News | SULANETsulanet.uniag.sk/.../default/files/research_publications/ma… · Web viewFigure 10...

Anna Bandlerová et al.

The Land Management Manual of the EU

Nitra 2017

Title: The Land Management Manual of the EU

Authors:Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovakia (chapters I. 1, II. 5)Anna BandlerováLucia PalšováPavol SchwarczOľga Roháčiková

University of Foggia, Italy (chapter II. 3)Domenico VitiGiuseppe Celi

University of Bialystok, Poland (chapters I. 2, II. 4)Adam SadowskiRenata Przygodzka

University of Cordoba, Spain (chapters I. 4, II. 6)Antonio Bueno-Armijo

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria (chapters I. 5, II. 1)Reinfried MansbergerWalter SeherGeorg Neugebauer

University of Agribusiness and Rural Development, Plovdiv, Bulgaria (chapters I. 3, II. 2)Mariana IvanovaVihra Dimitrova

Reviewers: Dr.h.c. prof. Ing. Dušan Húska, PhD. Assoc. prof. Ing. Štefan Buday, PhD.

©Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

Approved by the Rector of the University of Agriculture in Nitra on 28th June 2017 as a monograph.

This monograph was created with the support of the following international projects: Jean Monnet Networks project: Sustainable Land Management in Europe, no. 564651-EPP-1-2015-1-SK- EPPJMO-NETWORK.

“The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

ISBN 978-80-552-1684-3

ContentIntroduction..........................................................................................................................................8

I. General overview..............................................................................................................................9

1 Political and legal background of the land management in the EU..............................................9

2 Economic aspects of land management in the EU......................................................................13

3 Ecological aspects of the land management................................................................................15

4 Land management as a tool for rural development.....................................................................18

5 Assessment and monitoring of land management indicators......................................................21

II. Withdrawal of agricultural land in selected EU countries.............................................................27

1 Case Austria................................................................................................................................28

1.1 Withdrawal of agricultural land...........................................................................................28

1.2 Legal and political background of the withdrawal of agricultural land...............................31

1.3 Economic tools to protect of agricultural land.....................................................................33

1.4 Obstacles and stimuli in realisation of the withdrawal of agricultural land.........................35

1.5 Case study............................................................................................................................36

2 Case Bulgaria..............................................................................................................................39





2.5 Case study............................................................................................................................46

3 Case Italy.....................................................................................................................................49





4 Case Poland.................................................................................................................................62





4.5 Case study............................................................................................................................72

5 Case Slovakia..............................................................................................................................74





5.5 Case study............................................................................................................................79

6 Case Spain...................................................................................................................................82





6.5 Case study............................................................................................................................87

List of figuresFigure 1 Land management paradigm..................................................................................................9

Figure 2 The importance of land use management............................................................................10

Figure 3 Land use by agricultural holdings in 2013...........................................................................29

Figure 4 Land use in Austria..............................................................................................................29

Figure 5 Development of land take in Austria in hectares per day....................................................30

Figure 6 Utilization of agricultural land (%)......................................................................................41

Figure 7 Change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes (ha)................................42

Figure 8 Uzana area............................................................................................................................47

Figure 9 Consumption of soil in Italy (square km), 1989-2015.........................................................50

Figure 10 Soil consumption in Italy in percentage of total country area, 1989-2015........................50

Figure 11 Soil Consumption in Italian macro-regions (% of total area), 1989-2015.........................51

Figure 12 Percentage change 2012-2015 in soil consumption by distance from sea coast (only

Italian regions touched by the sea).....................................................................................................

Figure 13 Soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard zones by Italian regions................................53

Figure 14 Soil consumption high seismic hazard zones by Italian regions.......................................54

Figure 15 Agricultural grounds excluded for non-agricultural purposes in the years 1990-2015

(ha).....................................................................................................................................................

Figure 16 The area of agricultural lands excluded for non-agricultural purposes, according to

valuation class in Poland in the years 1990-2015 (ha).......................................................................

Figure 17 The directions of exclusion of agricultural grounds for non-agricultural purposes in

Poland in the years 1990-2015 (ha)....................................................................................................

Figure 18 Municipality Sokółka.........................................................................................................72

Figure 19 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha)............................75

Figure 20 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha) according to

CSEU..................................................................................................................................................

Figure 21 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha) according to

purpose...............................................................................................................................................

Figure 22 Situation in Ladice before the land consolidation.............................................................79

Figure 23 Situation in Ladice before the land consolidation.............................................................80

Figure 24 Situation in Ladice after the land consolidation................................................................81

Figure 25 Utilised agricultural area (ha)............................................................................................83

Figure 26 Evolution of the land uses (ha)..........................................................................................83

Figure 27 Arable land (ha).................................................................................................................83

Figure 28 Permanent crops (ha).........................................................................................................84

Figure 29 Kitchen gardens (ha)..........................................................................................................84

List of tablesTable 1 Agricultural holdings and areas in Austria............................................................................28

Table 2 Land use (ha).........................................................................................................................39

Table 3 Conversion of agricultural land between 2000 and 2006 (ha)..............................................40

Table 4 Availability and use of agricultural land (%)........................................................................41

Table 5 The area of agricultural lands excluded for non-agricultural purposes, according to

valuation class in Poland in the years 1990-2015 (ha).......................................................................

Table 6 Land withdrawal in Spain in the period 1999-2015..............................................................82

“I think we´ve all heard that many times, but it is neccessary to repeat it:

the greatest natural wealth of every country is not oil or gold, but water and soil.“

Václav Cílek

IntroductionLand-use in the EU is not sustainable which is caused by low awareness of the land value

and non-effective land management in EU member states. Difference between supply and

availability is increased and land management authorities and professionals need to prepare

decisions in accordance with requirements for multifunctional land-use. Because in the EU does not

exist any harmonized political tool for land management and in several EU member states the land

policy is not suitably adjusted, decisions of relevant state and self-government authorities related to

land management could be constantly directed to soil deterioration. Even European member states

have different natural and historical-political backgrounds, European and international

environmental documents encouraged them to implement common actions to maintenance and

protect land based on the sustainable principles.

