1. Существующая практика неэквивалентных отношений между субъектами бизнеса в сельских населенных пунктах, агробизнеса и бизнеса в городах в условиях глобализации мировой экономики и роста международной конкуренции сохраняет отставание доходности аграрных предприятий, обостряет проблемы синхронизации уровня доходов сельского населения и работников других отраслей народного хозяйства, деградацию сельских территорий и населенных пунктов, уменьшения их количества и размеров, а также миграции сельского населения.
2. Принципиальными реальными источниками гармонизации развития сельских территорий, агробизнеса, городов являются, во-первых, адаптация инструментария государственной поддержки экономики сельских территорий в республике к требованиям Соглашения стран-участниц ВТО по сельскому хозяйству с целью обеспечения условий «справедливой» конкуренции посредством недопущения при их реализации «искажающего воздействия на торговлю и производство». А во-вторых, формирование привлекательного инвестиционного и социального климата на селе.
3. Экономически эффективной организационно-правовой моделью гармонизации формирования взаимоотношений между субъектами бизнеса в сельских населенных пунктах и городах является создание паритетных, взаимовыгодных стратегических, инвестиционных партнерских отношений между ними.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА 1. Беларусь в цифрах / Статистика Беларуси. 2009. №4. С. 37–48
2. Гусаков, В.Г. Основные концептуальные подходы перспективной организации сельского хозяйства / В.Г. Гусаков // Весцi Нацыянальнай акадэмii навук Беларусi. 2008. №4. С. 12–20.
3. Население Республики Беларусь: стат. сборник / Минск, 2008.
4. Регионы Республики Беларусь: стат. сборник / Государственное предприятие «Информационно-вычислительный центр Белстата». Минск, 2009. 870 с.
5. Республика Беларусь: статистический ежегодник / Минск, 2009.
6. Сельское хозяйство Республики Беларусь: стат. сборник / Минск, 2009. 276 с.
7. Сельское хозяйство Беларуси в цифрах 1980–2007 гг.: тенденции развития / сост. В.С. Сакович; под.науч. ред. В.Г. Гусакова. Минск, 2008. 334 с.
BartoSH MiTSkeVicH AGRI-ENVIRONMENT POLICY OF EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS INFLUENCE
ON RURAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT Бартош Мицкевич Политика охраны окружающей среды в европейском союзе
и ее влияние на развитие сельских районов (Поступила в редакцию 07.05.10)
В статье представлена программа Европейского Союза в области сельскохозяйственной экологии и её влияние на развитие сельских территорий в старых и новых государствах-членах ЕС. Исследования проводились в 2009 г. Главные выводы статьи: в области сельскохозяйственной экологии необходимы гибкие меры. Необходимо учитывать большое разнообразие сельскохозяйственных ландшафтов. Сельскохозяйственная экологическая политика, проводимая странами-членами ЕС на региональном уровне, должна предусматривать гибкие схемы для адекватного реагирования на местах. Из вышеизложенного следует, что проводимая в ЕС экологическая программа может обеспечить надёжные меры для улучшения экологии в сельскохозяйственном секторе.
The paper presents agri-environment policy of the European Union and its influence on rural areas development in old and new Member States. The research studies were made in 2009. The main conclusions of the paper are that the flexibility of agri-environment measures enables it to meet certain environmental needs which cannot be met by other means. The great diversity of its implementation shows that it is able to respond to very diverse situations on the ground. A regional level for measure design (when used) makes it easier to meet environmental needs with precision. Member States can introduce agri-environment schemes at the appropriate level, and ensure that they are responsive to local conditions. From mentioned above results that EU agriculture policy provides an important opportunity to improve environmental management in the farming sector.
Farming has a strong impact on the environment in the European Union (EU), both in a negative and a positive sense. The common agricultural policy (CAP) is a major driver of the agricultural sector, and can therefore positively influence environmental management by farmers. The successful integration of environmental objectives into sectoral policy depends on three different aspects: careful design of the policy framework, proper implementation of the policy, as well as monitoring and policy evaluation.
