agrarian_reform – Syria Report

Posts

Explained: Distribution of State-Owned Land to Farmers in the Al-Ghab Plain

04-06-2024/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

The conditions for distributing state-owned agricultural land to farmers were established by Decree No. 166 of 1968, but the distribution of state-owned land to farmers in Al-Ghab Plain, Tar, Al-Ala, Al-Asharna, and Al-Rouj Plain was carried out under a special legislative decree a year later under Decree No. 66 of 1969.

These areas are considered extensions of Al-Ghab Plain and are administratively part of Hama Governorate, except for Al-Rouj Plain, which belongs to Idlib Governorate. These areas were originally swamps that were drained in the 1950s, transforming into fertile agricultural plains known for growing strategic crops such as cotton, sugar beet, sunflower, wheat, and tobacco.

Decree No. 66 of 1969 stipulated that the land distribution to farmers would be free of charge, provided the irrigated land does not exceed four hectares and the rain-fed land is not less than two and a half hectares. These areas are smaller than those distributed to farmers under Decree No. 166 of 1968, which was based on Article 13 of the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958. Article 13 stipulated that the land area should not exceed eight hectares for irrigated or tree-planted land, and between 30-45 hectares for rain-fed land, depending on the annual rainfall rate.

Decree No. 66 of 1969 set conditions for distribution in Al-Ghab Plain, Tar, Al-Ala, Al-Asharna, and Al-Rouj Plain, including that the beneficiary must be a Syrian citizen, of legal age, primarily engaged in agriculture, and without sufficient income from other owned or invested agricultural land to support their family. These conditions are almost the same as those specified in Decree No. 166 of1968.

In addition to the above conditions, Decree No. 66 of 1969 prioritised distribution based on certain categories, giving preference to those licensed to benefit from agricultural land in those areas and the current tenants of state-owned land in the regions specified by the decree, who do not have another source of income.

Following this, the decree gave priority to “gardeners,” though it did not clearly define them, typically referring to those who care for trees. They are followed in rank by those who replaced absent licensees or worked on vacant lands, provided they have farmed the land for at least one agricultural season. Agricultural workers are at the bottom of the priority list.

Specialised committees appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform are responsible for the distribution process in the specified areas. These committees include farmers among their members. Their decisions only become effective after approval by a higher committee chaired by the Minister of Agriculture. This higher committee also includes representatives from the General Union of Farmers, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, and the Distribution and Survey Director of the General Directorate of Cadastral Affair.

Beneficiaries of the land distribution must cultivate the land themselves, adhere to the investment and production plans set by the Ministry of Agriculture, and reside in the areas designated by the ministry. Failure to meet these conditions results in the forfeiture of the land, which is reclaimed and re-registered in the state’s name, with no right to claim compensation for the beneficiary’s effort and expenses.

Beneficiaries are prohibited from transferring the land or establishing any property rights on it, such as usufruct or easement rights for others, under penalty of distribution cancellation. However, the beneficiary may mortgage the land in exchange for a loan from the Agricultural Bank.

If the beneficiary of the land passes away, their heirs may assume the right to use the land, provided they meet the aforementioned conditions. If the heirs do not meet these conditions, the right to use the land transfers to the cooperative association to which the farmer belongs in the area. However, the heirs will be reimbursed for any investments and improvements made by the deceased on the land.

The distribution deeds serve as legal documents enabling the farmer to register the distributed land in their name in the land registry, whenever the Ministry of Agriculture decides. This means that the right to use the land (usufruct) can become full ownership, contingent on a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture, without specifying a timeframe. Consequently, some farmers possess ownership deeds for their land in the area, while others still hold beneficiary status.

Under Law No. 61 of 2004, which amended the agrarian reform laws, beneficiaries become full owners of the land, whether it is state-owned or agrarian reform land. Ownership is retroactively effective from the date of land distribution and is recorded in the land registry based on a request from the Directorate of Agriculture in the governorate. This is not the case in Al-Ghab Plain, Tar, Al-Ala, Al-Asharna, and Al-Rouj Plain.

Decree No. 66 of 1969 required landowners in the decree’s jurisdiction, who were not beneficiaries of the distribution, to adhere to the agricultural investment plans set by the Ministry of Agriculture. This is seen as a restriction on the owner’s right to manage their agricultural property, particularly since they did not benefit from the distribution process.

