukavad/mak Van der Molen, P., 2002. The dynamic aspect of land administration: an 2014-2020.pdf. often-forgotten component in system design. Computers. Environ. Urban Syst. Paavle, I., 2010. Land Ownership in Estonia in the 20th Century, Retrieved from 26 (5), 361–381, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(02)00009-1. http://www.estonica.org/en/Land ownership in Estonia in the 20th century/. Varul, P., Kull, I., Kõve, V., Käerdi, M., Puri, T., (2014). Asjaõigusseadus I. Tartu Juura. Pool, T., 1926. Maareform. In Eesti. Maa, Rahvas, Kultuur. Haridusministeeriumi Virma, F., 2004. Maasuhted, Maakasutus Ja Maakorraldus Eestis. Eesti Kirjastus, Tartu, pp. 445–471. Põllumajandusülikool, Tartu. Sabates-Wheeler, R., 2002. Consolidation initiatives after land reform: responses to Vitikainen, A., 2004. An overview of land consolidation in europe. Nordic J. multiple dimensions of land fragmentation in eastern European agriculture. J. Surveing Real Estate Res. 1, 25–44. Int. Dev. 1018, 1005–1018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.905.

179 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal data Name Evelin Jürgenson Citizenship Estonian Date of birth February 8, 1974

Contact information Address Estonian University of Life Sciences Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering Department of Geomatics Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Estonia E-post [email protected]

Education 1989-1992 Nõo Gymnasium 1992-1996 Estonian Agricultural University, diploma in land surveying 1997-1999 Royal Institute of Technology, MSc, land management 1999-2017 Estonian University of Life Sciences, PhD, land management

Additional training 29.01.2016- English Course on EU matters, 120 hours 31.01.2017 (acquired CERF-C1 English level), Sugesto LTD, Estonia 19.07.-19.07.2016 Cooperation and Negotiations with the European Parliament, 8 hours, The ECE Group, Estonia 21.05.-23.05.2014 Property design and land redistribution in the countryside, 2 ECTS PhD course, Aalborg University, Denmark 12.08.-16.08.2013 Multivariate statistics, 52 hours, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia 29.08.-31.08.2012 Land management; land consolidation; smart cities, 2 ECTS, Aalto University, Finland

136 180

CURRICULUM VITAE 2.11.-1.12.2011 Academic Success Skills Training: a Holistic Approach to Supporting Academic Success, Personal data 78 hours, Tartu University, Estonia Name Evelin Jürgenson 22.09.-18.11.2011 Creating Academic Text, 78 hours, Tartu Citizenship Estonian University, Estonia Date of birth February 8, 1974 02.11.-01.12.2011 Training of learning skills trainer, 80 hours, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia

Contact information 27.01.2010- Creating e-course in Moodle, 80 hours, Tartu Address Estonian University of Life Sciences 27.03.2010 University, Estonia Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering 03.02.-04.02.2010 Doing a Doctorate: Its Significance for Department of Geomatics Candidates, Supervisors and Examiners, 16 Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Estonia hours, Tartu University, Estonia E-post [email protected] 29.06.-03.07.2009 Mentor Development, 80 hours, Tartu University, Estonia

Education 03.06.-04.06.2009 English for Science and Technology, 40 hours, 1989-1992 Nõo Gymnasium Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia 1992-1996 Estonian Agricultural University, diploma in 14.04.-18.06.2009 English for Teaching, 104 hours, Estonian land surveying University of Life Sciences, Estonia 1997-1999 Royal Institute of Technology, MSc, land 17.02.-28.04.2009 Communication Tools for Academics, 80 management hours, Tartu University, Estonia 1999-2017 Estonian University of Life Sciences, PhD, 03.02.-09.04.2009 English for Teaching, 104 hours, Estonian land management University of Life Sciences, Estonia 03.02.-06.05.2009 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education,