Significant progress has been made in integrating environmental policy concerns (e.g. protecting water, soil or biodiversity) into the CAP over the last decades. Relevant policy instruments in the CAP market policy include environmental conditions for income support ('cross-compliance'), set-aside and the energy crop premium. Most important environmental policy measures are found, however, in the rural development section of the CAP. They include agri-environment schemes (where farmers are compensated for better environmental management), support for environmental investment, payments to farmers in Natura 2000 areas and environmental training. Overall, the CAP policy framework contains a promising range of measures. However, their final effect depends on the focus of budgetary resources and implementation at national level.
Purpose of this article is to present the role of agri-environment policy of the European Union and its influence on rural areas development in old and new Member States and its meaning in future and new financial perspective in 2007–2013. There was put hypothesis that agri-environment policy will play more and more significant role in agricultural economy of EU Member States and agri-environment measures will be taken under consideration during processes of all economic decisions concerning rural areas.
This article was written on the basis of internal materials of the Ministry of Agriculture and European Committee together with own remarks of the author, who performed as an expert during some meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.
Results of studies
In last few years there was made the analyses of the implementation of agri-environment schemes from two perspectives: the geographic targeting of this policy instrument on areas of highest biodiversity concern (Natura 2000 areas), and positive examples of their implementation.
Agri-environment schemes was analysed on the basis of selected agri-environment indicators. The indicators for which data are currently available at regional level include: 'share of agricultural habitats in Natura 2000', 'area under agri-environment schemes' and 'area under organic farming'. Statistical analysis shows how well agri-environment schemes and organic farming overlap with regions where the share of agricultural habitats in Natura 2000 area is very high. If there is good statistical overlap then good targeting of the policy instrument can be assumed. Statistical analysis indicates that there is a poor geographic match between the key indicators. This implies the need for better targeting of the policy analysed (agri-environment schemes and organic farming) in regions of highest biodiversity concern in the EU-27. Greater attention needs to be paid to this issue in future to ensure that farmland habitats in the Natura 2000 network are appropriately managed (graphic).
Graphic. Outline and results of the targeting analysis for biodiversity.
Source: Statistical Yearbook of European Union, 2006.
The effectiveness of agri-environment schemes (and of other policy measures) depends not only on appropriate geographic targeting but also on effective scheme design and implementation. The case studies examined by the EEA provide positive examples. However, other studies show that the effect of existing agri-environment schemes on biodiversity can be very uneven. Therefore, it is important to support the sharing of best practice between EU Member States in this regard.
The effect of the CAP agri-environmental policy framework and its implementation needs to be evaluated by monitoring agricultural and environmental trends. This allows some limited analysis of the likely success of policy integration, as shown above. However, many of the agri-environment indicators on agricultural pressures, environmental state or the implementation of policy instruments are insufficiently underpinned by data, especially at regional geographical level. This means that analysis of the likely effect of agri-environmental policy on other environmental issues, such as nutrient pollution or soil erosion, is currently not feasible at EU member states level.
Agri-environment measures are designed to encourage farmers to protect and enhance the environment on their farmland. It provides for payments to farmers in return for a service – that of carrying out agri-environmental commitments that involve more than the application of usual good farming practice. Farmers sign a contract with the administration and are paid for the additional cost of implementing such commitments and for any losses of income (e.g. due to reduced production) which the commitments entail. Agri-environment payments are co-financed by the EU and the Member States with a contribution from the Community budget of 85% in Objective 1 areas and 60% in others. Agri-environment measures may be designed at national, regional or local level so that they can be adapted to the particular farming systems and environmental conditions, which vary greatly throughout the EU. This makes agri-environment a potentially precise tool for achieving environmental goals. Agri-environmental measures are diverse, but broadly speaking, one could say that each measure has at least one of two broad objectives: reducing environmental risks associated with modern farming on the one hand, and preserving nature and cultivated landscapes on the other hand.
