The quarterly scientific journal Europa Regional and a review publication Beiträge zur regionalen Geographie, both published by the Institute of Regional Geography in Leipzig, have devoted a large number of pages to the problems of regional geography of Eastern Europe and Russia in particular. During 1993-2000 the authors of this article have published and prepared for publication a number of works in these journals, as well as in other publications, dealing with many problems of rural territories and of physical planning of the USSR and Russia. These works provide rich analytical material for the study of rural territories and changes taking place in the transitional period in rural settlement systems of Russia, other countries of the CIS and the Baltics.
Agreements on co-operation signed by the Institute of Regional Geography in Leipzig with a number of scientific and planning organisations in Russia, in some CIS countries and in the Baltic states, provide possibilities for active participation of foreign colleagues in publications and projects of the Institute, for developing of a mutually advantageous exchange of outcomes of scientific and planning activities and for sharing access to information materials.
One of the recent large publications of the Institute is a monograph entitled Die Raum, Regional, und Städteplanung in der früheren UdSSR (Spatial, Physical and Urban Planning in the USSR). This monograph has already received positive responses in Russia and in Germany, and this year its Russian edition came out. This monograph forms the basis for the development of a number of directions within the new research project of the Institute of Regional Geography, which deals with the study of rural territories and changes in the rural settlement system of Russia. These directions will be described in more detail below.
Analysis of the problems of rural territories problems, which is based on a number of areas of the Russian Federation, it becomes obvious that the role played by agriculture has changed and that rural territories have found themselves on a path of radical market radical reforms. During the years of socialism agriculture was an important branch of the national economy. But in recent years the situation in agriculture has become difficult. In many cases in the course of privatization large agricultural enterprises were divided into smaller units or changed ownership, which led to reduction of their economic possibilities. These enterprises, particularly those in the Baltic countries and also in the Kaliningrad District, have lost the defining role that they played earlier in the development of rural territories. These problems are enhanced by a decreasing labour demand, the de facto cessation of construction work and repairs of the road network, and the curbing of activities aimed at the development of secondary schools, kindergartens, etc.
These new rapid developments have led to the quick disappearance of the former economic and management structures, while there has not been enough time to create new structures to replace these. The outcome has been a marked decline in living standards of the rural population. An increased outflow of population (especially in younger age groups) from these areas has created depopulation zones in the countryside where perspectives for future development are not promising.
The Department of Regional Geography of Europe of the Institute of Regional Geography is continuing its studies on the evolution of rural territories of Russia, and a number of CIS and Baltic countries in the period after the collapse of the USSR. Currently a group of researchers is seeking funding for a research project on the problems of rural territories in a number of administrative areas of the Russian Federation. This project will involve a study of rural territories through the use of field research, surveying and mapping. The project outline includes definitions of indicators of the transforming process in rural areas. The study will be based on an analysis of developments in the key territories of European Russia: Smolensk, Voronezh and Tambov districts, Stavropol region and the Chuvash Republic. These territories have various forms and various levels of intensity of agriculture. Studying of these areas will, therefore, involve special methods.
This article, as well as a number of other most recent publications on this topic, is written within the framework of preparation of the application for the project that was mentioned above. A German version of this article is, therefore, also published in Europa Regional.
Studies of changes that are taking place in rural territories in a transitional economy are given little attention in comparison to studies of metropolitan centers and largest urban agglomerations. This is due to the fact that changes in rural territories do not happen so rapidly, and also because rural territories very rarely draw the attention of domestic and foreign investors.
However, a closer examination reveals that rural territories, in the same way as cities, are characterized by high dynamics of transformations. But these processes are reflected in scientific geographical literature to a significantly lesser degree.
The preconditions for a transition to a market economy of the agricultural sector of Latvian economy have not necessarily been molded by the past. In connection with this, the period when Latvia was part of the Soviet Union is of great significance.
