REGIONAL PECULIARITIES OF PRIVATISATION AND LEASE OF AGRICULTURAL FARMLANDS IN GEORGIA

prof. SERGO IAKOBIDZE

The world practice shows that in each country privatisation (nationalisation) and lease of lands is one of the most important factors (moreover, during the transition period to market economy) in the formation of independent system

as this problem is seen as one of the attributes of averting country’s economic crisis and improving populations’ unbearable social condition. Proceeding from the above-mentioned, similar to other post-Soviet countries, in the second half of the last century it was considered advisable to establish a process of nationalisation and lease of agricultural lands envisaged by the preliminarily developed agricultural reform.
Nowadays, after analysing the results of land privatisation and lease in Georgia, we should, first of all, say that the process is completed for the present. The main thing now is to find out what the agricultural reform brought to population. The below-given data give us a clear notion of it.
As far as we can see from the data of the Land Reform State Department, 690,1 thousand hectares have been transferred to the property of 772,5 thousand yards (families) in villages with 0,89 hectares per yard in average. 72,9 thousands hectares have been transferred to the property of 332,3 thousand yards in towns (0,22 hectares in average). Thus, 930,0 thousand hectares of land area became property of 1104,8 thousand yards of which 763,0 thousand hectares are 25,3% (3022,7 thousand hectares) of agricultural farmland including 436,6 thousand hectares of plough lands or 54,9% of the whole arable area, 29,4% of perennial plantations and 4,7% grasslands. It is noteworthy that 617,7 thousand hectares of private lands belong to high farming. It’s ratio is 58.0% (1063,2).
In this case, our main objective is not a detailed analysis of economic indicator of private lands. We should note that after the enforcement of law on the ownership of agricultural lands (1997), 903,0 thousands hectares with 29% ratio of country’s farmlands were transferred to the private property of population of Georgia. Therefore, the total number of leased lands is 26,7%, i.e. 10%, arable lands are 45,8 thousand hectares, i.e. 32,1%, pastures are 600,0 thousand hectares comprising one third of country’s pastures.
Despite the above-mentioned, we think it necessary to calculate appropriate data in accordance with regions (table 1) in order to understand the way country’s regional peculiarities affect provision of population with private and leased lands.
As far as we can see from the table, regional peculiarities in Georgia are quite distinct. This means that there is a distinct difference from the viewpoint of providing both private and leased farmlands per one family. This is testified by many facts such as vertical-horizontal zoning of regions (administrative district), agricultural specialisation, population size, demographic and migration processes, etc.
The most important fact is that in the given stage of agrarian reform in Georgia private agricultural farmlands make up 0,69 hectares per family in average. Thus, 0,89 hectares fall at the share of village families while in other regions this figure is much greater. For instance, it is 0,93-0,94 hectares in Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti and Kakheti, 1,19 hectares in Samtskhe-Javakheti, 1,24 hectares in Racha-Lechkhumi regions and Kvemo Svaneti. However, we should also point out to the fact that there is a below-the-average index of land provision in Imereti (0,6 hectares), Kvemo Kartli (0,43 hectares), autonomous republic of Adjaria (0,42) and in some parts of Samachablo (0,34 hectares). Another important fact is that according to the latest data, 903,0 thousand hectares of farmlands were transferred to the population of Georgia of which 0,89 hectares in average fall at the share of one family (8895 sq. meters). Compared with the above-mentioned, regional peculiarities of different regions are quite distinct. Thus, for example, the index of leased lands is twice as less than in Shida Kartli (0,47 hectares) and Mtskheta-Mtianeti (0,41 hectares), and it is four and six times less than in Guria and Imereti making up 0,18 and 0,13 hectares while it is 25 times less in Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo-Svaneti (0,035 hectares). We should also point out to the fact that in some regions of Georgia the figure of leased farmlands per head is 50 or 100 times more than in other above-listed regions. These are the following regions: Kakheti with 1,88 hectares of land per head and Samtskhe-Javakheti (3,38 hectares). As for the provision of farmlands (plough-lands and perennials), pastures and hay lands are concerned, we should note the fact that the impact of regional peculiarities is much more observable. For instance, an average number of leased plough-lands is 0,4 hectares per head while in Adjaria this figure equals 0,15 hectares and 0,23 in Samachablo. It is also below the average in Kvemo Kartli, Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Racha Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti different from Kakheti and Samtskhe-Javakheti with this index being 1,5 times above the average. The same concerns provision of plough lands and perennials. This figure is quite high in Guria, Shida Kartli and Kakheti. From this point of view, there are low figures in Samtskhe_Javakheti, Kvemo-Kartli, Mtskheta-Mtianeti and Samachablo being no more than 0,04-0,08 hectares per family. We should hereby note that there are no perennial plantations in some administrative districts in Georgia (mountainous Caucasus). We by no means imply letting of pastures and plough-lands for rent as population (80-90%) has intensive farmlands almost in all regions. Though we should note that compared with privately owned lands, the ratio of leased plough-lands and pastures is quite high being no more than 71,5%, which testifies to the fact that population is more concerned with its private lands and pastures. The size and productivity of cattle farming is much dependent on them.