Effective rules defining access and regulating use of land are essential means of ensuring

long-term management of land and resources.

The Manual Land Management of the EU has been created with the EU financial support in

the frame of the Jean Monnet project "Sustainable Land Management Network (SULANET)"

No. 564651-EPP-1-2015-1-SK-EPPJMO-NETWORK.

The objective of the project is to create virtual research and educational network

“Sustainable land management network” with specific objectives to promote research and teaching

in the field of sustainable European land management and to strengthen the effectiveness of land-

use governance in the EU. Network is created of higher educational institutions from different EU

member states (Austria, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Poland, and Bulgaria) based on their professional

focus in order to ensure multidisciplinary synergy and excellence in teaching and research activities

in the field of EU land management.

The aim of the collective of authors was to offer not only a one-time comprehensive

material, but mainly to enhance the trust and confidence in the EU land management, to provide the

PhD. students, post-doctoral students and young researchers under 35 who do not automatically

come into contact with European integration studies the possibility to use the material later as well

to be able to focus on and to solve some of the basic issues within the field of the Land

Management in the EU.

8

Nitra 2017 Authors

I. General overview

1 Political and legal background of the land management in the EULand is a finite resource with increasing substantial demands placed on it. As a result of

increasingly heavy pressure on land resources (e.g. housing, transport infrastructure, energy

production, agriculture, and nature protection), agricultural production declines, the quantity and

quality of land deteriorates, and there is increasing competition for access to land (FAO/UNEP,

1999). The competition for land resources creates serious risks of geopolitical imbalances both

worldwide and in the EU. The EU will thus be even more dependent in future on its land resources

– which include some of the most fertile soils in the world – and on their sustainable use (The

implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities COM/2012/046 final).

For following reasons, at present is emphasized to ensure effective tools of land policy in the

European Union. One of the most significant one is a land management focuses primary on the

management of the use and development of land resources. Land resources management is defined

as the actual practice of the use(s) of the land by the local human population, which should be

sustainable which composes of legal, economic, institutional and environmental framework

(FAO/Netherlands, 1991). Sustainable land management is then defined as a knowledge-based

procedure that helps integrate land, water, biodiversity, and environmental management (including

input and output externalities) to meet rising food and fiber demands while sustaining ecosystem

services and livelihoods (World Bank, 2006).

Figure 1 Land management paradigm

Source: Enemark, 2007 in INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing, 2013

9

Land policy

framework

Sustainable developmenteconomic,

social and environmental

Land information

infrastructures

Institutional arrangements

Land administration functions

Land tenure, land value, land-use,

land development

Complexity of the land management consists in the fact that management of the land nearly

always face a trade-off between various social, economic and environmental needs (e.g. housing,

transport infrastructure, energy production, agriculture, nature protection). Competences of the land

management in the EU are exercised by concrete European states because until now at the EU level

miss political will to adopt legally binding actions. In spite of this fact, European and international

environmental documents encouraged European states to set up actions to maintenance and protect

agricultural land based on the sustainable principle. EU Member States have a variety of legal

decisions that can use to address environmental issues related to land use. Governments play a

crucial role in implementing policies for wise use of land. Governments regulate the exploitation of

resources and they control land use. They can and do use a variety of public policy tools to

authorize, finance, and implement these actions. Public policy tools include international

agreements, laws, programs, and public education (INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental

Auditing, 2013; Figure 2).

Figure 2 The importance of land use management

Source: INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing, 2013

Legal decisions include legislation (legal acts), regulations, permits, licenses, bylaws, and

ordinances. Legal decisions on land use are at the same time long term commitments which are

difficult or costly to reverse. On the other site weak land administration can namely lead to severe

10

Land becomes increasingly

scarce resource

Requirements of increasing population

and consumption

Therefore

Land use must change to meet new demands

BU

Change bring new conflicts between competing use & between the

interest of individual land owner and the common good

Government´s responses

Land use management

injustice and conflict. Changes in administrative structure are likely to have long-term

consequences, positive or negative, for political, economic and social development and

environmental management (COM (2004) 686 final).

Competence of EU and EU member states in the field

Because the current land policy lies at the heart of economic and social life and

environmental issues in all EU countries, the EU agricultural, energy, transport and cohesion policy

reforms has effort to provide the opportunity to set the framework and the right incentives for public

authorities and land owners in order to improve the effectiveness of land management. Most

regulations and policies regulation agricultural law (land planning, tax law, environmental

regulations, etc.) are within the competences of national states and local authorities. Yet agricultural

land is directly or indirectly affected by a range or EU regulations and policies, notably in the

following areas:

Environment: (for example: renewable energy directive (2009/28/EC), nitrates directive

(91/676/EEC), water framework directive (2000/60/EC), etc.;

Regional policy, mobility and transport: development of large transport and other

infrastructures, social and territorial cohesion;

Common agricultural policy: overall agricultural orientations, land use and its evolution,

land prices, young farmers, high nature value, etc.

Land management decisions are usually taken at local or regional level. However, the

European Commission has a role to play in ensuring that Member States take

environmental concerns into account in their land-use development plans and practice integrated

land management. The European Commission has an exclusive right to propose new environmental,

including land policy and has a responsibility to ensure the implementation of environmental law.

The most important directorates-generals related to the environment are: Agriculture and Rural

Development, Climate Action, Energy, Environment, Health and Food Safety, Joint Research

Centre, Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Regional and Urban Policy, Research and Innovation.

