We find that receipt of a PSG grant of $86 per ha had a significant, though quantitatively modest, impact on area cultivated with summer crops. Interestingly, this impact was largest for farms located closest to active fighting and in the smallest size group (below 20 ha), two sub-groups with the greatest difficulty in accessing alternative sources of finance so that grant resources may have been important to bridge shortterm gaps. On the other hand, the size of the grant is well below the level of demand for credit articulated in the farm survey. To help farms, especially those further from the front, diversify into higher value crops, it will be important to explore how grant resources can be used to leverage larger amounts of bank finance. This will require using the digital platform built on the SAR to reduce the transaction cost of accessing credit, including by allowing banks to validate applicant information, farmers to access technical support, and linking to other factor and output markets. Beyond the methodological contribution of this paper, further research along these lines could help to appreciate the size and incidence of benefits from a digital farm registry and the implications for public investment and cost recovery.

We contribute to three strands of literature. First, a large body of literature shows that real-time use of administrative data can greatly improve targeting and effectiveness of public programs. Examples include use of biometric IDs to identify beneficiaries (Muralidharan _et al._ 2016), transfer of cash that is coordinated with actual implementation (Banerjee _et al._ 2020), or use of administrative data to solicit user feedback to help monitor public service providers (Muralidharan _et al._ 2021). Our finding that, <mark>even in a conflict environment where accountability and capacity have traditionally been limited, verifiable data from official sources can help transparently target benefits to groups that have been underserved in the past adds to this literature. It reinforces the notion that,</mark> especially in crisis or conflict settings, non-traditional data sources including mobile phone data can help target support (Aiken _et al._ 2021).

<mark>Building on studies showing spatial data can be used to enforce</mark> land use regulations (Assuncao _et al._ 2019) or certify supply chains’ environmental sustainability (Heilmayr _et al._ 2020; Moffette _et al._ 2021), including establishing links to public support (Assunção et al. 2020),<sup>1</sup> <mark>we also show that, if combined with remotely sensed imagery, cadastral data can be used beyond targeting to evaluate the impact of specific programs, something that has proven to be more difficult for mobile phone data (</mark> Aiken _et al._ 2023) <mark>. In Ukraine’s case, the ability to access a reasonably complete cadaster was a distinct advantage as setting up the spatial data on which to run a farm registry during war time was impossible.</mark> A second topic is the digitization of agriculture. While digital technology, including equipment-mounted sensors that are now routinely used by large farms (Deines et al. 2021), improved productivity (Chancellor 2023) by increasing input use efficiency and reducing uncertainty (Khanna 2021), high fixed costs imply

> 1 Refer to Moffette and Gibbs (2021), Carlson _et al._ (2018), Lee _et al._ (2020), and Pacheco _et al._ (2020) for a discussion of challenges and impacts. Merkus (2024) shows that effective enforcement can be beneficial for economic growth.

3