160 hours, Tartu University, Estonia Additional training 29.01.2016- English Course on EU matters, 120 hours 19.01.-19.04.2009 E-course – planning and practical design, 120 31.01.2017 (acquired CERF-C1 English level), Sugesto hours, Tartu University, Estonia LTD, Estonia 12.01.-08.03.2009 Creating e-course in Blackboard, 80 hours, 19.07.-19.07.2016 Cooperation and Negotiations with the Tartu University, Estonia European Parliament, 8 hours, The ECE 29.01.-29.01.2009 Can teaching really be discipline-specific, 8 Group, Estonia hours, Tartu University, Estonia 21.05.-23.05.2014 Property design and land redistribution in the 30.07.-12.08.2008 Sustainable Urban Planning & Development, countryside, 2 ECTS PhD course, Aalborg 3 ECTS, Lund University Centre for University, Denmark Sustainable Studies, 12.08.-16.08.2013 Multivariate statistics, 52 hours, Estonian 15.08.-18.08.2008 AESOP PhD Workshop 2008 “Doing University of Life Sciences, Estonia Planning Research”, 2,5 ECTS, The 29.08.-31.08.2012 Land management; land consolidation; smart Norwegian University of Life Sciences, cities, 2 ECTS, Aalto University, Finland Norway 22.01.-23.05.2008 Didactic in University, 80 hours, Tartu University, Estonia

136 137 181

28.01.-15.04.2008 Training for mentoring, 40 hours, Tartu University, Estonia

Professional employment 1995-2000 Elva Town Government, acting advisor of land issues 2000-2008 Estonian Land Board, head of department of real estate 2007-2016 Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, department of Geomatics, lecturer (0,5) 2008-2016 Estonian Land Board, advisor (0,5) Since 2016 Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, department of Geomatics, lecturer

Research-administrative experience 2010-2012 Participation as an expert in the work organized by FAO: “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”. 2012-2015 Participation in workgroup; prepared the occupation standard for land surveyor (on the field of land management). 2013-2015 Participation as an expert in subject of “Land Grabbing – a warning for Europe and a threat to family farming”. It is an own-initiative option in European Economic and Social Committee on the Section of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment in 2014. (Accepted 14.01.2015). 2014-2015 Organising of International seminar “Conducting Land Reform – Challenges and Best Practices”. Seminar took place 27-28. October 2016 in Estonian University of Life Sciences. Since 2009 Member of Association of Estonian Planners Since 2010 Member of LANDNET. LANDNET is a community of professionals from different

138 182

28.01.-15.04.2008 Training for mentoring, 40 hours, Tartu countries and organizations working together University, Estonia under an initiative of the FAO. Main activities: sustainable land use, land management, land Professional employment consolidation etc. 1995-2000 Elva Town Government, acting advisor of land issues Field of research 2000-2008 Estonian Land Board, head of department of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Geosciences (land management, real estate land consolidation, land use, land use planning, land administration) 2007-2016 Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Projects department of Geomatics, lecturer (0,5) 2012-2013 National research project: Clarify the actual use of 2008-2016 Estonian Land Board, advisor (0,5) cadastral units of profit yielding land and propose the Since 2016 Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute possible measures for development of infrastructure for of Forestry and Rural Engineering, agriculture and forestry. Senior personnel. department of Geomatics, lecturer (Principal investigator: Siim Maasikamäe) 2013-2016 Base financing T13003MIGO: The impact of Research-administrative experience land-related decisions on the use of land, forest and 2010-2012 Participation as an expert in the work water resources. Senior personnel. (Principal organized by FAO: “Voluntary Guidelines on the investigator: Siim Maasikamäe) Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land Fisheries 2014 National research project: Assessment of valuable and Forests in the Context of National Food arable land. Senior personnel. (Principal Security”. investigator: Siim Maasikamäe) 2012-2015 Participation in workgroup; prepared the 2016-2017 Base financing 8P160012MIGO: Impact of the occupation standard for land surveyor (on the sea level rise on the Baltic Sea shoreline changes and field of land management). real estate boundaries. Senior personnel. 2013-2015 Participation as an expert in subject of “Land (Principal investigator: Aive Liibusk) Grabbing – a warning for Europe and a threat to family farming”. It is an own-initiative option in Dissertations supervised European Economic and Social Committee on The total number of supervised dissertations (Master’s degree) - 24 the Section of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment in 2014. (Accepted Publications 14.01.2015). The total number of publications - 17 2014-2015 Organising of International seminar “Conducting Land Reform – Challenges and Best Practices”. Seminar took place 27-28. October 2016 in Estonian University of Life Sciences. Since 2009 Member of Association of Estonian Planners Since 2010 Member of LANDNET. LANDNET is a community of professionals from different