How these two objectives are expressed in measures depends on the area in question. For instance, in areas with intensive agricultural production measures are often focused on reducing environmental risks (e.g. reducing fertiliser or pesticide inputs, planting winter cover to reduce nitrate leaching etc), but there may also be measures designed to protect nature (e.g. the leaving of winter stubbles in intensive arable areas to provide food for birds). By contrast, in more extensive farming areas, the main environmental risk is generally linked to land abandonment, resulting from the abandonment of labour-intensive traditional farming practices important for the preservation of nature. In such areas measures tend to focus on continuing or re-introducing traditional farming practices with a view to nature protection (e.g. mowing grass rather than grazing it; maintaining hedgerows, etc). But in extensive areas there may also be measures designed to reduce environmental risks e.g. limits on fertiliser applications to grassland. Irrespective of area, there are clearly many measures which will have positive impacts both in reducing environmental risks with respect to soil and water and in protecting nature e.g. maintenance of hedges.
Agri-environment commitments have to go beyond usual Good Farming Practice (GFP). Usual Good Farming Practice is defined as encompassing mandatory legal requirements and a level of environmental care that a reasonable farmer is expected to apply anyway. They are compiled in Codes which Regions draw up and submit to the Commission with their Rural Development Plans. This means that a farmer can only be paid, for instance, for environmental commitments that go beyond statutory requirements defined in his regional Code of GFP. More broadly, in application of the Polluter Pays Principle, a farmer may not normally be paid to conform with environmental legislation in place.
NATURA 2000 network in rural areas
Europe has one of the most diverse and varied rural landscapes in the world. This diversity arose out of centuries of different farming practices which generated many semi-natural habitats that are particularly rich in wildlife – such as hay meadows, wet grasslands, wooded pastures and open heaths. These semi-natural habitats are part of what makes Europe’s landscape so special, both culturally and from a biodiversity perspective. This valuable resource is however rapidly disappearing. Agriculture in Europe has undergone some major changes in the last fifty years. After the war, farmers were encouraged to intensify and modernise wherever possible in order to increase their yields and improve efficiency. Monocultures were introduced, fields enlarged, livestock farms expanded, and pesticides and fertilisers introduced. Not all farms were able to follow this trend though. Some were handicapped by local conditions: the fields were too steep, the soil too poor, the area too remote, the work too labour intensive.
As a result, many farmers in the more marginal agricultural areas of Europe were forced to leave their land and search for jobs elsewhere. The result is that large tracts of farmland across Europe have been heavily transformed or simply abandoned. The combined effects of these opposing trends on Europe’s biodiversity are significant and much of our high nature value farmland is now fast disappearing. Because a high biodiversity usually coincides with low agricultural outputs, most of the farmland in Natura 2000 is located in the marginal farming areas. Typical examples include alpine meadows and pastures, open moorland or wet grasslands. In these areas, existing farming practices are already likely to be compatible and so should be allowed to continue as before. Indeed, designation under Natura 2000 could further help to re-enforce such activities by drawing attention to their societal value and by focusing EU funds towards their maintenance and, where possible, re-introduction.
The importance of farming in maintaining our natural environment is now recognised at the highest political level. The latest changes to the Common Agricultural Policy have, for instance, decoupled farm payments from production and linked them instead to keeping farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition.
The latest Rural Development Regulation (2007–2013) now has, as one of its objectives, to improve the environment and the countryside. Its supports a number of land management practices that are beneficial for the environment, such as agri-environment schemes. This has wide reaching implications for Europe’s biodiversity and for the Natura 2000 Network in particular, as farmers are now entitled to extra financial support for carrying out wildlife-friendly farming activities. The ‘single farm’ payment is no longer linked to production. Instead it is conditional upon keeping farmland in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition and respecting, amongst others the provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Temporary and digressive support is available to cushion the effects of complying with particularly demanding environmental, hygiene and animal welfare standards imposed by EU legislation.
The definition of Areas faced with Environmental Restrictions (AERs) is now restricted exclusively to Natura 2000 areas. This helps farmers to meet the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives and compensate them for any special management they must undertake that goes beyond normal requirements of good farming practice. This can be further supplemented by voluntary agri-environment schemes designed to protect the environment and maintain biodiversity. These can be specifically targeted towards particular natural areas or wildlife species. It is up to each Member State to design their own agri-environment schemes to reflect their regional or national priorities. Support can also be granted for drawing up management plans relating to Natura 2000 sites and for enhancing, the public amenity value of Natura 2000 areas and other areas of high natural value.