Under the centrally determined Soviet economic policy, the Baltic Economic Region, which consisted of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian Union Republics and the Kaliningrad District, was seen as having a number of concrete obstacles to its future development. For the agricultural sectors of the three Baltic republics that meant:
In Latvia the Soviet power has implemented the same strategic objectives, as the ones that had already been realized in Russia: state ownership of land was enforced while the agricultural economy was organized in collective or in state farms. A large part of the farming community countered these actions with bitter resistance; they did not want to give up their control of land and to be resettled away from their farming estates. By means of propaganda and repression the population was eventually forced to accept a collective form of agricultural economy. One of the means frequently used was deportation.
The consequence of these measures was elimination of the elite farming class, which had a most disadvantageous effect on the development of the Latvian agricultural economy over many years. Under the Soviet scheme of regional and physical planning there were so-called "perspective" and "non-perspective" rural settlements; the latter didn't receive any investment. Moreover, inhabitants of individual farms (khutors), which made up the core of Latvian agriculture before collectivization, were forced to give up their properties and to re-settle into the main rural areas.
To summarize, it can be stated that the Latvian agricultural economy was greatly reshaped by Soviet farming policy and that the small farming structure was substituted by an industrial-style structure of mass production. Nevertheless, it turned out impossible for the Soviet authorities to re-settle in a planned manner the majority of the Latvian rural population from their farms into newly built housing in central rural areas. Thus, in spite of the prohibition on individual housing construction in Latvia that was passed in 1960, in 1968 about 80 % of rural population still resided on individual farms.
However, during the Soviet period the spatial structure of settlements did change. Many individual farms were abandoned when the major aim of the state policy was concentration of population in central settlements. The Latvian road system has diminished, which was in striking contrast to the conditions that existed in the pre-Soviet period, before the Second World War.
The relationship between field and pasture use of the agricultural land has also changed. In the pre-war period the share of utilized acreage was higher then in the Soviet times. That had to do with the use of land favourable for agricultural production, which was also called the grain chamber of Latvia. During the time when Latvia belonged to the Soviet Union animal husbandry was in the forefront of agricultural development and, as a result, the scope of pastureland increased, because this was necessary to maintain large herds.
As a result of this economic policy, Latvia lost many of its former leading positions in European agricultural trade. The country changed from being a grain exporter, which between 1933 and 1935 had the third highest in Europe per capita grain production levels (after Denmark and Lithuania), to becoming a grain importer. Although within the Soviet Union Latvia was considered to be an area with high agricultural production levels (about 35% above the Union average), this did not necessarily mean much because of the overall very low level of Soviet agricultural production.
The decline in Latvian agriculture was intensified further by the enforced industrial development, which in regional terms was applied in a quite uneven manner. Latvia's capital city, Riga, expanded to a significant center, attracting many younger people from the rural areas, particularly because industrial wages were higher while life in the city was considered to be easier and more vibrant. It was primarily older people who were left behind in the countryside, provoking a process of aging of the rural population and eventually leading to the closure of many traditional individual farms.
When Latvia proclaimed its independence on 21 August 1991 by passing a law on re-establishing its national sovereignty, it embarked upon a long difficult road of reforms. While politically and economically it has disassociated itself from the USSR, it still had to build up private economic structures, to search for new markets for the goods it produced and at the same time to make an organised and controllable transition to a market economy.
For rural communities reforms have primarily meant an end to the collective economy and the re-privatization of land. The former task was comparatively easy and could be taken care of within a short period of time. On 13 June 1990 a law on agrarian reform was passed, which was followed by a series of regulations. The law outlined procedures for privatization of farms and for collecting taxes in the rural areas. However, re-privatization of land turned out to be more difficult to implement. To start with, there were no documents that defined property boundaries. This was complicated by the fact that often former kolkhozes were located on land that used to be in private possession; during the Soviet times many streets and roads were remapped; and in many cases the ownership of land was in question. Essentially, boundaries of re-privatised areas were set up in accordance with the divisions that existed in the period between the two world wars, which resulted in the average size of agricultural units also becoming similar to the one that was in pre-Soviet times.