Explained: Management of State Properties

28-05-2024/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

The regulations governing the management of state properties have undergone various administrative and legal phases. These properties have been supervised by several institutions, directorates, and public bodies, the latest being the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST), established under Law No. 43 of 2023.

Public and Private State Properties

According to Syrian legislation, state properties are divided into two categories: public and private. Public properties include real estate and movable assets owned by the state or legal entities such as state institutions, intended for public benefit. These properties cannot be disposed of, seized, or acquired by prescription. On the other hand, private state properties, as defined by State Property Law No. 252 of 1959, are not designated for public benefit. They belong to the state as a legal entity, regardless of whether they are under the state’s actual control or under the control of other individuals. Private state properties are classified into 12 types, the most notable being Amiri lands, properties registered in the Land Record in the name of the state, and abandoned and dissolved lands.

Agrarian Reform Institution

Since the 1950s, various Syrian legislations have been issued to address encroachments on public and private state properties. Notable among these are the State Property Maintenance Law No. 84 of 1955 and Law No. 273 of 1956, which does not recognise buildings constructed on state property through usurpation, seizure, or unauthorised occupation. However, the institutional framework for managing state properties began effectively during the era of the United Arab Republic (1958-1961), with the establishment of the Agrarian Reform Institution under the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958. This institution was officially responsible for the maintenance and management of state properties and was independent of the Ministry of Agriculture. It enjoyed financial and administrative independence, governed by a board of directors with extensive powers. The institution’s authorities included confiscating land and distributing it to farmers, selling confiscated land to the private sector, and exchanging parts of confiscated land for cash or in-kind compensation.

In 1959, Law No. 252 was enacted, giving the Agrarian Reform Institution full jurisdiction over state properties, excluding properties that fell under the jurisdiction of ministries based on special laws. Article 7 of Law No. 252 of 1959 granted the board of directors of the Agrarian Reform Institution the authority to determine the rental value of state properties exploited by others without lease contracts or whose lease terms had expired, and to assess the value of state lands on which unauthorised buildings had been constructed.

State Property Directorate

In 1967, the Ministry of Agriculture was merged with the Agrarian Reform Institution, forming what is now known as the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. Alongside this merger, the powers of the Agrarian Reform Institution in overseeing expropriated lands were transferred to a newly established entity called the State Property Directorate. This new directorate was also given the responsibility of overseeing other private state properties, including abandoned and dissolved lands.

The directorate operated under the provisions of the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958 and Law No. 252 of 1959. Unlike the Agrarian Reform Institution, the directorate lost its financial and administrative independence and became a department within the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.

The State Property Directorate has a simple organisational structure: a central directorate in Damascus, directly affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, and regional offices in the provinces. These offices are responsible for distributing, selling, leasing, investing, and exchanging state properties within their jurisdiction. According to the Badia Law No. 62 of 2006, the lands of the Badia region were also added to the responsibilities and oversight of the State Property Directorate.

Directorate of State Property Affairs

It is important to distinguish between the State Property Directorate under the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, and the Directorate of State Property Affairs under the Ministry of Local Administration and Environment and its governorate offices. The latter is tasked with inventorying, investing in, and managing properties controlled by governorates, opening registers, organising the records of governorate real estate, and facilitating the transfer of state properties to governorate ownership.

General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties

On December 28, 2023, Law No. 43 was issued, establishing the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST). The aim of GCMPST is to generate stable and lasting resources for the public treasury by managing, maintaining, and investing in private state properties. This GCMPST is based in Damascus and is affiliated with the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.

The tasks of the GCMPST include implementing the provisions of State Property Law No. 252 of 1959 and Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958 and their amendments. These are the same laws that applied to the former State Property Directorate. The GCMPST is also permitted to establish branches in the provinces.

Law No. 43 of 2023 stipulates that the GCMPST will have a director-general and a board composed of eleven representatives from various ministries and bodies, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. The board includes the director-general of the authority, the assistant director of the authority, the director of the Directorate of Planning and International Cooperation Commission, representatives from the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, the Regional Planning Commission, the General Union of Farmers, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Water Resources. The board chair can invite relevant experts to attend council meetings without voting rights. The board’s responsibilities include approving strategies and annual plans related to the protection of private state properties, approving the annual budget proposal, and the annual report on the authority’s activities, proposing legislation related to the GCMPST’s work and internal regulations, and accepting donations and contracts with experts.