The EU common agricultural policy provides an important opportunity for improving environmental management in the agriculture sector as farming income depends to a considerable degree on CAP support. However, this opportunity only becomes reality when relevant policy measures are geographically well-targeted, sufficiently resourced and effectively implemented. If that is the case, then the CAP can also contribute to achieving other Community environmental objectives, such as the protection of biodiversity via the Natura 2000 network. A well-targeted and cost- effective approach to environmental integration in the CAP is not automatically guaranteed. Any approach to using agricultural policy for environmental protection needs to be underpinned by comprehensive environmental monitoring and effective policy evaluation. Only then can policy decisions be taken that provide most environmental return from the significant public resources available in the CAP. Further investment in environmental monitoring and policy evaluation is still necessary for policy makers to take better-informed decisions.
The flexibility of agri-environment measures enables it to meet certain environmental needs which cannot be met by other means. The great diversity of its implementation shows that it is able to respond to very diverse situations on the ground. A regional level for measure design (when used) makes it easier to meet environmental needs with precision. Member States can introduce agri-environment schemes at the appropriate level, and ensure that they are responsive to local conditions.
The optional, contractual nature of agri-environment measures makes it an instrument with a high level of acceptance among farmers, and a correspondingly high level of compliance. Agri-environment measures serve an educational role in that its existence improves environmental awareness among farmers; they can also help to maintain/regain acceptance for farming among the general public.
Agriculture has a significant impact on soil and water resources. For example, agriculture is responsible for about 50% of water use in southern Europe and contributes about 50% of total nitrogen pollution in the rivers of the EU-15. It is also responsible for around 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions and 94% of ammonia emissions in the EU-15. On the other hand, agriculture can also represent a source of renewable energy, e.g. through the production of biogas or biodiesel. Furthermore, farming is very important for the maintenance of biodiversity and landscapes in Europe. Although intensive agriculture damages biodiversity, extensive farming practices can actually help to maintain biodiversity in Europe. This is evident from analysis of land use in the Natura 2000 protected area network in the EU. A significant share of habitats in these conservation sites, particularly in the Mediterranean and mountainous areas, depend on extensive farming practices. To maintain extensive farming systems in such areas, targeted policy support is often called for.
The CAP has incorporated a broad range of agri-environmental policy instruments. However, their impact generally depends on how effective implementation is at national level. Geographic analysis shows that the overlap between Natura 2000 areas and agri-environment schemes could be improved to achieve important environmental objectives. At this stage, more efforts in data collection and policy evaluation are required to fully assess the environmental effect of the CAP.
EU agriculture policy provides an important opportunity to improve environmental management in the farming sector. As a public resource it should be used effectively to maximise environmental gain. The design of the CAP now includes a broad range of agri-environmental policy instruments that can support the implementation of wider environmental policies, such as Natura 2000. Agri-environment schemes, for example, can help maintain extensive farming practices in Natura 2000 areas. Such practices are often essential for maintaining the ecological quality of farmland habitats in these areas. The effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in particular depends on national level implementation and geographic targeting. Analysis of budgetary spending in different regions of the EU-15 shows that the targeting of agri-environment schemes on areas of high nature value farmland, in particular those in Natura 2000 sites could be improved. Current data and indicators are insufficient to properly assess the environmental effect of the CAP. An adequate resource investment in data collection and policy evaluation is necessary to assess whether policies supporting environmental integration are effective or efficient. Such evaluation exercises are essential for ensuring a better return from the budget allocated to major (agri-environmental) policy measures.