138 139 183

ELULOOKIRJELDUS

Isikuandmed Nimi Evelin Jürgenson Kodakondsus Eesti Sünniaeg 8.veebruar 1974

Kontaktandmed Aadress Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitusinstituut, geomaatika osakond Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Eesti E-post [email protected]

Haridustee 1989-1992 Nõo Reaalgümnaasium 1992-1996 Eesti Põllumajandusülikool, diplom maamõõtmise erialal 1997-1999 Rootsi Kuninglik tehnikaülikool, magistriõpe maakorralduse (Land Management) erialal 1999-2017 Eesti Maaülikool, doktoriõpe maakorralduse erialal

Täiendõpe 29.01.2016- Inglise keele kursuse (EL korraldus), 120 31.01.2017 tundi, eksam sooritatud tasemel CERF-C1, Sugesto, Eesti 19.07.-19.07.2016 Koostöö ja Läbirääkimised Euroopa Parlamendiga, 8 tundi, The ECE Group, Eesti 21.05.-23.05.2014 Kinnisaja moodustamine ja maakorraldus maapiirkondades, 2 ECTS, Aalborgi Ülikool, Taani 12.08.-16.08.2013 Mitmemõõtmeline statistika, 52 tund, Eesti Maaülikool, Eesti 29.08.-31.08.2012 Maakorraldus, ümberkruntimine, nutikad linnad, 2 ECTS, Aalto Ülikool Soome 2.11.-1.12.2011 Akadeemiliste oskuste koolitus: terviklik lähenemine akadeemilise edu tagamiseks, 78 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti

140 184

ELULOOKIRJELDUS 22.09.-18.11.2011 Akadeemiline kirjutamine, 78 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti 02.11.-01.12.2011 Õpioskuste koolitajate koolitus, 80 tundi, Eesti Isikuandmed Maaülikool, Eesti Nimi Evelin Jürgenson 27.01.2010- E-kursuse loomine õpikeskkonnas Moodle, 80 Kodakondsus Eesti 27.03.2010 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti Sünniaeg 8.veebruar 1974 03.02.-04.02.2010 Juhendaja rollist doktoritöö akadeemilise kõrgkvaliteedi saavutamisel, 16 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti Kontaktandmed Aadress Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja 29.06.-03.07.2009 Õppejõust saab mentor, 80 tundi, Tartu maaehitusinstituut, geomaatika osakond Ülikool, Eesti Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Eesti 03.06.-04.06.2009 Reaal- ja tehnikaerialade inglise keel, 40 tundi, E-post [email protected] Eesti Maaülikool, Eesti 14.04.-18.06.2009 Inglise keel õppetöös, 104 tundi, Eesti

Haridustee Maaülikool, Eesti 1989-1992 Nõo Reaalgümnaasium 17.02.-28.04.2009 Inglise kõnekeele kursus õppejõududele, 80 1992-1996 Eesti Põllumajandusülikool, diplom tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti maamõõtmise erialal 03.02.-09.04.2009 Inglise keel õppetöös, 104 tundi, Eesti 1997-1999 Rootsi Kuninglik tehnikaülikool, magistriõpe Maaülikool, Eesti maakorralduse (Land Management) erialal 03.02.-06.05.2009 Õppimine ja õpetamine kõrgkoolis, 160 tundi, 1999-2017 Eesti Maaülikool, doktoriõpe maakorralduse Tartu Ülikool, Eesti erialal 19.01.-19.04.2009 E-kursus - ideest teostuseni, 120 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti

12.01.-08.03.2009 E-kursuse loomine Blackboardi õpikeskkon- Täiendõpe 29.01.2016- Inglise keele kursuse (EL korraldus), 120 nas, 80 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti 31.01.2017 tundi, eksam sooritatud tasemel CERF-C1, 29.01. -29.01.2009 Ainedidaktika – didaktika võimalustest aine Sugesto, Eesti õpetamisel, 8 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti 19.07.-19.07.2016 Koostöö ja Läbirääkimised Euroopa 30.07.-12.08.2008 Säästlik linna planeerimine ja arendamine, 3 Parlamendiga, 8 tundi, The ECE Group, Eesti ECTS, Lundi Ülikool, Rootsi 21.05.-23.05.2014 Kinnisaja moodustamine ja maakorraldus 15.08.-18.08.2008 AESOP PhD seminar „Planeerimisalaste maapiirkondades, 2 ECTS, Aalborgi Ülikool, uuringute tegemine“, 2,5 ECTS, Norra Taani Maaülikool, Norra 12.08.-16.08.2013 Mitmemõõtmeline statistika, 52 tund, Eesti 22.01.-23.05.2008 Kõrgkoolididaktika, 80 tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Maaülikool, Eesti Eesti 29.08.-31.08.2012 Maakorraldus, ümberkruntimine, nutikad 28.01.-15.04.2008 Õppejõust saab mentor, 40 tundi, Tartu linnad, 2 ECTS, Aalto Ülikool Soome Ülikool, Eesti 2.11.-1.12.2011 Akadeemiliste oskuste koolitus: terviklik lähenemine akadeemilise edu tagamiseks, 78 Teenistuskäik tundi, Tartu Ülikool, Eesti 1995-2000 Elva Linnavalitsus, maanõunik

140 141 185

2000-2008 Maa-amet, kinnisvara osakonna juhataja 2007-2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- instituut, lektor (0,5) 2008-2016 Maa-amet, nõunik (0,5) Alates 2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- instituut, lektor

Teadusorganisatsiooniline ja –administratiivne tegevus 2010-2012 Osalemine eksperdina FAO poolt vabatahtlike juhtnööride „Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security“ väljatöötamise protsessis 2012-2015 Osalemine maakorraldaja kutse välja- töötamisel 2013-2015 Osalemine 2014. aastal Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee töös eksperdina oma- algatusliku arvamuse "Maa hõivamine - häirekell Euroopa jaoks ja otsene oht põllumajanduslikule pereettevõtlusele" väljatöötamisel. Arvamus on Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee poolt kinnitatud 21.01.2015. 2014-2015 Rahvusvahelise seminari “Conducting Land Reform – Challenges and Best Practices” korraldamine. Seminar toimus 27-28. oktoobril 2016 Eesti Maaülikoolis. Alates 2009 Eesti Planeerijate Ühingu liige Alates 2010 LANDNET liige. LANDNET on loodud FAO initsiatiivil ja sellesse gruppi kuuluvad maaküsimustega tegelevad professionaalid erinevatest riikidest ja organisatsioonidest. Peamised tegevusvaldkonnad: säästlik maa- kasutus, maakorraldus, ümberkruntimine.

Teadustöö põhisuunad Loodusteadused ja tehnika, Maateadused (Maakorraldus, maakasutus ja selle planeerimine, maade administreerimine)

Projektid

142 186

2000-2008 Maa-amet, kinnisvara osakonna juhataja 2007-2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- instituut, lektor (0,5) 2008-2016 Maa-amet, nõunik (0,5) Alates 2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- instituut, lektor