The Directorate-General for Environment (DG Environment) is the European

Commission´s department responsible for EU policy on the environment. Aims of the DG

Environment are:

To protect, preserve and improve the environment for present and future generations;

To propose and implement policies that ensure a high level of environmental protection;

11

To preserve the quality of life of EU citizens.

It also makes sure that Member States apply EU environmental law correctly and represents the

European Union in environmental matters at international meetings.

Policy areas of DG Environment: action programmes, air, chemicals, circular economy,

environmental assessment, green public procurement, industry, international issues, land, marine

and coast, nature and biodiversity, noise, soil, sustainable development, urban development, waste

and water.

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agri) is the European

Commission department responsible for the European Union policy area of agriculture and rural

development. The work of the DG AGRI is closely linked with the Common Agricultural Policy

(CAP). DG Environment works under the political leadership of Phil Hogan.

Policy areas of DG Agri: direct support, market measures, rural development, agriculture

and environment, bioenergy, climate change, organic farming, quality policy, biotechnology,

promotional measures, forest resources, state aid, research and innovation, food and feed safety,

animal health and welfare, plant health.

The European Commission currently operates several affiliated institutions, whose aim is to

assist the Commission in forming and implementing environmental policy. The most important are

the European Environmental Agency, European Union Network for the implementation and

Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL), Environmental Policy Review Group etc.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. EEA's

mandate is:

To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving

the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and

moving towards sustainability;

To coordinate the European environment information and observation network.

The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of

Environmental Law (IMPEL) is an international non-profit association of the environmental

authorities of the European Union Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the EU,

EEA and EFTA countries. The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the

European Union to make progress in ensuring a more effective application of environmental

legislation. The core of IMPEL’s activities take place within a project structure and concern

awareness raising, capacity building, peer review, exchange of information and experiences on

12

implementation, international enforcement collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the

practicability and enforceability of European environmental legislation.

2 Economic aspects of land management in the EUBoth the priorities and the objectives of the European Union policy implemented within the

framework of the CAP, and the forms of support, in relation to agriculture and rural areas, have

evolved since its inception. The previous objective was: “maintenance of agricultural economy and

agricultural areas”, whereas the present objective is: “management of the balance between the

quality of the rural environment and quality of life in rural communities”.

The problems of management of agricultural lands in the European Union should be

considered from the perspective of the regulations contained in the I and II pillar of the CAP. Pillar

I utilizes direct subsidies, which are the most common form of protection of agricultural land in the

policy of the European Union, making the reception of support depend on the fulfilment of cross-

compliance requirements. The beneficiary of this aid is obliged to comply with the basic

requirements in terms of management and the principles of good agricultural practice, in observance

of environmental protection. According to the rules of good agricultural practice, requirements must

also take into the account: proper soil and climatic conditions, existing farming systems, land

utilization, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures (Council Regulation (EC) No

1782/2003 from September 29, 2003, establishing common rules for direct support schemes under

the CAP).

The obligation of setting aside arable land has been introduced in the European Union as a

supply control mechanism. Set-aside entitlements were established in 2003, which resulted in the

granting of direct subsidies, with the assumption that the lands are not used for production purposes,

but are rather maintained in good agricultural practice, in observance of environmental protection.

The framework of the II CAP pillar includes activities related to the development of rural

areas. Subsequent budgeting periods (2000-2006; 2007-2013 and the current 2014-2020) contain

many measures that directly or indirectly concern good management of agricultural lands. Measures

implemented under the II CAP pillar are: consolidation of agricultural land, aiming at: creating

favourable economic conditions, creating compact land complexes, improving the areal structure

and maintaining environmental values.

Significant measures related to improving economic conditions include the support system

for agriculture in mountains and other areas unfavourable for agricultural production introduced in

1975, which protected agricultural land from falling out of agricultural use. The support introduced

by EEC Directive 268/75 was primarily aimed at ensuring the continuation of farming activity and

13

preserving the socio-economic lifetime of rural areas. It established the boundaries of the area of

intervention for naturally and structurally impaired agriculture and for the first time it was decided

to compensate for losses resulting from said impairment, mainly through subsidies to compensate

for reduced land rent in these areas.

The priorities of the rural area development support policy in the years 2007-2013 were to

support land management, stimulate restructuring, development and implementation of innovations

in agriculture and forestry, diversification of economic activities carried out in rural areas. The aim

of these measures is to improve the quality of life, the condition of the environment, the

competitiveness of agriculture and forestry. Afforestation of agricultural lands and afforestation of

non-agricultural lands has been introduced to combat the degradation of lands especially vulnerable

to erosion, over-cropping and the penetration of pollutants into groundwater. Among the measures

to achieve the improvement of the environment one can distinguish measures aimed at sustainable

use of land in the form of, among others, subsidies for Natura 2000 areas, agri-environmental

subsidies and animal welfare subsidies. Natura 2000 subsidies were granted to farmers yearly per

hectare of agricultural land in order to compensate for costs incurred and income foregone resulting

from disadvantages in given areas, associated with the implementation of directives aimed at 2000

areas. Agri-environmental and animal welfare subsidies were granted to farmers who voluntarily

undertook agri-environmental and animal welfare commitments. The subsidies included additional

costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made. It should be emphasized that

agri-environmental and animal welfare subsidies covered only those commitments which exceeded

the relevant mandatory standards established by the applicable regulations of the above Council

Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 and other relevant mandatory requirements established by national

legislation and identified in the program.

The current financial and legal instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy established

for the period 2014-2020, have been structured in the three basic Regulations of the European

Parliament and of the Council (EU) adopted on a single day - December 17, 2013, and bearing the

numbers:

No. 1305/2013 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Fund for

Rural Development (EAFRD);

No. 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural

Policy;

No. 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct subsidies under support schemes within the

framework of the Common Agricultural Policy.

