estimate of the amount of land transferred to commercial farms that is entirely unused and to link different survey rounds over time to measure changes in performance over time by any given farm (Beyene 2015).

The positive impact of these changes, as described below, led CSA to further modify the instrument for the 2014/15 season to collect data on inputs and outputs at the plot rather than the farm level. For 2015/16, it is planned to (i) have plot boundaries recorded to allow yields to be cross-checked against independent estimates obtained from satellite imagery; and (ii) link the survey frame more clearly to data from other sources, especially the Agricultural Investment Office’s list of investment licenses to determine what types of projects were abandoned and possibly probe into reasons why this happened.

# **3. Descriptive evidence**

Survey data on operational farms allow us to characterize overall land transfers as well as performance of commercial farms in a way that can dispose of some common myths. First, with some 160 ha per farm, mean area transferred to large farms is below what has been reported in other databases (Land Matrix 2015) and studies (Oakland Institute 2011; Rulli et al. 2013; Rahmato 2011). With land disputes, technology, and manpower given as main reasons for 43% of commercial farms’ land not being fully utilized, tighter screening of applications in the pre-investment phase or monitoring once ventures started may improve outcomes. Second, positive spillovers may be limited by the fact that most investment is focused on onfarm infrastructure, less than 5% of large farms have outstanding credit, and the amount of lease fees paid seems modest. Third, with one permanent employee per 20 ha, job creation is below the amount of labor that could be productively absorbed by smallholder agriculture, possibly through investment upstream in the value chain.

# **3.1 Scale and use of lands transferred**

Starting from 1991, some 1.33 million ha had been allocated to 6,600 commercial farms with the rate of transfer having peaked in 2008 but since then fallen to pre-2007 levels.<sup>7</sup> As large farms’ plots were georeferenced and the start date for each farm in the sample is known, we can map the evolution of commercial farms over time.<sup>8</sup> Results show an initial cluster of sesame and sorghum farms comprising transformed state farms in the North-West, followed by expansion of commercial farming for maize and wheat in the center, and eventually a movement towards the border regions of Benishangul-Gumuz and Gambella (fig. 1-4).<sup>9</sup>

> 7 Note that the sampling strategy implies that, subject to non-response, the survey provides a reliable measure of the area transferred to farms that were fully or partly operational (CSA, 2011). A simple check of land transferred by the Investment agency against those that have been identified by CSA as operational on the ground could provide information on land area under non-operational farms. In terms of non-response, information on 300 farms with size 50 and above, who did not respond to the detailed survey, is not included. The total farm size of these farms (excluding Karuturi Global Limited with 100,000 ha), based on administrative information, is about 117,000 ha.

> 8 Although GPS was used to determine plot area, the waypoints generated in this way were not saved and instead only one point was recorded per plot. While this allows us to locate farms, it makes it impossible to obtain precise plot boundaries.

> 9 In interpreting these figures, it is important to note that there will be survivor bias, i.e., farms that have gone out of business are no longer included.

7