Teadusorganisatsiooniline ja –administratiivne tegevus 2010-2012 Osalemine eksperdina FAO poolt vabatahtlike juhtnööride „Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security“ väljatöötamise protsessis 2012-2015 Osalemine maakorraldaja kutse välja- töötamisel 2013-2015 Osalemine 2014. aastal Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee töös eksperdina oma- algatusliku arvamuse "Maa hõivamine - häirekell Euroopa jaoks ja otsene oht põllumajanduslikule pereettevõtlusele" väljatöötamisel. Arvamus on Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee poolt kinnitatud 21.01.2015. 2014-2015 Rahvusvahelise seminari “Conducting Land Reform – Challenges and Best Practices” korraldamine. Seminar toimus 27-28. oktoobril 2016 Eesti Maaülikoolis. Alates 2009 Eesti Planeerijate Ühingu liige Alates 2010 LANDNET liige. LANDNET on loodud FAO initsiatiivil ja sellesse gruppi kuuluvad maaküsimustega tegelevad professionaalid erinevatest riikidest ja organisatsioonidest. Peamised tegevusvaldkonnad: säästlik maa- kasutus, maakorraldus, ümberkruntimine.

Teadustöö põhisuunad Loodusteadused ja tehnika, Maateadused (Maakorraldus, maakasutus ja selle planeerimine, maade administreerimine) 2000-2008 Maa-amet, kinnisvara osakonna juhataja 2007-2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- Projektid instituut, lektor (0,5) 2012-2013 Siseriiklik leping: Maatulundusmaa sihtotstarbega 2008-2016 Maa-amet, nõunik (0,5) katastriüksuste tegeliku kasutamise ning võimalike Alates 2016 Eesti Maaülikool, metsandus- ja maaehitus- meetmete välja selgitamine põllu- ja metsmajanduse instituut, lektor taristu arendamiseks142 kuni aastani 2020. Põhitäitja. (Vastutav täitja: Siim Maasikamäe) Teadusorganisatsiooniline ja –administratiivne tegevus 2013-2016 Baasfinantseerimine T13003MIGO: Maaga 2010-2012 Osalemine eksperdina FAO poolt vabatahtlike seotud otsuste mõju maa-, metsa- ja veeressursside juhtnööride „Responsible Governance of Tenure of kasutamisele. Põhitäitja. (Vastutav täitja: Siim Land Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Maasikamäe) Food Security“ väljatöötamise protsessis 2014 Siseriiklik leping: Väärtusliku põllumaa 2012-2015 Osalemine maakorraldaja kutse välja- hindamine. Põhitäitja. (Vastutav täitja: Siim töötamisel Maasikamäe) 2013-2015 Osalemine 2014. aastal Euroopa Majandus- ja 2016-2017 Baasfinantseerimine 8P160012MIGO: Sotsiaalkomitee töös eksperdina oma- Läänemere veetaseme tõusu mõju rannajoone algatusliku arvamuse "Maa hõivamine - häirekell muutustele ja kinnistupiiridele. Põhitäitja. Euroopa jaoks ja otsene oht põllumajanduslikule (Vastutav täitja: Aive Liibusk) pereettevõtlusele" väljatöötamisel. Arvamus on Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee poolt Juhendatud väitekirjad kinnitatud 21.01.2015. Juhendatud väitekirjade (magistrikraad) üldarv - 24 2014-2015 Rahvusvahelise seminari “Conducting Land Reform – Challenges and Best Practices” Publikatsioonid korraldamine. Seminar toimus 27-28. Teaduslike publikatsioonide üldarv - 17 oktoobril 2016 Eesti Maaülikoolis. Alates 2009 Eesti Planeerijate Ühingu liige Alates 2010 LANDNET liige. LANDNET on loodud FAO initsiatiivil ja sellesse gruppi kuuluvad maaküsimustega tegelevad professionaalid erinevatest riikidest ja organisatsioonidest. Peamised tegevusvaldkonnad: säästlik maa- kasutus, maakorraldus, ümberkruntimine.

Teadustöö põhisuunad Loodusteadused ja tehnika, Maateadused (Maakorraldus, maakasutus ja selle planeerimine, maade administreerimine)

Projektid

142 187

143

LIST OF PUBLICATION

Publications indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database

Jürgenson, E; Sikk, K; Hass, H; Maasikamäe, S. 2017. Methodology for the determination of peri-urban areas on the basis of data of land type and use by example of the town Tartu. In: Integrated and sustainable consumption, 110-117. Economic Science for Rural Development. Jelgava: Latvian University

Jürgenson, E. 2016. Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land consolidation in Estonia. Land Use Policy 57, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.030.

Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., 2014. The Typology of Property Formation in Course of Land Reform in Estonia, in: Research for Rural Development 2014. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 283– 288.

Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., Mandel, M., Veeroja, P., 2014. Determination of Valuable Agricultural Land in the Frame of Preparation of Countywide Spatial Plans: Estonian Experiences and Challenges, in: Economic Science for Rural Development. pp. 77–85.

Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S., 2011. Land Reform Implementation in Estonia : Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics Between Municipalities, in: Rural Development 2011. pp. 440–445.

Maasikamäe, S., Hass, H., Jürgenson, E., 2011. The Impact of Uncontrolled Development on the Use of Arable Land, in: The Fifth International Scientific Conference: Rural Development 2011. pp. 416– 451.

Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S., 2009. Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities - Results of Preliminary Study, in: Rural Development 2009. Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kaunas, pp. 121–127.

144 188

LIST OF PUBLICATION Publications in other peer-reviewed research journals and in proceedings Publications indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database Jürgenson, E., Sikk, K., Maasikamäe, S., 2016. Does Estonia need land consolidation for the implementation of Rail Baltic?, in: Symposium on Jürgenson, E; Sikk, K; Hass, H; Maasikamäe, S. 2017. Methodology for Land Consolidation and Land Readjustment. Kadaster International, the determination of peri-urban areas on the basis of data of land type Apeldoorn, pp. 561–571. and use by example of the town Tartu. In: Integrated and sustainable consumption, 110-117. Economic Science for Rural Development. Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., Sikk, K., 2016. The Rearrangement of Jelgava: Latvian University Leasehold Agreements as an Alternative to Land Consolidation, in: Symposium on Land Consolidation and Land Readjustment. Kadaster Jürgenson, E. 2016. Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives International, Apeldoorn, pp. 207–215. for future land consolidation in Estonia. Land Use Policy 57, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.030. Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., 2015. Põllumajandusmaa määramine planeeringutes, in: Alaru, M., Astover, A., Karp, K., Viiralt, R., Must, A. Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., 2014. The Typology of Property (Eds.), Agronoomia 2015. Eesti Maaülikool, Tartu, pp. 206–209. Formation in Course of Land Reform in Estonia, in: Research for Rural Development 2014. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 283– Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S., 2010. The Impact of Land 288. Fund Characteristics on the Land Reform Results in Estonian Rural Municipalities. VAGOS 86, 65–70. Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., Mandel, M., Veeroja, P., 2014. Determination of Valuable Agricultural Land in the Frame of Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S., Lihtmaa, L., 2008. The voluntary and Preparation of Countywide Spatial Plans: Estonian Experiences and compulsory means of land acquisition for public needs in Estonia, in: Challenges, in: Economic Science for Rural Development. pp. 77–85. Viitanen, K., Kakulu, I. (Eds.), Compulsory Purchase and Compensation in Land Acquisition and Takings. Helsinki University of Jürgenson, E., Hass, H., Maasikamäe, S., 2011. Land Reform Technology, Helsinki, pp. 42–54. Implementation in Estonia : Comparison of Land Reform Activity and Land Stock Characteristics Between Municipalities, in: Rural Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., Lihtmaa, L., 2008. The problems of Development 2011. pp. 440–445. land acquisition and expropriation for development in Estonia, in: Viitanen, K., Kakulu, I. (Eds.), Compulsory Purchase and Compensation in Land Acquisition and Takings. Helsinki University of Maasikamäe, S., Hass, H., Jürgenson, E., 2011. The Impact of Uncontrolled Development on the Use of Arable Land, in: The Fifth Technology, Helsinki, pp. 154–164. International Scientific Conference: Rural Development 2011. pp. 416– 451. Maasikamäe, S., Jürgenson, E., Lihtmaa, L., 2005. Planning as a tool for urban development in Estonia: the case study of Tartu, in: Lami, I.M. (Ed.), An Overview on Planning Systems and Urban Markets in Europe. Jürgenson, E., Maasikamäe, S., 2009. Progress of Land Reform in Estonian Rural Municipalities - Results of Preliminary Study, in: Rural Aracne, pp. 109–122. Development 2009. Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kaunas, pp. 121–127.