Government Plans to Convert Ghab Plain into a Private Agricultural Zone

07-05-2024/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

In recent weeks, several articles published in state-run news outlets discussed the possibility of converting Sahl Al-Ghab “Al-Ghab Plain” in western Hama into a “private agricultural zone.” It’s not clear what is meant by a private agricultural zone, and the regulations governing the agricultural sector have not addressed this concept before. Some articles have suggested that the private agricultural zone is similar to industrial zones and border crossings, where it would operate under independent management and work on developing the infrastructure of agricultural land to support farming and agricultural industries for their products.

It is worth noting that there is already an administrative and service-oriented authority, named General Commission for the Administration and Development of Al-Ghab (GCADA), based in the city of Al-Suqaylabiyeh in the rural parts of Hama. It enjoys legal personality, financial and administrative independence, and is linked to the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. This GCADA was established under Law No. 20 of 2005 to replace both the General Establishment for Forest Investment Management and Regulation, and the Directorate of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform previously working in Al-Ghab. However, the GCADA faces financial difficulties that limit its effectiveness, and today its role is largely advisory in agriculture, providing vaccines for animals, taking measures to prevent fires during the harvest season, and rehabilitating some irrigation channels sometimes with funding and assistance from international organisations.

Sahl Al-Ghab is located in northwestern Syria, between the coastal mountain range to the west and Mount Shahshabo and Mount Al-Zawiya to the east. The plain used to contain many water swamps on the banks of the Orontes River before they were dried up in the 1950s and converted into irrigated agricultural lands. The plain is a fertile, expansive plain, stretching between the governorates of Hama, Idlib and Lattakia, with a length of 80 kilometres and a width of 10-13 kilometres. Irrigation networks branch off from the Orontes River, making it rich in water resources.

A former employee at the Statistical Department of the GCADA told The Syria Report that the plain had suffered significant neglect before 2011, resulting in a decline in irrigated areas and pushing many farmers to focus on rain-fed crops. Meanwhile, Mustafa Al-Mohammad, the Director of Engineering and Technical Affairs at the GCADA, told the official Al-Baath newspaper on January 30, 2024, that large quantities of irrigation water are wasted in the plain annually, draining through irrigation channels into the Orontes River and then into Turkish-administered territories. He added, “We haven’t invested in a single drop of water since the 1950s, and there has been no comprehensive irrigation project for the Sahl Al-Ghab.”

Agricultural Land and Settlements in Sahl Al-Ghab

In Sahl Al-Ghab, land was distributed to farmers according to Law No. 66 of 1969, which amended Agricultural Reform Law No. 161. Law No. 66 of 1969 authorised the Ministry of Agriculture to distribute state-owned lands to farmers in certain areas, specifying that the irrigated area allocated to each family should not exceed four hectares and should not be less than two and a half hectares.

Farmers who benefited from lands in Sahl Al-Ghab locally are referred to as “licensed” or “investigated” farmers because local committees “investigated” their situations, considering factors such as family size, income level, and whether they owned or invested in other agricultural lands when distributing the land. The state had remained the owner of the land while the farmer had only the right to use it. The most recent amendment to the provisions of agricultural reform was through Law No. 61 of 2004, which considered the beneficiary’s ownership as full ownership, retroactively effective to the date of land grant, and registered in their name in the Land Registry. Under Law No. 61 of 2004, the majority of farmers in the plain now have official ownership documents from the Land Registry and are no longer mere beneficiaries.

In the plain, residential settlements are scattered, with a population of around 325,000 in 2010 according to figures circulated by the official press. Most of these villages formed from clusters of farmers who migrated to the plain after its drying and were allocated agricultural lands there under agrarian reform laws. Most of these migrants came from villages on the edges of the plain. Consequently, the plain appears to be divided longitudinally from north to south, with its eastern lands inhabited by farmers from Idlib, while its western lands are inhabited by farmers from Hama and Lattakia.

A significant portion of farmers and residents in the eastern part of the plain were forcibly displaced during the course of the war, becoming IDPs in opposition-held areas. Their lands are periodically put up for public auction by the governorates of Hama and Idlib for investment purposes. Currently, opposition forces control the northern parts of the Sahl Al-Ghab, making it constantly vulnerable to bombardment by regime forces. This impedes farming during periods of frequent military escalation. Additionally, mines are scattered in some areas of the plain, making water disposal there a dangerous task.