As principal attention in this work is given to leased agricultural farmlands and to the impact of regional peculiarities on the provision of lands, it would be advisable to count the number of privately-owned lands in accordance with different social spheres (see table 2).
As we can see from the table, the higher is the number of collective and state farm workers (68%), the greater is the total square of private lands per family (632,3 thousand hectares). The figure per family is comparatively lower in Imereti (0,84 hectares) and Samachablo (0,35 hectares), but it is higher in Shida Kartli and Mtskheta-Mtianeti (0,84-0,94 hectares), Kakheti and Samegrelo – Zemo Svaneti (1,13 hectares). As for the families of workers of other spheres (education, healthcare, culture, etc.), we should note that here the average number of private lands per family (see table 2) is comparatively lower than that of former collective and state farm workers. However, there are exceptions in some regions when the figure is not only above the average republican, but also higher than that of collective and state farm workers. We will not start listing these regions as we can draw general conclusions otherwise; namely, the fact that transfer of lands to the property of families is usually connected with regional peculiarities. The change and purposeful management of these peculiarities will take too much time and require taking a whole number of preliminarily planned measures. As for the data presented, they suggest much and give us a clear picture of the peculiarities of Georgia and its different regions, provision of families with farmlands. Though, the main thing is not the result of land privatisation and lease for yards, but the rational use of lands, the way population tries to increase land fertility and production per square in order to meet their own needs and build up a stock for the development of cattle-farming and export.
In this work we will not be able to enumerate farmers and different family households that cope with the tasks. There are some of them that reach significant success through preliminarily prepared, well-developed business-plans and hard work as, f.e., it was in Kakheti, Imereti, Guria, Samegrelo-Svaneti, Shida Kartli, etc., in almost each separate region or administrative region. We should, unfortunately, note that there are also others who do not try to find means for reaching good results, but deliberately avoid working on their lands. They try to keep their families at the expense of the so-called self-employment (petty trade, mediation, and work in other families and performance of other jobs).
Touching upon the country’s poignant problem, we think it advisable to call to mind statistic data of our recent past (1990) showing the extent of population’s interest in its comparatively small and temporarily used farmlands (not private property) where agricultural products are grown for satisfying families’ demands.
But for the disarray of objective and subjective reasons now rampant in our country with there being no real way-out of improving and overcoming this situation, any reader would easily imagine the factual level of agricultural produce and supply of foodstuffs in the given stage of provision of Georgian population with four times as much private and leased farmlands.
We admit that in the given stage there are really many difficulties in agriculture that have recently emerged as problems with working on farmlands, taking measures against harmful agricultural diseases, making and purchasing chemical fertilisers, chemicals and lubricants as their retail price is too high, but we believe that if country’s appropriate ministries, parliament, various groups of scientists and executive power would pay more attention and take an interest in these issues, the situation would gradually change for the better. If everything is the way it is today, we will, probably, receive assistance from amiable foreign countries (that have already been quite great), accumulate debts for improving the current situation of the branch, but we will remain in the same situation. Though one day someone or something might come (a person or competent branch) that would take an interest in this branch and study in detail the way funds are spent. No one would give us the right answer though part of population grieving about the situation has already expressed its attitude by the fact that our predecessor’s love and respect towards land has made it possible to preserve spotless name of our small country, but today we face a situation when Georgians have not only lost respect towards their motherland, but also the dream that this land might once become their property. Though this “dream” have come true – the people have really privatised lands after the reform, but some of them have found that they did not need it any more. In 1998-1999, they returned 39,7 thousand hectares of farmlands.
We think this fact requires no comments.