144 145 189

Popular scientific publications

Jürgenson, E., 2016. Kui Rail Baltic poolitab. Eesti Päevaleht.

Jürgenson, E., 2011. Ümberkruntimise kasutamine Saksamaal detailplaneeringute elluviimiseks tiheasutusega aladel. Geodeet 41, 106– 109.

Jürgenson, E., 2007. Maa omandamine üldistest huvidest tulenevalt. Geodeet 35, 44–47.

146 190

EVELIN JÜRGENSON

VIIS VIIMAST KAITSMIST

TIIA DRENKHAN INTERACTION BETWEEN LARGE PINE WEEVIL (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS L.) PATHOGENIC AND SAPROTROPHIC FUNGI AND VIRUSES HARILIKU MÄNNIKÄRSAKA (HYLOBIUS ABIETIS L.) SEOS PATOGEENSETE JA SAPROTROOFSETE SEENTE NING VIIRUSTEGA Dotsent Kaljo Voolma, dotsent Ivar Sibul, Risto Aarne Olavi Kasanen (Helsingi Ülikool, Soome)

19. juuni 2017 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT, SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION PLOT AND LAND FRAGMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORM IN ESTONIA:THE LAND

SEYED MAHYAR MIRMAJLESSI ASSESSMENT OF VERTICILLIUM DAHLIAE KLEB. AND SOIL FUNGAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH STRAWBERRY FIELDS MULLA PATOGEENI VERTICILLIUM DAHLIAE KLEB. JA MULLA SEENEKOOSLUSTE ISELOOMUSTAMINE MAASIKAPÕLDUDEL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND REFORM IN ESTONIA: Vanemteadur Evelin Loit, professor Marika Mänd INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT, SPEED OF 20. juuni 2017 IMPLEMENTATION AND LAND PLOT FRAGMENTATION PILLE MEINSON HIGH-FREQUENCY MEASUREMENTS-A NEW APPROACH IN LIMNOLOGY PIDEVMÕÕTMISED-UUS LÄHENEMINE LIMNOLOOGIAS Juhtivteadur Peeter Nõges, teadur Alo Laas MAAREFORMI ELLUVIIMINE EESTIS: INSTITUTSIONAALNE 5. september 2017 KORRALDUS, ELLUVIIMISE KIIRUS JA MAADE TÜKELDATUS

RAIVO KALLE CHANGE IN ESTONIAN NATURAL RESOURCE USE: THE CASE OF WILD FOOD PLANTS EESTI LOODUSLIKE RESSURSSIDE KASUTAMISE MUUTUS: LOODUSLIKE TOIDUTAIMEDE NÄITEL Professor Tiiu Kull, Dr Renata Sõukand, Dr Rajindra K Puri (Kenti Ülikool, Suurbritannia) EVELIN JÜRGENSON 5. september 2017

REIMO LUTTER GROWTH DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGY OF MIDTERM HYBRID ASPEN AND SILVER BIRCH PLANTATIONS ON FORMER AGRICULTURAL LANDS KESKEALISTE HÜBRIIDHAAVA- JA ARUKASEISTANDIKE KASVUKÄIK JA A Thesis ÖKOLOOGIA ENDISTEL PÕLLUMAJANDUSMAADEL for applying the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering Sciences Professor Hardi Tullus, vanemteadur Arvo Tullus (Tartu Ülikool) 15. september 2017 Väitekiri ISSN 2382-7076 filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks tehnikateaduse erialal ISBN 978-9949-569-96-0 (trükis) ISBN 978-9949-569-97-7 (pdf)

Trükitud taastoodetud paberile looduslike trükivärvidega © Kuma Print Tartu 2017