PSG program had been implemented in 2023; i is a vector containing levels and squares of weather variables including total precipitation, GDD (>5°C), and the number of days with zero precipitation during XX planting and growing seasons as well as winter crop area to allow for substitution effects between winter and summer crops that was found important elsewhere (Deininger _et al._ 2023a); _λt_ is a time fixed effect that varies with farm size category (< 20, 20-50, and > 50 ha); and _εit_ is an error term. To explore heterogeneity of potential program effects, we also interact _PSGi*Post_ with categorical variables for farms’ size category (<20, 20-50, and >50 ha), distance to the front (< 50 km, 50-100 km, and >100 km);<sup>24</sup> and legal status (legal entity FOP, or individual).

Table 5 presents descriptive statistics for the regression sample of 19,660 PSG recipients (in panel A) and 23,343 eligible non-recipients (in panel B), overall (column 1) and by farm size (columns 2 to 4 ), and legal status (columns 5-7). The first two rows in each panel provide the total area of parcels (or agricultural parcels) to which the registrant has a registered right. With an average area of registered land close to 20 as compared to about 9 ha for non-participants, successful PSG participants are larger (12% as compared to 3% cultivating more than 50 ha) and more likely to be organized as a legal entity (19.2% vs. 6.2%) or FOP (12.7% vs. 7,7%) than the control. Overlaying cadastral with crop map information suggests farmers in treatment and control cultivated 96% and 99% of their registered area, respectively, in the pre-war years (2019-2021); the war triggered a marked decline of cultivated area to 93% or 91%, respectively, in 2022 that was partly but by no means fully reversed in 2023. On average, successful applicants received the equivalent of $1,668 ($962 and $ 6,206 for farms below or above a registered area of 50 ha, respectively) via the PSG program.

To improve comparability between treatment and control, we use entropy matching on first and second moments for all regressions variables to re-weight observations in the control sample, making them more comparable to those in the treatment. Appendix table A6 shows that, after re-weighting, normalized differences between farms that received and that did not receive PSG payment are negligible throughout and well below the rules of thumb considered in the literature. Figure 2 graphically illustrates mean values of our outcome variable (area cultivated with summer crops) for treatment and controls in the pre-and postintervention period, respectively using entropy weights. The null hypothesis of parallel linear trends in the pre-treatment period cannot be rejected at the 5% level although values diverge after PSG became available.

# **4.3 Results and robustness check**

Results, overall (column 1) and with heterogeneous effects by distance to the closest administrative unit affected by conflict (referred to as the ‘front line’), farm size, and formality of organization (columns 2-4)

> 24 For purposes of this analysis, we use the centroid of all parcel centroids as a proxy for the location of the farm.

14