All these complexities make the inclusion of the concept of the “private agricultural zone” as a new legally undefined concept for investing in agricultural lands in Sahl Al-Ghab potentially detrimental to the rights of farmers and residents who were forcibly displaced to opposition-held areas.

Flood Compensation Falls Short in Akkar Plain

27-02-2024/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

On February 6, Syria’s Council of Ministers announced the allocation of compensation of SYP 6 billion (USD 455,000 at the official market rate) for those affected by floods in the Akkar Plain region of the Tartous governorate. The plain was hit by rains and floods on January 12, flooding about 1,000 hectares of agricultural land, damaging crops, and ruining around 4,000 plastic greenhouses. Many farmers in the Akkar Plain have faced difficulties proving ownership of their lands, hindering their right to receive compensation.

The Akkar Plain extends on both sides of the Homs-Tartous international road, reaching Tripoli in Lebanon. Dozens of villages and towns, the largest of which is Safsafah, are spread throughout the Plain, through which five rivers run: Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi, Al-Abrash, Al-Arous, Khalifeh, and Abu Al-Ward. The Plain is also rich in groundwater, making agriculture the primary source of income for its 100,000 inhabitants, especially those working in greenhouses. There is an agreement for sharing the waters of the Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi River, signed with the Lebanese side in 2002, which included the construction of a joint dam near Talkalakh in Syria. However, the dam has yet to be implemented.

In the Akkar Plain, farmers face an array of ownership-related obstacles. Farmers and their heirs still commonly own many of the agricultural lands. One of the reasons for the failure to terminate common ownership in the area is the incomplete delimitation and census work that began in 1925. After the government enacted the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958, the process of terminating common ownership came to a halt. The policy was revived in 1980 under Legislative Decree No. 166 of 1967, which ordered the consolidation of agricultural lands and the elimination of common ownership. However, with the passing of Law No. 31 of 1980, the government set a cap on private ownership. Efforts to terminate common ownership restarted in 1988 but faced problems related to the transfer of massive expropriated lands in the area from the ownership of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform to the Ministry of Irrigation. In 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture halted its work to terminate common ownership, and no relevant measures have been taken since.

There are no reliable figures on the number of farmers who own their land in the Akkar Plain or the sizes of these lands. Agricultural reform and reclamation laws led the state to expropriate large parts of the Plain, exceeding 60 percent of its total area. The government redistributed some of these expropriated lands to farmers between 1958 and 1974, a process that stopped without official justification. It is important to note that not all the lands that farmers received under the agricultural reform law were officially documented in the Land Registry. This is in part due to incomplete delimitation and census work.

Some farmers managed to register their ownership of land they purchased from institutions affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture before sales stopped in 1986. Another group of farmers, known as “social research” recipients, were allocated agricultural reform lands based on studies showing that they owned no other land. This group also managed to register their ownership.

The area also sees many “mughariseh” contracts, which, according to the Agricultural Relations Regulation Law No. 56 of 2004, grant farmers partial land ownership at the end of the contract in exchange for planting and cultivating crops.

It’s also worth noting that there is a widespread practice of leasing state lands, public properties that are unauthorised for occupation, and properties belonging to Waqfs of Tripoli (Lebanon) that the Waqfs of Tartous manage (Waqfs are Islamic charitable endowments). There are disputes over public ownership between the Ministries of Irrigation and Agriculture.

These complexities in the distribution of ownership, bureaucratic procedures, sporadic expropriation policies, and unfinished delimitation and census work have deprived the owners of the Akkar Plain of rightful flood compensation.

Therefore, on February 6, the Council of Ministers responded to the damages from the floods by relying on two memoranda issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Irrigation. The two memoranda based their compensation valuation on the results of previously formed damage assessment committees tasked with cataloguing agricultural damages in the Tartous governorate. These committees were originally formed under Tartous Governorate Decision No. 961 of 2009 to inventory and evaluate the assets of sewage facilities in Tartous City. It’s unclear how these committees are related or what their expertise is in assessing flood damages in the Akkar Plain.