Literature 1. EEA. 2005. Agriculture and environment in the EU-15 – the IRENA indicator report. Joint publication by DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Environment, Eurostat, and the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
2. EEA 2008. Environmental policy integration in Europe – state of play and an evaluation framework. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
3. Natura 2000, conservation in partnership. 2009. European Commission. Brussels.
4. Rural Development in the European Union – Statistical and Economic Information – Report 2008. Brussels.
Zbignev Bochek VALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR A HIGH-PRESSURE
GAS PIPELINE CROSSING THROUGH AGRICULTURAL LANDS Збигнев Бочек ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ РАЗМЕРА КОМПЕНСАЦИЙ при ПРОКЛАДКе
ГАЗОПРОВОДА ПО ЗЕМЕЛЯМ СЕЛЬСКОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО НАЗНАЧЕНИЯ (Поступила в редакцию 12.05.10)
Оценщики имущества, которые определяют стоимость недвижимости, знают подходы, методы и технические приёмы, которые широко известны и применяемы. С проблемами они встречаются в том случае, когда требуется определить размер компенсаций, касающихся строительства на территории или под её поверхностью энергетических линий передач, телефонных кабелей, водопроводов, канализационных труб или газопровода. Особое значение имеет определение размера компенсаций за строительство, чаще всего под поверхностью земли, газопровода с высоким давлением. Определение размера компенсаций за строительство газопровода с высоким давлением на землях сельскохозяйственного назначения сводится к определению размера компенсаций за проход газопровода с высоким давлением через незастроенные земли и за ограничение права пользования недвижимостями (сельскохозяйственными землями), расположенными на пути проектируемого газопровода. Определение размера компенсаций предусматривает компенсацию за реальный ущерб и утрату прибыли из-за строительства вышеуказанного газопровода, а на сельскохозяйственных землях– за потерю в посеве, выращивании и урожае за период исключения земель из процесса производительности, а также за уменьшение урожая из-за изменения структуры земель.
Property experts who perform real estate appraisals know approaches, methods, and techniques that are universally used and applied. Problems are encountered when the appraisal subject is compensation due to construction on the land or under its surface area of power, telephone, water, sewage or gas transmission lines. Particularly significant are appraisals concerning compensation for the construction, often underground, of high-pressure gas pipelines. Valuation of compensation for the construction of high-pressure gas pipelines on agricultural land attempts to determine the amount of compensation for the crossing of the high-pressure gas pipeline through undeveloped land and for restricting legal use of the real estate (agricultural land) situated on the route of the planned pipeline. Taken into account during the valuation are compensation for actual damages and use loss caused by the construction of the above mentioned gas pipeline, and on agricultural land for losses in crop, cultivation and harvest for the period the land is excluded from production, and for crop decreases as a result of changes to the soil structure.
Property experts who conduct real estate valuations know the approaches, methods, and techniques that are universally recognized and applied. Problems are encountered when the appraisal subject is compensation for the construction on land or under its surface of power, telephone, water, sewage or gas transmission lines. Particularly significant are valuations concerning compensation for the construction, most often under ground, of high-pressure gas pipelines. The land owner, be it the state, a cooperative or private individual, is often not interested I having a transmission line built on their land, which makes future use of the real estate considerably difficult.
Valuation of compensation scope
The valuation of compensation for the construction of high-pressure gas pipelines on agricultural lands leads to determining the amount of compensation for the crossing of a high-pressure gas pipeline through undeveloped lands and use restrictions for real estate (agricultural land) situated on the route of a planned pipeline. Taken into account in a valuation is compensation for actual damages and lost use caused by the construction of the above mentioned gas pipeline. Losses are in the form of damages to an owner’s property, resulting from the construction of the infrastructure.
Depending on the regulations in force in a given country, taken into account are various land surfaces, which within the range of the constructed gas pipeline are subject to restrictions, e.g. construction of buildings, or planting of trees. In Poland two strips are allotted: a controlled strip (zone) and assembly strip (zone). The width of these strips depends on the gas pipeline diameter.
The valuation of compensation concerns assessing damages in the gas pipeline’s controlled and assembly strips, according to information provided from the design office on the route of the planned gas pipeline, its diameter and the surface areas of the controlled and assembly strips. This data forms the basis for valuation of compensation.