14

The currently valid regulation no. 1307/2013 provides for two direct subsidy schemes: a) the

basic subsidy scheme, and b) the single area payment scheme, applied in Poland. The preamble to

the regulation states that one of the objectives of the new CAP is to improve the results in terms of

environmental impact, through the mandatory "greening" element included in the direct subsidies,

which supports EU-wide agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment.

These practices should take the form of simple, generalized, non-contractual and annual measures

that go beyond cross-compliance and are linked to agriculture, such as crop diversification,

maintenance of permanent grassland (including traditional orchards where fruit trees with low

density cover a grassland area), and the establishment of ecological focus areas. Failure to comply

with the obligations resulting from the "greening" element shall be subject to penalties under

regulation no. 1306/2013.

In addition to direct subsidies, an important group of instruments related to the management

of agricultural lands in the EU are agri-environmental programmes and regulations in the field of

organic farming. These promote practices contributing to a sustainable land management (in order

to protect soils, waters and the climate), protection of valuable natural habitats and endangered bird

species, the diversity of the landscape and protection of genetic resources of endangered local plants

and livestock, as well as protection of the diversity of the landscape.

3 Ecological aspects of the land managementThe change of land use is the most ubiquitous factor leading to sufficient changes and

degradation of environment. Deforestation, urban development, agriculture, and other human

activities have substantially altered the Earth’s landscape. Such disturbance of the land affects

important ecosystem processes and services, which can have wide–ranging and long–term

consequences, as follows:

Impact on natural resources including water, soil, air, nutrients, plants, and animals;

Water pollution both in inland and coastal waters;

Conversion of wetlands to crop production and irrigation water diversions has a negative

impact on many wildlife species;

Irrigated agriculture has changed the water cycle and caused groundwater levels to decline;

Intensive farming and deforestation may cause soil erosion, salinization, desertification,

and other soil degradations;

Deforestation causes greenhouse effect, destruction of habitats that support biodiversity,

affects the hydrological cycle and increases soil erosion, runoff, flooding and landslides;

Urbanization causes air pollution, water pollution, and urban runoff and flooding;

15

Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and alteration associated with urban development are a

leading cause of biodiversity decline and species extinctions, etc.

What is Urban Sprawl?

Urban sprawl is actually another word for urbanization. It is related to migration of

population from populated towns and cities to low density residential development occupying more

and more rural land. In other words, urban sprawl is defined as low density residential and

commercial development on undeveloped land. Urban sprawl is associated with a number of

environmental effects. In Europe, the urban sprawl has rapidly increased during the last decades. It

is one of the main challenges regarding the sustainable land use. Urban sprawl has negative effect

on landscapes through three major processes: transformation, degradation and fragmentation. The

conversion of agricultural lands into housing areas is the most visible effect. In the same time,

valuable habitats and agricultural soils are lost. In the period of 2000 – 2006, for example, 46 %

agricultural lands have been taken up by urban and other artificial land development in the

European countries. With the spread of built-up areas in the landscape, natural and semi-natural

areas are being portioned into smaller patches and reduced in size. This fragmentation affects the

ecosystems, because smaller habitats are more prone to isolation, lack of food resources and

reduced variability in habitat structure.

Soil degradation in EU

Nowadays, the modern human activities cause damages to the Europe’s soils, which increase

and lead to irreversible losses due to soil erosion, local and diffuse contamination and the soil

surface sealing. Besides, the population growth together with urbanisation is setting soils under

pressure, while agricultural intensification is making soils more susceptible to erosion. Another

cause of soil degradation is sealing of soil surfaces due to an increased urbanisation and new

infrastructures in the most developed and populated countries of western and northern Europe.

Some of the main factors that cause soil degradation in the EU include soil erosion (caused by water

or by wind), and a decline in the proportion of organic matter contained within soils: almost half of

the the soils in the EU are considered to have a low content of organic matter and this is particularly

evident in the southern EU countries. Other forms of soil degradation include also salinisation (the

accumulation of soluble salts in soils), flooding, soil contamination from industrial activities (the

use and presence of dangerous substances in production processes).

Soil loss by erosion is the main cause of soil degradation also in the Mediterranean region.

In some areas, soil erosion cannot be reversed, while in others nearly complete removal of soil has

been observed. Soil deterioration by contamination is an important issue in central, western and 16

northern Europe. For 12 of EU countries, the estimated number of potentially contaminated sites

adds up to 1,500,000, of which more than 300,000 have been identified. This number sites is not

expected to increase, due to national policies already in place and the commitment to the

precautionary principle. But, the huge number of existing contaminated sites is an enormous

challenge for the next decades and will need appropriate legal instruments, innovative remediation

technologies and practical financial instruments. At the national level, many Member States have

produced legislation, policies or guidelines to ameliorate or prevent soils from further degradation.

But, in general the policy measures are primarily aimed at combating pollution in other areas, and

affect soils indirectly. The development of an EU policy which recognizes the role of soil and takes

into account the problems arising from the competition among its concurrent uses (ecological and

socio-economic), and which is aimed towards the maintenance of its multiple function, would have

multiple benefits and achieve a consistent improvement of Europe’s environment as a whole.

Another form of soil degradation is the soil sealing - when soil is replaced by an

impermeable material, for example, due to the covering of land for housing, roads or other

construction work. A roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe COM(2011) 571 — one of the

flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy — has called for EU policies, by 2020, to ‘take into

account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally’, such that the rate

of land take (land taken for urban and other artificial land development) is maintained on a path

which aims to achieve no net land take by 2050.