The state provided compensation to some of those affected, and the costs for rehabilitating infrastructure, services and agricultural roads, as well as drainage clearing, were covered through the “Drought and Natural Disaster Agricultural Production Impact Mitigation Fund,” established by Decree No. 114 of 2011 and linked to the Minister of Agriculture. The fund has a cap on its compensation budget, which depends on its assets and revenues from the public treasury, the General Union of Farmers, donations, and the interests of its funds in banks. According to the decree of its establishment, the compensations provided by the fund cannot exceed 80 percent of its assets. Its mission is to compensate those whose agricultural production is affected by droughts, natural disasters, and other changes in climate conditions.

Local media outlets reported that the farmers were disappointed by the small compensation they received but did not provide information on the value of this compensation. Local media also reported that the government only compensated a minority of farmers, which farmers also lamented. The Minister of Agriculture stated that those who owned their land and had obtained agricultural regulation documents were eligible for compensation.

The Tartous City Council, during its first session in 2024 between January and February, proposed to re-submit a repeated recommendation to the Council of Ministers for the establishment of an Akkar Plain Management and Investment Authority, similar to the authority created for the investment of Al-Ghab Plain. This official authority would be responsible for infrastructure projects, sewage, and water drainage to face floods, especially the annual threat of Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi River flooding, which poses a risk to farmers in the winter season.

Explained: Mixed Public-Private Sector Companies in the Agricultural Sector

13-02-2024/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

In late 2023, President Bashar al-Assad issued Law No. 40, which allows for establishing joint stock companies between the state and private investors operating in both the crop and animal agricultural sectors. The new law does not clarify the fate of the rights of workers and farmers on the lands where they work, including usufruct rights when the land ownership transfers to the new joint stock companies.

In Syria, mixed companies refer to companies in which the state partners with the private sector. Often, for a company to be considered mixed, the state must own a minimum of 25 percent of the newly-established company. This is also the case of the mixed joint-stock agricultural companies as specified in Article 2 of Law No. 40.

In practice, Law No. 40 replaces Legislative Decree No. 10 of 1986, which enabled the establishment of joint public-private sector companies in the agricultural sector for the first time since the Baath Party reached power in 1963.

The justifications for issuing the law include keeping pace with agricultural plans and production goals and encouraging companies working in the agricultural sector by giving them more flexibility to carry out their activities.

Law No. 40 requires companies that are established or adjust their status per its provisions to comply with the Companies Law issued by Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2011, which states that a joint stock company is a commercial company, regardless of its subject matter.

There are two types of such companies; the first is a public joint stock company consisting of no less than 10 shareholders, and the second is a private joint stock company consisting of no less than three shareholders. In both types, shareholders subscribe to tradable shares of equal value and can be sold or transferred to new partners. Applicants receive a certificate that includes their name and the number of shares they hold in the company.

Law No. 40 of 2023 considers the purpose of creating new companies to be agricultural work, allowing them to own and invest in agricultural land, provided that the company’s capital is not less than SYP 50 billion (approximately USD 3.5 million on the black market). The law also sets a maximum ownership limit for any one shareholder (along with their spouse or spouses and minor children) at five percent of the company’s capital shares, subject to the agricultural ownership limits stipulated in the agricultural reform laws and the agricultural property law. Neither Law No. 40 of 2023 nor the Companies Law No. 29 of 2011 specifies a limit on the amount of agricultural land a company can own.

Law No. 40 of 2023 grants these companies multiple facilities, exempting them from import bans and restrictions and allowing them to import all the needs of their projects and facilities, including machinery, equipment, vehicles, and fittings. The law also exempts these companies from all taxes, financial fees, local administration fees, customs duties, and other charges, regardless of their type and nature, for seven years after their first profitable balance sheet. These tax advantages were already present in Legislative Decree No. 10 of 1986.

Law No. 40 of 2023 also stipulates that if a company owns or invests in agricultural land, the acquired rights of the farmers and agricultural workers who were investing in it must be respected, per the laws in force before the issuance and enforcement of Law 40.

However, Law No. 40 did not specify which laws are referred to, leaving the method of respecting or compensating the rights holders unclear. For example, if there is a usufruct right on agricultural land, a joint stock company established under Law No. 40 can own that land. A usufruct right grants the beneficiary the right to use and exploit something, such as property or land owned by someone else. Law No. 40 did not clarify how to protect the usufruct right on that land, the fate of that right, or how its holders could be compensated due to the transfer of land ownership. The law did not set a deadline for compensating the holders of usufruct rights, the amount of their compensation, or even allocate them a number of shares in the newly established company.