Specific types of damages include:
a) Assembly strip – construction strip used for transport and assembly, on which the infrastructure and soil from excavations will be placed. In this strip one should appraise real estate usufruct losses. The assembly strip also comprises the surface area of the controlled strip.
b) Controlled strip – a strip that permanently restricts use of the real estate after the gas pipeline is constructed, therefore the strip directly localizes the infrastructure together with a protective area, in which limitations for further use of the real estate occurs. Forbidden in the controlled strip is the erection of any kind of structures and planting of tall trees. Agricultural crops can be cultivated and fruit shrubs planted within this strip. One should appraise the decrease in the value of usable real estate on account of permanent restrictions on use of the real estate.
In some cases the need arises to additionally appraise compensation on account of deterioration in agricultural farming conditions on remaining areas of the farm, from the period of construction start to when the real estate is made available again for further use, due to the need of construction terrain bypasses, or periodic land access restrictions, etc. A separate valuation is also required to determine damages on forest land and compensation for the cutting of individual trees.
General rules for assessing compensation
The valuation of compensation on undeveloped agricultural lands, that do not contain forests or woods, is what information on agricultural designated land according to valuation class is based on. In information parts of the valuation found are lists of land owners, data from land records, land designations, agricultural land valuation class, surface-areas of the assembly and controlled strips, and number of posts marking routes on individual land plots. Essential elements of the valuation are «agricultural earnings calculations», which in Poland can be obtained from Voivodeship Agricultural Advisory Centres.
The valuation must contain dates essential for the appraisal study:
– date on which the compensation value was specified,
– date on which the state of the appraised subject was taken into account,
– date when inspection of the real estate took place,
– date the valuation was prepared.
The estimated compensation for property damages on real estate include:
a) compensation for actual damages (losses) that the property owner incurred, including a decrease in the value of the real estate caused by the construction of the infrastructure,
b) recompensation for lost opportunities, which the owner could have obtained if the infrastructure was not constructed (destruction, loss or preventing use).
Determining the amount of compensation for actual damages and lost opportunities resulting from the construction of the high-pressure gas pipeline on agricultural lands, comprises compensation for losses in crops, cultivation and harvests for the period the land is excluded from production (assembly strip), decreased yields in later years due to changes in the land structure, and lowered real estate value as a result of the gas pipeline being constructed.
Damages caused by construction of the gas pipeline include:
a) loss of real estate usufruct during the period from construction commencement to returning the real estate to the owner for further use, including:
– usufruct losses for 1 year,
– losses due to the impossibility of full use of the real estate for a period longer than one growing season;
b) deterioration of real estate use conditions for the investment period;
c) transitory decrease in the value of usable real estate for the period up to restoring the original production level;
d) losses real estate use caused by inserting infrastructure elements underground (marking posts, and other elements);
e) decrease in the value of real estate do to permanent restriction to free (legally possible) methods for using the real estate.
The amount of compensation will be determined according to the state of the appraised subject from the date the real estate was examined according to land valuation class and cultivation. The linear character of the infrastructure running through the real estate of various purposes, various uses and various intensities of uses, causes the necessity to apply to them separate assessment procedures with regard to individual farming conditions.
Valuation of compensation due to the decreased production capacity in the seasonal cultivation period is accepted as 150% of the value of the lost one-year usage in the first year of the gas pipeline construction period.
Estimating compensation for permanent restrictions in real estate use is accepted as a loss in land market value in the controlled strip, caused by restricting future free (but legally possible) use of the real estate and easement appurtenant limitations.
Compensation for permanent markings of the gas pipeline route is accepted as perpetual recompensation for the necessity of additional work of agro-technical equipment and the difficulties caused during field work.
Procedures for estimating compensation
1. Determining compensation for devastated crops and cultivation of plants as lost usufruct for the first year, resulting from the lack of possibility of using the real estate in the period the terrain is occupied for investment realization in the assembly (construction) strip, no longer than to obtaining one crop. Compensation is appraised according to the forecasted crop and agricultural product price in the market. The agricultural product price level is accepted according to the average market price in the appraisal region. As the basis for calculating the average compensation the «agricultural earnings calculations» is used, which takes into account the following assumptions:
– production expenditures are accepted according to the required technological minimum for obtaining the planned yield,
– yield of individual plant production is accepted as forecasted by a given level of expenditures and land valuation class,
– agricultural product prices are accepted as the average prices obtained, or forecasted by sales for the given appraisal period,
– individual work prices for equipment is accepted according to operating costs on an average farm, and average agricultural services hiring prices for the given appraisal period,
– labour prices are accepted according to the average agricultural work prices for a given appraisal period.