EU Policy

The European Commission plays an important role in ensuring that the EU Member States

take environmental concerns into account in their land-use development plans and practice

integrated land management. Monitoring and mediating the negative environmental consequences

of land use while sustaining the production of essential resources is a major priority for policy-

makers. European Union policies on climate change adaptation are directly relevant to current and

future land-use practices and economic sectors depending on these. Land-use is also important

consideration for many other policy areas, such as territorial cohesion, urban planning, agriculture,

transport and nature protection. The EU supports a number of development initiatives directly and

indirectly promoting sustainable use management addressing desertification, land degradation and

drought.

Common Agricultural Policy of EU

The implementation of the European CAP is an example of good practice in preventing soil

erosion in an acceptable way. The measures of the new CAP (2014–2020) which has ecological 17

focus areas and the protection of permanent pastures, together with the further application of crop

residues, may result in further protecting of land resources. The CAP linkage to the Good

Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) and the payments can be a good instrument for

achievement of sustainable land use. Farmers should also be engaged in a bottom-up approach

providing feedback to researchers and policy makers about the impact of management practices on

soil erosion rates.

NATURA 2000

Natura 2000 is the key instrument to protect biodiversity in the European Union. It is an

ecological network of protected areas, set up to ensure the survival of Europe's most valuable

species and habitats. It is made up of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection

Areas (SPAs) designated respectively under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. The

network includes both terrestrial and marine sites (Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)). Natura 2000 is

based on the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. Stretching over 18 % of the

EU’s land area and almost 6 % of its marine territory, it is the largest coordinated network of

protected areas in the world. 43 % of the total area occupied by Natura 2000 sites in the EU

countries is located in mountain areas.

On 16 December 2015, the Environmental Council adopted Conclusions on the mid-term

review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

On 2 February 2016, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the mid-term review

of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

4 Land management as a tool for rural developmentLand management is a core issue of any rural development policy. This is especially obvious

regarding the second objective of the EU rural development policy: “ensuring the sustainable

management of natural resources and climate action” article 4 (b) Regulation n. 2013/1305.

Consistently, EU rural development policy includes among the Union priorities: “restoring,

preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, with a focus on the

following areas:

restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas, and in areas

facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as well as the state of

European landscapes;

improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management;

preventing soil erosion and improving soil management.

18

In addition, land management is also an essential part of the third objective of the EU rural

development policy: “achieving a balanced territorial development of rural economies and

communities including the creation and maintenance of employment”, article4 (c) Regulation n.

2013/1305.

Indeed, rural development policies aim to improve the standard of living and the quality of

life of rural population through economic, social, cultural or political measures. These policies have

to ensure the provision of basic public services and facilities. Nonetheless, and more importantly,

they must provide for the economic and social conditions that make possible the development of

personal and collective projects to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone.

To achieve this objective, and along with other measures, linked to fostering the

competitiveness of agriculture (eg., fostering knowledge transfer and innovation, facilitating farm

restructuring and modernization, promoting food chain organization), European Union has

traditionally focused on the reallocation of resources in rural areas, supporting the diversification of

economic activities. Diversification of economic activities and reallocation of resources allow rural

population to reduce the risk of economic dependency and to improve the provision of services

requested by changing consumer demands.

According to this approach, current EU legal acts outline that, for the development of rural

areas, the creation and development of new economic activities is essential. These new economic

activities may adopt different forms: they could well be new farms, but they should also tend to the

diversification into non-agricultural activities, including the provision of services to forestry and to

agriculture, the sustainable management of hunting resources, activities related to social integration,

health, tourism, etc.

Agricultural and non-agricultural activities carried out in rural areas rely on scarce

resources, including land, and compete for them. As a result, land management becomes an

essential planning tool to decide on the possible uses of land and, therefore, on the different kinds of

activities that can be developed in each particular area.

However, little attention has been paid to the land management as a tool for promoting

social cohesion through the reform of the land property and land tenure systems.

It is common ground that secure accesses to land and to land tenure are indispensable

conditions to ensure social equity in rural areas. Secure and long-termed access to land and natural

resources encourage farmers to develop sustainable practices both, in agricultural and non-

agricultural activities. For the same reasons, overuse of lands, overgrazing, water overexploitation

or deforestation, and similar practices which can lead to land degradation in rural areas, tend to be

avoided when access to land and to land tenure is guaranteed. Consistently, the European Union, as

a part of its international cooperation policy, actively encourages the implementation in developing 19

countries of the “Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries

and forests in the context of national food security”, endorsed by the Committee on World Food

Security in May 2012.

However, some forms of land property and land tenure systems could play also a major role

within the rural development policy of the EU. More specifically, the common property theory may

offer fresh insights on the relationship between land management, conservation of natural resources

and social cohesion.

Common properties can adopt different legal forms, but they typically involve the collective

ownership of valuable resources which can be used or employed by the community. The

community can own the property directly (each individual holds an undivided interest in the entire

property) of through a public body (e.g. a municipality). In addition, their legal regime usually

confers a special protection upon these properties, preventing their sale or establishing tough

conditions to sell them.

Many different types of goods can be treated as common properties, including lands, water

resources, forests, pastures, hunting, fisheries, and almost any kind of natural resources. The more

valuable the good, socially or economically, the more suitable the regime of common property

could be. The community owning the property will better take care of the goods if they are

considered to be essential for their survival.Practices involving an adequate management of

resources, including water retention, pollution mitigation, and the protection of soils and coasts are

likely to appear. But, even whether they are not considered to be essential resources, sustainable

management practices are also likely to be implemented if the members of the community feel that

they are the real owners of the common properties.

Land management based in common properties could increase social cohesion, too.

Members of the community not only carry out similar economic activities on the same goods, but

also share the burden and the privilege of protecting them.