This was followed by a further rapid decline of agricultural production, which made the transitional situation in the rural areas dire. Domestic demand for agrarian production has dropped, large livestock farms were disbanded, while part of the agricultural land area is no longer used for production purposes.
Agricultural enterprises rarely managed to retain their previous form. Large farms were replaced by small agricultural units. This breakup was largely a consequence of the way properties were returned to their original owners. In addition, some new small agricultural operations were established with purchased or leased land. These developments differed from the situation in the agricultural sector of East Germany - the territories of the former GDR (see below).
In today's Latvia the traditional settlement pattern has become clearly recognizable. Individual farms are numerous and are located in the centre of the land that belongs to them. Most of these farms are of small size. In addition, the use of agricultural land has declined.
More than a third of Latvia is covered with forest; accordingly, the share of surface area, which is used for forestry, is also high. Forests represent an important part of the natural wealth of the country. It is interesting that Latvian agricultural enterprises consider the availability of squares (wood-covered areas) as an important factor. Actually each family farm has a larger or a smaller share of squares on their property. For many families the availability of wood is seen as important in ensuring a stable income; this is also viewed as a basis for development of non-agricultural branches of economy, such as the timber industry.
This new transformation of the rural areas in Latvia revealed a phenomenon, which could also be observed in many other former socialist countries of Eastern Europe: a rather smooth transition from large surface area farming, in which an individual works covered areas of between 2,000 to 5,000 hectares to small farms with an area of between 1 and 20 hectares.
The economic situation of these small agricultural operations has a number of common features:
These factors have influenced the preference for a form of farming, which primarily serves the needs of farmers' families. This so-called subsistence farming became widespread and even now still shows a growing trend. At the same time, market-oriented production in Latvian agriculture continues to play a subordinate role.
The subsistence economy, that was already in existence in Latvia in previous years, is further expanded through channeling goods and services aside from the main economy. Earlier these goods and services were provided by large farms or rather financed by them, but in recent times people are frequently forced to fend for themselves, primarily in distant rural areas where there is a lack of shopping and service facilities.
The park of machinery in Latvian agriculture is also insufficient. Particularly, there are only limited possibilities for the processing of large surface areas. Moreover, only a small part of the land is leased and the need for additional leases is also insignificant. Many farmers do not possess the knowledge or have any clear idea of how they should act in market conditions and where they can obtain the necessary financial assets. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of Latvian agricultural workers have no plans for developing commercial agricultural production; they prefer to participate in the agricultural production with the only purpose of supporting their own needs in food products. The agricultural land market is almost totally non-existent in Latvia.
Development of a small subsistence economy, which is quite common in Third World countries, has led to a situation when rural areas that are located far away from cities are not able to participate in the national economic growth. There are striking differences between these areas and urban centers, with the countryside left behind, compelled to stagnate and often viewed as a contrast to the modern vibrant industrial cities, which have a developed network of supply of goods and services.
For rural areas in Latvia the transition to a market economy has resulted in profound changes. At the same time this process is not seen as a continuing one, but is rather characterized by deep shifts within a historically short period of time. This applies equally to the settlement structure and patterns of land use, as well as to changes in the significance of farming, which is the most important source of living for the rural population.
Latvia's rural areas and its farming community are at present in a socially tense situation. People's expectations that political independence would also bring an improvement to their living conditions did not materialise, while the reality is that any positive economic development remains primarily limited to municipalities and areas near the cities. As a consequence, this situation in the future can lead to an increased emigration of people out of rural areas, which at present is not very pronounced in Latvia. This is mainly because the economic potential of the cities is still not strong enough and very few job opportunities are available there.
Further, there still exists the possibility, and even the necessity, of regulating intervention on the part of the state, primarily in the area of overcoming the subsistence economy and the extreme fragmentation of farming areas, as well as re-orienting of Latvian farming towards commercial market production.