Explained: Procedural Rules for Farmers’ Cooperatives and Acquiring Members’ Lands

11-07-2023/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

The Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform issued the procedural rules for productive farmers’ cooperatives via Decree No. 20 of May 16, 2023. These rules centre around the collective cooperation of members to improve agricultural production but also impact members’ rights to use and possess their lands. The new procedures are an extension of Agricultural Regulation Law No. 21 of 1947 and its amendments, which regulate all aspects of agricultural union activity and production.

A cooperative association must contain at least 30 members who implement collective work towards agricultural investment and increased production. The group structure must include a general assembly that is the highest authority, composed of all its associates and founding members. This body’s duties are to discuss and approve plans, accounts and projects. Next comes the association council, which serves as an executive authority and which consists of five to nine members. The general assembly selects it. Each association must also have a director appointed by that governorate’s Farmers’ Union who coordinates with the association council in carrying out the group’s work.

Under the new procedural rules, a farmers’ collective is a legal entity from the date of its registration with the General Farmers’ Union, enabling it to own movable and immovable assets. It is also exempt from any fees related to real estate registration, such as those for sales and taxes on real estate and building plot revenue.

The rules also oblige each member of a farmers’ collective to acquire a number of shares corresponding to the amount of land they own in the area where the collective works. Those who own fewer than eight hectares of irrigated land or orchards get one share per hectare of such land. Farmers with more than eight hectares get two shares for each additional hectare. Owners of no more than 30 hectares of rain-fed farmland get one share per three hectares of such land. The value of each share is SYP 1,000. These shares are registered under their owners’ names. However, creditors may seize these shares to ensure payment of debts owed by the collective.

The new procedural rules stipulate that members commit to providing their farming equipment and place them at the disposal of the collective, so that the group can use them. There is also a rule that each member must provide the land they own in the area where the collective works and place it at the collective’s disposal for management and investment, provided that ownership remains with that member.

In short, the collective’s lands are those that the members provide for collective investment, in addition to lands that the state may allocate to benefit the group and lands that have devolved to collective ownership. The collective’s lands are considered to be an integrated production unit. They may be divided into large fields to help increase productivity and usage of modern farming methods. Members of the collective share the responsibility for investing in these lands.

The collective must open a register of the names of landowning members, the type of their lands, the surface area and estimated value upon subscription. The collective is entitled to implement irrigation networks, roads, land reclamation, and construct buildings in locations required for production, so long as the general assembly’s decision approves these works.

Production costs are deducted from the collective’s net income. Around 17 percent of the group’s net income is also deducted: 10 percent for regulatory reserves and means of production, five percent for the social security and health fund, one percent for social and cultural affairs; and one person for rewards. Meanwhile, the remaining net income is distributed as follows: 70 percent for the members, based on the total working days each members provides, and 30 percent based based on the percentage of land each member has placed at the collective’s use.

The collective grants certain rewards to its members, such as securing short-term loans, issuing savings bonds for emergencies, disability insurance, insurance against losses, theft or fire, social security, social assistance, and marketing the group’s surplus production – that is, production beyond the personal consumption needs of the members.

However, joining a collective deprives farmers of their right to use their land, regardless of its size, because they have provided it to the collective. The new procedural rules overlook the process for returning a piece of land to its owner upon termination of their membership in the collective. Membership ends upon withdrawal or death if the collective dissolves when the number of members dips below 30, if it merges with another collective or if its work is at a loss. The new rules also failed to address the condition of the land upon return to its owner, and how the owner would be compensated in cases of damage to their land.

A member withdrawing from their collective with the approval of the general assembly has the right to obtain the land they provided to the collective, or land of equal value if handing over their original property would impede the group’s investment operations. In short, the landowner might not receive the same piece of land they had initially placed at the collective’s disposal for collective use. In this case, the withdrawing member may sell their land to another collective member or a third party, so long as that third party joins the collective. Under the procedural rules, the withdrawing member may not sell their land if it was originally agrarian reform land or state-owned land. If a member of the collective dies, their rights are liquidated with the heirs in line with any relevant regulations and laws in force, and in this case, they are treated the same as a withdrawing member.