Rules governing the use of common properties may vary in every particular case.

Nevertheless, these rules have to be settled by common agreement of the members of the

community, which increases their level of involvement with the protection of the goods and their

rational use. In addition, evidence has been given to suggest that old rules governing common

properties are seen as making part of the common heritage of the community.

According to article 345 (ex article 295 TEC), European Union cannot impose nor forbid

specific systems of property ownership. But European Union can promote and support the systems

thought to be more suitable in order to attain its general objectives regarding rural development.

From this perspective, the common property approach for land management could become a useful

tool for rural development.20

5 Assessment and monitoring of land management indicatorsIndicators provide information for understanding and managing complex systems (Schiefer

et al 2015). Indicators are measurable variables that arise from data and create values (Singh et al

2012). Two types of data can be used to indicate the state or level of the object of investigation: (a)

quantitative data allowing for a response to questions as “How much?” or “How quickly?” and (b)

qualitative data allowing for statements about qualitative conditions. The quantitative or qualitative

data collected allow for assessments based on comparisons to critical thresholds, previous measured

values, ex-ante defined target values or results in other observation units (Meyer 2004). Indicators

can assume prescriptive or evaluative functions (Haider et al 2015, S. 27).

Taking into account the definition of land (use) management as “work related to use of land

resources within current policy guidelines taking into consideration the legal framework for a

specific land area” (Mansberger and Mattsson 2015), land management indicators provide specific

information on the current state of land use as well as the respective changes. In a European

context, this article focuses on selected indicators out of the set of agri-environmental indicators

(AEIs) that are intended to monitor the integration of environmental concerns into the Common

agricultural policy (Eurostat 2015). In order to discuss aspects of assessment and monitoring of land

management indicators such indicators were chosen that allow the consideration of agricultural land

conversion which in a European context primarily results from the extension of artificial areas 1 as

well as forested land (EEA 2015).

For the assessment and monitoring of land cover and land use data from different sources,

e.g. satellite, aircrafts, unmanned aerial vehicles as well as terrestrial recordings can be taken into

account that cover different spatial scales (EU/national, regional, local) and show various spectral,

radiometric as well as temporal resolutions. During the IRENA operation (Indicator Reporting on

the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agriculture Policy) limitations of some agri-

environmental indicators have been identified (EC 2006), e.g. deficiencies in several data sets, in

terms of harmonisation (e.g. farm management), data quality (e.g. genetic diversity), geographical

coverage (e.g. water quality) and /or availability of data series (e.g. area under organic farming).

Land use change

Land use change is defined as the exits from agricultural land use broken down by non-

agricultural sectors (Eurostat 2016a). The indicator represents the conversion of agricultural land to

non-agricultural use. As main indicator, the percentage of the total agricultural area is measured that

has changed to artificial surfaces compared to a reference period. The supporting indicator is

1 Artificial areas comprise land use for urban fabric, including green urban areas and sport and leisure facilities;

industrial, commercial and infrastructure surfaces; as well as mines, dumping and construction sites (EEA 2015)21

defined as land use change from agricultural land to artificial surfaces (hectares). CORINE Land

Cover (CLC) database changes are used as data sources.

The CLC uniform methodology and nomenclature across Europe can be considered as a

strength of the indicator which should give a reasonable estimation of land use changes with an

update interval of approximately 6 years. The mapping unit of 25 hectares and the mapping scale of

1:100.000 give a limit for monitoring high-resolution land use changes.

High nature value farmland

The indicator is defined as the percentage of utilised agricultural area (UAA) farmed to

generate high nature value (HNV) (Eurostat 2016b). The main indicator is defined as the share of

estimated high nature value (HNV) farmland in utilised agricultural area (UAA), the supporting

indicator as the estimated area of HNV farmland. Three definitions of high nature value farmland

have been proposed (European Environment Agency 2004; Paracchini et al 2008): (1) farmland

with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation, (2) farmland with a mosaic of low intensity

agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stone walls,

patches or woodland or scrub etc. and (3) farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of

European or wildlife populations.

For the estimation of high nature value farmland, the EU Member State authorities can refer

to several data sources including inter alia CORINE Land Cover, land use/cover area frame survey

(LUCAS) and other land cover data, Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), Land

Parcel Information System (LPIS), Farm Structure Survey (FSS) data, Species and habitats

databases, Specific sampling surveys, Rural Development Programme (RDP) monitoring data as

well as Designations (Natura 2000 protected habitats, national nature reserves) etc. The indicator

definition described above only aims for an estimation of the extent of high nature value areas,

since current methodologies applied allow for an incorporation of quality/condition into high nature

value assessments only in a few Member states.

Soil quality

The indicator provides an account of the ability of soil to provide agri-environmental

services through its capacity to perform its functions and respond to external influences. In the agri-

environmental context, soil quality comprises (a) the capacity of soil to biomass production, (b) the

input-need to attain optimal productivity, (c) the soil-response to climatic variability and (d) carbon

storage, filtering and buffering capacity (Eurostat 2016c). The main indicator is defined as agri-

environmental soil quality index supplemented by four supporting indicators of similar weight: (1)

22

productivity index, (2) fertiliser response rate, (3) production stability index and (4) soil

environmental services index.

Although soil quality as an AEI is clearly defined, the indicator shows weaknesses arising

from the facts that (a) soil quality comprises many aspects and soil functions, (b) represents a

relatively new concept difficult to relate to existing soil classification systems and that (c) various

land uses may require different soil functions and related soil quality (Eurostat 2011). Furthermore,

comparisons of soil quality across EU Member States are complicated by (1) not equally available

information from soil surveys, (2) the absence of a uniform and regular monitoring of soil quality,

(3) partly out-dated existing information on soil characteristics as well as (4) differing chemical and

physical analyses methods.