At the same time the gas pipeline contractor is obligated to restore land in the construction strips to a state comparable to before the investment was realized.
2. Determining the value of usufruct loss due to a decrease in land production capacity in the assembly strip for the period up until full production capacity is returned after construction, taking into account the period the soil returns to full production capacity and depends on:
– degree of soil disturbance,
– soil devastation,
– quality of recultivation performed.
Estimation of the amount of crop reduction (damages) is conducted through a «single flat-rate damages» empirical assessment, comprising a accumulative, several year crop reduction for the assembly strip occupied during the gas pipeline construction. Established with this is a yearly, gradual improvement in the crop soil. With experienced observation it is accepted that a return to full productivity in the assembly strip takes places in the fifth year and that crop reduction amounts to:
– year 1 – 60% of forecasted crop for a given land,
– year 2 – 40% of forecasted crop for a given land,
– year 3 – 30% of forecasted crop for a given land,
– year 4 – 20% of forecasted crop for a given land.
Combined crop loss in the assembly strip due to construction of the gas pipeline amounts to a 150% loss of usufruct in the first year.
3. Determining the value of compensation due to easement of infrastructure and permanent restrictions on land use, as the investor realizing the construction and use of the gas pipeline «disturbs» and limits exercising ownership rights. Constructing a gas pipeline that is a foreign property on land often causes a decrease in the market value of real estate. This results from the fact that:
– foreign elements exist (gas pipeline) in the real estate, on the real estate or over the real estate,
– possibility of the gas pipeline owner entering the real estate with the aim of conserving the equipment or fixing problems.
These factors cause that established on the real estate is a so-called infrastructure easement (easement appurtenant). This easement occurs in the controlled strip (exploitational) of the technical territorial development.
The amount of compensation is calculated using the formula:
Zw = S x W x P,
where Zw – amount of damages due to infrastructure easement, appropriate decrease in the value of real estate due to permanent restriction in the way the land is used; S – coefficient for the decrease in the value of real estate, in the range 0,15–0,20; W – market value for 1 m2 of land (plot) real estate; P – surface-area of the controlled strip.
The amount of coefficient «S» used in the above formula depends on the type of technical infrastructure and restrictions related to it.
The market value for 1 m2 of land real estate is determined by applying a comparative approach. Property experts should take into account in the valuation agricultural plots utilized in a similar way, and at the same time having at their disposal real estate transactions of similar value for valuation, should determine the value of a 1 m2 plot as an average price from analyzed transactions, with taking into account market tendencies and real estate land prospects.
4. Determining the costs of additional agricultural equipment costs due to permanent markings of the gas pipeline route, and the necessity of increasing mechanical equipment work costs during agro-technical operations. Difficulties caused by permanent posts marking the gas pipeline route are to make a perpetual annuity. Discounting of additional mechanical equipment work costs amounts to:
Ks = D/r,
where Ks – perpetual compensation for permanent marking of the infrastructure route; D – annual agricultural equipment additional work costs;r – discounting rate.
A state, cooperative or private land owner is not often interested in having an utility transmission line constructed on their land, which considerably hampers future use of the real estate. For this reason, particular significance is given to valuations concerning compensation for the construction of high-pressure gas pipelines. Valuation of compensation for the construction of a high-pressure gas pipeline on agricultural land leads to determining the amount of compensation for the passing of a high-pressure gas pipeline through undeveloped land and for restricting legal use of the land (agricultural land) on the route of the planned gas pipeline. The valuation takes into account compensation for actual damages and use losses caused by the construction of the above mentioned gas pipeline.
Important elements of each valuation are clauses that protect the appraiser, e.g.:
– Тhe appraisal study was prepared in accordance with professional property expert standards.
