The debate centered around whether Ukraine should establish a free land market. Supporters argued it would attract investment and increase agricultural productivity and exports. Opponents argued Ukraine lacks the necessary conditions like effective regulation and that it could socially disrupt rural communities. While both sides agreed Ukraine needs agricultural reform, the debate concluded that a land market is premature and Ukraine must first strengthen property rights, rule of law, and social protections. A post-debate poll found audience support shifted from initially favoring a land market to opposing it.

1. www.debaty.org
A free land market will destroy the Ukrainian village
PUBLIC DEBATE BRIEF
April 26th, 2011
Teacher’s House, Kiev, Ukraine
The Foundation for Effective Governance, in partnership with London-based Intelligence Squared, organized a recent
debate on the motion: “A free land market will destroy the Ukrainian village.” The debate was moderated by Mustafa
Nayem, a well-known Ukrainian Journalist.
In view of the world’s growing demand for food, Ukraine’s land resources are one of the country’s major competitive
advantages. However, this existing potential is largely unrealized. The World Bank estimates that Ukraine has the
capacity to double its grain production, and increase the value of its exports several times by selling processed
agricultural products rather than raw commodities. The absence of a land market hinders the transition to this state by
limiting the level of investment in the industry. However, lifting the moratorium on the sale of farmland may trigger
massive social dislocation.
The debate participants jointly concluded that a free land market would not resolve all of the current problems in
Ukrainian agriculture - like all developed countries, Ukraine must regulate its land relations, establish an effective
agricultural economy, and develop adequate social policy. Nevertheless, opponents of the motion maintained that a
land market would provide transparency in land relations that would primarily benefit the current land owners.
Speakers in favor of the motion, however, argued that Ukraine lacks the essential preconditions for an effective land
market. Polling showed a strong victory for the panel opposed to the motion: from an initial 34% they managed to
secure the support of 56% of the audience by the end of the debate.
This series of Public Debates serves as a social forum for the discussion of issues important to Ukraine’s economic
development. The project is designed to foster a culture of constructive and substantiated debate, and to assist in
forming an educated public consensus on the key economic challenges facing Ukraine.
Speakers FOR the motion Speakers AGAINST the motion
Jozsef Popp Michel Tereshenko
Director of the Research Institute of Descendant of the Ukrainian sugar tycoon
Agricultural Economics in 2006-2008 Mykola Tereshchenko (1819-1903) and
Vice Dean of Debrecen University President of Ukraine-Agri, ATS Ukraine, and
Hungary Linen of Desna (Ukraine-France)
Laura Rubchenko Viktor Pynzenyk
Farmer, head of the LLC Gladkivschinskoe Former First Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine,
grain-enterprise, former Minister of Finance
Cherkassy
Leonid Kozachenko Volodymyr Lavrenchuk
CEO of Raiffeisen Bank Aval
President of the Ukrainian
Agrarian Confederation

2. Key Statements
Joszef Popp: “Ukraine needs neither a moratorium nor a free Michel Tereschenko: “Stop entrusting your land to leasers who
land market. Ukraine needs a national strategy on the land exploit it until this land is exhausted. Lifting the moratorium
market” which will limit the sale of land to foreigners and will help attract the world’s best investors, and they will make
provide social support to rural residents during the Ukrainian fields yield as many crops as in Western countries.
transformation of agriculture into a more effective industry. This will benefit all Ukrainians”.
Lora Rubchenko: “Now it is not the best time to launch a land Victor Pynzenyk: “The Ukrainian village is starving for
market. We do not have proper legislation. The village is not investments, land market is a necessary condition here, but not
ready for it psychologically. Moreover, it’s not absence of land sufficient one. We also need to abolish export quotas and
market which hampers things, our main concern is the absence develop a wholesale agricultural market. Moreover, selling
of an agricultural market. If the government put things in order land to physical entities only is a way to cheat people, to shut
there, 80% of our problems would disappear”. down the market for investors and to urge profiteering”.
Leonid Kozachenko: “It is wrong to pass laws in a hurry. First Volodymyr Lavrenchuk: “A land market is needed at least to
we must teach people how to use those laws. Otherwise define a fair price for selling and leasing the land. Moreover, it
already in six months people will realize that they were will increase a farmer’s chance to obtain a bank loan. Also if a
cheated. Moreover, Ukraine’s attractiveness for investors is land owners did not prepare psychologically to the idea of a
very low now, and those who are ready to invest will hardly land market during twenty years of independence, there is no
pay a good price for our land. We need at least two or three way they will be ready in two or three years!”
more years to prepare”.
Q&A Session with the Audience
Q: “Who gave you the right to sell the Ukrainian land? The Ukrainian people did not give you this right”.
A: Victor Pynzenyk: “I am sure there are people in our society who prefer that the moratorium is lifted when the last plot of land is
sold out. We already witness this process. There are multiple legal loopholes which allow buying and selling of land. We humiliate
our people by branding them ‘economically illiterate’. Only by launching a free land market we will make a fair land price known
to our people”.
Q: “Why is there a moratorium for selling agricultural land to foreigners and corporations in Hungary?”
A: Joszef Popp: “In 1992 the government introduced the limitations which will remain until 2014. This happened because the
political parties need votes from the farm owners; we have 1.5 millions of farm owners and only 0.2 million of leasers. As a result,
managers of the corporations buy land in their own name”.
Q: “In those democratic countries that we refer to today, a land market is a rigid system of rules. What do you mean by ‘a free
land market’?”
A: Volodymyr Lavrenchuk: “In my opinion, a free land market is a situation when land is being sold and bought, but this market is
certainly strictly regulated. I am a supporter of a gradual approach. I would rather see a land market introduced stage by stage,
first as a pilot project, with all necessary limitations”.
A: Viktor Pynzenyk: “So, do we need to regulate a land market? Yes, we do. Some things must remain under government control.
But it is important not to meddle in excessively. For example, all residents must have the right to buy land, including both physical
and legal entities”.
Voting Results
Further information and the video version of the debates
are available on:
www.debaty.org and www.feg.org.ua
FEG, 23-F Kudryavskaya st., Kiev, 04053, Ukraine
Tel: +380 44 501 41 00
feg@feg.org.ua