Increased offering of the Latvian land on the European land market, together with the prospect of Latvian membership in the European Union, requires Latvian farming to become competitive. On the one hand, this stipulates the demand for an increase in efficiency and necessitates a decrease in the number of people employed in agriculture. In addition, it will also be necessary to concentrate farming in areas favourable for agricultural production.
On the other hand, it is necessary to assess a decentralized location pattern from the perspective of farms located in disadvantageous areas where farming makes up only one of the elements that form the rural economy. Some form of farming can definitely play a role in the development of these areas, but it is important to differentiate this form of farming from intensive farming in favorable agricultural areas. Disadvantages of location can be balanced by getting a higher land use value, which involves ecologically friendly cultivating technologies and the use of renewable planting. The promotion of development of cooperation in marketing areas and of tourist exchanges are among some other possibilities to increase income of land owners and to secure their future.
Semi-subsistence farming agriculture, which quite often can be found in rural territories of Eastern Europe has now become a stabilizing factor and an economic basis of the existence of many families. It therefore cannot be perceived to be the main structural element of the future development of these territories. It is important to understand that with the improvement of the general economic situation, this form of land use will be subjected to further transformations and will cease to play an essential role in providing incomes to the rural population. Thus, it is essential to prevent the division of agricultural farms into small units, which happens as a result of privatization in many countries of Eastern Europe with the main goal of making agriculture competitive.
The example of the former GDR demonstrates that it is possible to make the transition to a market economy and at the same time to retain large agricultural enterprises, maintaining an appropriate scale of agricultural production.
At the time of reunification, the agricultural sector of East German economy consisted of more than 4.7 thousand collective and state farms. While by 1998 the number of agricultural enterprises in old Länder had reduced to almost 25 percent, in the East of the country it has sharply increased. Radical сhanges have taken place in the agriculture of Eastern Germany. Collective and state farms were disbanded; the farms that have appeared in their place are mostly so-called registered cooperatives (e. V.) and private limited companies (GmbH). This has been accompanied by the creation of about 30 thousand individual farm enterprises and partnerships. In the new Länder the level of farmland per agricultural unit is currently equal to more than 1,000 hectares on average. Individual farms and enterprises in East Germany on average control almost 50 hectares of agricultural land, which is two times higher than in West Germany.
The reorganization of agriculture in the new Länder was accompanied by radical cuts in numbers of employed: in comparison with the initial levels these numbers have decreased by six (!) times. The productivity of labour, on the contrary, has very quickly reached same levels as in West Germany. Today an average agricultural enterprise in Eastern Germany is more profitable than a similar enterprise in the western part of the country.
All this shows that the agricultural sector of the former GDR underwent a painful process of large job losses but managed to find a way of entering the market and determining its place within the framework of development of rural territories.
At present the agriculture of Latvia is at a crossroads. If the view of supporters of small farm ownership will prevail Latvia's entry into the European Union can meet significant difficulties, because one of the conditions of such entry is the requirement to have a competitive agricultural sector. Latvia can certainly show positive developments in agriculture if it manages to revive old traditions in the field of livestock farming, but this can be achieved only if the state supports the creation of larger and more productive agricultural enterprises.
As the example of Latvia shows, there are vital problems associated with the continuation of agricultural reforms such as privatization of land and excessive fragmentation of farms. These reforms have already led to falls in agricultural production, decrease of efficiency of farming and to shifts to a subsistence economy in agriculture. At the same time the experience of the former GDR shows that it is possible to privatize large agricultural enterprises as one unit, without breaking them into small pieces, which can provide a good basis for the development of a market oriented competitive agriculture. This will have positive consequences not only for the development of the agricultural production, but also for stable development of rural territories as a whole.
Dr. D.Piterski and Dr. E.Knappe
Institut für Länderkunde,
University of Leipzig, Germany
Email: piters@ifl.uni-Leipzig.de
For information about this page, contact: Tony Phillips
Contact email address: cerc@cerc.unimelb.edu.au
Contemporary Europe Research Centre homepage: www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au
Page last modified:
This page, its contents and style, are the responsibility of the author and do not represent the views, policies or opinions of The University of Melbourne.