References1. AGAMBEN, G. 2003. The coming community, University Of Minnesota Press.

2. ALONSO GONZALEZ, P. - FERNANDEZ FERMANDEZ, J. 2013. “Rural Development

and Heritage Commons Management in Asturias (Spain): The Ecomuseum of Santo

Adriano”, Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, Special Issue, no. 2.

3. BARCHIESI, F. 2003. “Communities between Commons and Commodities: Subjectivity

and Needs in the Definition of New Social Movements”, The Commoner, vol. 6.

4. BROWN, K. M. 2006. “New challenges for old commons: The role of historical common

land in contemporary rural spaces”, Scottish Geographical Journal, vol. 122.

5. BUCK, SUSAN J. 1998. The Global Commons: An Introduction, Washington, D.C., Island

Press.

6. BURGER, JOANNA - ELINOR OSTROM et al. 2001. Protecting the Commons: A

Framework for Resource Management in the Americas, Washington, D.C., Island Press.

7. DALE P. D. - McLAUGHLIN, J. D. 1988. Land Information Management, Clarendon

Press: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-858404-0

8. DALE V. H. et al. 2000. Ecological Principles and Guidelines for managing the use of land.

ESA Report. Ecological Applications, 10 (3), 2000, pp. 639-670.

9. DOLSAK, NIVES - ELINOR OSTROM. 2003. The Commons in the New Millennium:

Challenges and Adaptations, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

10. DONAHUE, B. 1999. Reclaiming the Commons: Community Farms and Forests in a New

England Town, New Haven, CT., Yale University Press.

11. EEA. 2015. The European environment: state and outlook 2015 : European Briefings -

Land systems. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

23

http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:TH0115001:EN:HTML. Zugegriffen:

30. Januar 2017

12. ENEMARK, 2007 in INTOSAI WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL

AUDITING (WGEA). 2013. Land Use and, Land Management, Practices in Environmental

Perspective. ISBN 978-9949-9061-9-2 (PDF)

13. EU-LUPA European Land Use Patterns. Applied Research 2013/1/8 (Part B) Final Report

Version 7/ February 2014.

14. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament: EU Guidelines to support land policy design and reform processes in

the developing countries, COM (2004) 686 final

15. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Communication from the Commission, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Roadmap to

a Resource Efficient Europe (COM/2011/0571 final)

16. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and

ongoing activities COM/2012/046 final. Report from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee

of the Regions.

17. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2006) and the

implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities (2012) have given

formal recognition of the severity of the soil and land degradation processes within the

European Union and its bordering countries.

18. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (Hrsg.). 2004. High nature value farmland:

characteristics, trends, and policy challenges. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

19. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. 2010. The European Environment. State and

Outlook 2010. Land use.

20. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. 2016. The direct and indirect impacts of EU

policies on land. EEA Report, No. 8/2016. ISSN 1977-8449

21. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. 2016. Urban sprawl in Europe. Joint EEA-

FOEN report Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-9213-738-0

22. EUROSTAT. 2011. Data requirements, availability and gaps in agri-environment indicators

(AEIs) in Europe. Eurostat Methodologies and Working papers. Luxembourg.

23. EUROSTAT. 2013. The EU’s land use and land cover survey. LUCAS. Eurostat Compact

guides. European Union.

24

24. EUROSTAT. 2015. Agri-environmental indicators. Eurostat - Statistics Explained.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicators.

Zugegriffen: 13. Februar 2017

25. EUROSTAT. 2016. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. 2016 edition. Statistical

Books.

26. EUROSTAT. 2016a. Agri-environmental indicator - land use change. Eurostat - Statistics

Explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-

environmental_indicator_-_land_use_change. Zugegriffen: 30. Januar 2017

27. EUROSTAT. 2016b. Agri-environmental indicator - High Nature Value farmland. Eurostat

- Statistics Explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-

environmental_indicator_-_High_Nature_Value_farmland. Zugegriffen: 30. Januar 2017

28. FREYFOGLE, ERIC T. 2003 The Land We Share: Private Property and the Common

Good, Island Press.

29. HAIDER, L. - IRIBARREM, A. - GARDNER, T. - LATAWIEC, A. - ALVES-PINTO, H.,

& STRASSBURG. 2015. Understanding Indicators And Monitoring For Sustainability In

The Context Of Complex Social-Ecological Systems. In A. Latawiec & D. Agol (Hrsg.),

Sustainability Indicators in Practice (S. 23–36). Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open.

doi:10.1515/9783110450507

30. HARDT, M. - NEGRI, A. 2009. Commonwealth, Harvard University Press.

31. CHESTERTON, CH. 2009. Environmental impacts of land management. Natural England

Research Report NERR030.

32. INTOSAI WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING (WGEA). 2013.

Land Use and, Land Management, Practices in Environmental Perspective. ISBN 978-9949-

9061-9-2 (PDF)

33. LARSSON G. 2010. Land Management as Public Policy, University Press of America.

ISBN 978-0-7618-5248-3

34. McKAY - BONNIE J. - JAMES M. ACHESON. 1987. The Question of the Commons: The

Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press.

35. MEYER, W. 2004. Indikatorenentwicklung. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. (2.

Auflage.). Saarbrücken: Centrum für Evaluation.

36. NOMINI, DONALD. 2007. The Global Idea of ‘the Commons’, New York, NY, Berghahn

Books.

37. PAAGOS, P. et al. 2015. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe.

Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 438 – 447.

25

38. PARACCHINI, M. - PETERSEN, J. E. - HOOGEVEEN, Y. - BAMPS, C. - BURFIELD, I.,

& VAN SWAAY, C. 2008. High Nature Value Farmland in Europe An estimate of the

distribution patte rns on the basis of land cover and biodiversity data. Luxembourg: Office

for Official Publications of the European Communities.