– The appraisal study can not be published in its entirety or part in any documentation without the consent of the author and without agreeing with them on the forms and content of such a publication.
– The study cannot be used for any other aim except what is specified in the study.
– The basis for determining the legal state of real estate is made available by investor documents and materials.
– The valuation is based on real estate inspections carried out during local visits, and on information and documentation made available by the Design Office.
– Separate studies are agricultural calculations and determining the usefulness of agricultural arable land in the valuation of compensation region.
– Possible printing errors do not have an effect on the value of compensation estimates.
– Reserve the right to study confidentiality.
Literature 1. Cymerman, R. System and procedures for appraising real estate / R. Cymerman, A. Hopfer. Olsztyn-Zielona Góra. 2001.
2. Cymerman, R. Rules for appraising damages causes by the realization of linear investments / R. Cymerman, D. Konieczny // APPRAISAL – VALUE – TURNOVER – REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT no 2/49, 3/50, 4/51, Olsztyn 2000.
3. Professional Standards of the Professional Appraisal Practice – published by the Polish Federation of Valuers’ Associations, Warsaw, 2004.
4. Łaguna, T.M. Valuation of real estate and agricultural farms / T.M. Łaguna. Olsztyn Western Organizations Center - Zielona Góra. 1998.
5. Prystupa, M. Appraising real estate using the price-comparative method, Polish Federation of Valuers’ Associations, Warsaw 1997.
6. The Appraisal of Real Estate, Polish Federation of Valuers’ Associations. Warsaw, 2000.
7. European Appraisal Standards 2000, Polish Federation of Valuers’ Associations, published by Estates Gazette, Warsaw 2001.
Pavel Mitskevich, Antoni Mitskevich THE POLISH FISHERY 5 YEARS AFTER ACCESSION IN THE EU Павел Мицкевич, Антони Мицкевич СОСТОЯНИЕ РЫБОЛОВСТВА В ПОЛЬШЕ СПУСТЯ 5 ЛЕТ
ПОСЛЕ ВСТУПЛЕНИЯ В ЕС (Поступила в редакцию 12.05.10)
В статье представлены итоги исследования политики развития рыболовства после вступления Польши в ЕС. Главные проблемы польского рыболовства вытекают из политики развития рыболовства Европейского Союза. Это прежде всего квота, которая не позволяет получать адекватные доходы от переработки. В статье подчеркивается, что вступление Польши в ЕС принесло польскому рыболовству ряд как негативных, так и позитивных последствий. К негативным относятся: сокращение флота польских кораблей и необходимость модернизации, ограничение улова, квотирование продукции. Среди позитивных факторов важными являются: финансирование модернизации отрасли из средств ЕС и гарантирование заработной платы рыбаков для их закрепления в этой сфере деятельности.
The article presents results of research into the policy of fishery development after accession of Poland to the EU. The main problems of Polish fishing industry result from the policy of fishery development in the EU. It is mainly the quota, which does not allow to get adequate income from processing. The article stresses that accession of Poland to the EU influenced Polish fishery both negatively and positively. Negative consequences are: reduction of the fleet of Polich ships and necessity of modernization, fish catch limits, production quota system. Positive factors include such important ones as the branch modernization financing from the EU funds and guaranteed wages of fishers for their stable position in this branch.
The inclusion of fishery into the framework of Common Fisheries Policy after accession to the EU was connected with the necessity of submission to the rules of marine resources protection and implementation of a number of suitable legal instruments. In practice, this meant in the first place the incorporation of Poland into a system of total catch size determination and control TAC (Total Allowable Catch) in the Baltic Sea and the necessity of accepting the assigned catch quota for individual fish species. Apart from this, Poland had to conform to many technical limitations in such questions as close season and days closed to fishing, acceptability of using a specific type of fishing nets (e.g. ban on using drift nets for salmon fishing in order to prevent from accidental porpoise catches), allowable engine power and vessel tonnage or net mesh size.
The most questionable element of Common Fisheries Policy is undoubtedly the setting of fishing quota. This problem raises many reservations in the fishing environment, not only in Poland.