Maakorraldus kui oluline sotsiaal-majanduslik protsess Eesti Vabariigi algusaegadel (I)

Abstract

Land consolidation as an essential socio-economic process in the early days of the Republic of Estonia, I

The land question was crucial in the rise and survival of the independent Republic of Estonia. At the conclusion of the First World War, the army of the German Empire was leaving Estonia. The Republic of Estonia declared its independence on 24 February 1918. Russia invaded Estonia in November of 1918 to unite Estonia with Soviet Russia. The Estonian War of Independence began. Coupled with the favourable political situation for land reform, the significant land shortage that plagued Estonians played an essential role in the security of the Republic of Estonia. In December of 1918, the Estonian Provisional Government promised Estonian citizens who bravely fought for Estonia land for personal use. Prior to the declara­tion of Estonia’s independence, private manors owned more than half of Estonia’s land, i.e. 2,428,087 hectares or 58.0%. Most of the land belonged to Baltic Germans. However, the Estonian population grew, and based on data from 1916, there were approximately half a million rural residents without land, which was about 2/3 of Estonia’s population. At that time, being landless meant having no income or being mostly low-paid and often dependent on work on someone else’s land. Therefore, land-starved peas­ants wanted for themselves the manor lands that belonged to the Baltic Germans. The promise of giving land to the peasants brought many men to the ranks of the national army. The distribution of land already during the War of Independence boosted confidence in the young country. The Estonian dream of becoming master of their own land quickly came true in the republic’s first years.

This analysis consists of two parts, the first of which focuses on land consolidation issues in the implementation of land reform (1918–24), while the second examines the development of land consolidation law after land reform. The period from 1918 to 1928 saw significant changes in the reor­ganisation of land use and ownership, particularly in the planning and division of former manor lands, as well as in other land consolidation efforts aimed at transforming land use to provide a source of livelihood for as many people as possible. These objectives were closely tied to the implementation of land reform because the distribution of manor lands to tenant farmers sometimes required the allocation of additional land to existing rental farms. The goal of this was to create economically viable farms. All this required functioning institutions. The article focuses on the institutional framework for implementing land reform, which was intended to contribute to achieving land consolidation objectives.

At the beginning of Estonian land reform, the organisation of land planning and approval of lists of land recipients was not uniform. Initially, the regulation on implementing the Land Reform Act stipulated that local government institutions were to approve the lists of land recipients, while the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for land planning, i.e. the divi­sion of land plots. The multi-level collegial decision-making process for land planning resembled that provided for in the Russian Empire’s land consolidation law (1911), which stipulated that decisions of local commis­sions would be reviewed by a commission at the regional and gubernatorial levels if the commissions exceeded their powers. It was possible to chal­lenge the land consolidation plan in the state’s highest court (in Russia, the Governing Senate, and in Estonia, the Supreme Court). Between 1919 and 1926, the main difference in the regulations for implementing land reform in the two countries was that, according to the Russian Empire’s law, the approval of lists of land recipients was also the responsibility of the land consolidation commission, which had extensive powers in resolving land consolidation disputes.

The differences in the decision-making process regarding land distri­bution plans and the lists of land recipients, as well as the differing proce­dures for disputing them, caused several problems. Decisions on determin­ing the lists of land recipients were contested in court so frequently that they accounted for most legal cases. A search for new solutions began in an effort to resolve land distribution and related disputes more effectively. That is what the forthcoming article will focus on.