39. PENALVER - EDUARDO MOISES - SONIA K. KATYAL. 2010. Property Outlaws:

How Squatters, Pirates and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership, New Haven,

Connecticut, Yale University Press.

40. REID HERBERT - BETSY TAYLOR. 2010. Recovering the Commons: Democracy, Place

and Global Justice, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press.

41. ROMANO, B. – ZULLO, F. 2013. Models of Urban Land Use in Europe: Assessment Tools

and Criticalities. 80 International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information

Systems, 4(3), 80-97, 2013.

42. SCHIEFER, J. - LAIR, G. J. & BLUM, W. E. H. 2015. Indicators for the definition of land

quality as a basis for the sustainable intensification of agricultural production. International

Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3(1), 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.03.003

43. SINGH, R. K. - MURTY, H. R. - GUPTA, S. K. & DIKSHIT, A. K. 2012. An overview of

sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007

Legal acts:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 from September 29, 2003, establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the CAP.Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December

2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and

repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 Text with EEA relevance

Internet resources:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

http://www.eea.europa.eu

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=49#sthash.jcyo9VBe.dpuf

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=49#sthash.jcyo9VBe.dpuf\

26

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=49#sthash.jcyo9VBe.dpuf%5C

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=49#sthash.jcyo9VBe.dpuf

II. Withdrawal of agricultural land in selected EU countries

Agricultural land represents one most vulnerable type of land resource. In the EU, more than

1,000 km² are subject to withdrawal every year for housing, industry, roads or recreational

purposes. About half of this surface is actually 'sealed'. The availability of infrastructure varies

considerably between regions, but in aggregate, every ten years we pave over a surface area

equivalent to Cyprus (COM/2011/0571 final). The urban sprawl contributes significantly to the loss

of fertile agricultural land, soil sealing and the loss of essential ecological functions. The increase in

built up areas has led to higher greenhouse gas emissions, higher infrastructure costs for transport,

water and electricity, and the loss of open landscapes. It has also reduced the size of wildlife

habitats as urban development and roads break up the landscape into ever-smaller pieces, with

potentially devastating consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems. Urban sprawl also has socio-

economic impacts. It increases the demand for infrastructure such as roads, and it makes people

more dependent on cars which poses a burden on household budgets (NTOSAI Working Group on

Environmental Auditing, 2016). Decreasing of the agricultural land quality has an impact on the

reducing the capability of agricultural land to ensure food security and food-self-sufficiency in the

EU.

If we are to reach the state of no net land take by 2050, following a linear path, we would

need to reduce withdrawal to an average of 800 km² per year in the period 2000-2020

(COM/2011/0571 final). It is worth mentioning that a large part of these activities are taking place

near urban areas, which are often the most fertile land. As was done with natural areas, we therefore

need to start considering EU agricultural land as a precious and non-renewable resource to be

protected and preserved. Recent studies have shown that there is a very real and urgent issue

concerning the governance of the land in Europe. European States have the obligation to respect,

protect and fulfil human rights, and more especially the right to food of people living in Europe and

abroad (Petition to the European Parliament 2015).

References1. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Communication from the Commission, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Roadmap to

a Resource Efficient Europe (COM/2011/0571 final)

2. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. 2015. Petition to the European Parliament Preserving and

managing European farmland as our common wealth

27

3. NTOSAI WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING (WGEA). 2013. Land

Use and, Land Management, Practices in Environmental Perspective. ISBN 978-9949-9061-

9-2 (PDF)

1 Case Austria

1.1 Withdrawal of agricultural land

Austria covers the area of 8,387,100 ha, out of that agricultural land represents 2,728,558 ha.

In Austria, there is 0.37 ha of agricultural land per capita.

In Austria, a total amount of 166,317 agricultural and forestry holdings was recorded in the

framework of the farm structure survey 2013. Since the EU accession of Austria in 1995, the

number of holdings decreased by 30.4 % (see Table 1 Agricultural holdings and areas in Austria).

Over the same timeframe, the utilised agricultural area (UAA) decreased by 20.4 % and

fell below the 3 million ha threshold in 2010. In absolute terms, about 3.4 million hectares of

utilised agricultural land were recorded in 1995 while only 2.7 million hectares were left in 2013 (-

698,315 hectares). As a result of a sharper decrease in the number of holdings than in the utilised

agricultural area the average area per holding increased (+22.9 %) from 15.3 hectares in 1995 to

18.8 hectares in 2013.

Year Number of holdings Total area [ha] Cultivated area

(CA) [ha]

Utilised agricultural area

(UAA) [ha]

Average size of holdings by cultivated area [ha]

CA UAA1995 239,099 7,531,205 6,686,268 3,426,873 31.5 15.31999 217,508 7,518,615 6,650,206 3,389,905 30.6 16.82005 189,591 7,569,254 6,578,163 3,267,833 34.7 18.82010 173,317 7,347,535 6,285,646 2,879,895 36.4 18.82013 166,317 7,357,197 6,156,068 2,728,558 37.1 18.8

Table 1 Agricultural holdings and areas in Austria

Source: Agricultural Structure

Survey, Statistics Austria, depicted in BMLFUW 2015

In Austria, the utilised agricultural area is essentially composed of arable land and

permanent grassland and meadow which together accounted for 98 % of the agricultural area in

2013 (Figure 3).

28

Figure 3 Land use by agricultural holdings in 2013

Source: Agricultural Structure Survey 2013, Statistics Austria 2014

In 2013, arable land was taken up by cereals, fodder crops and industrial crops whereof

cereals covered the widest area (821,676 hectares) and accounted for 30.1 % of the entire Austrian

utilised agricultural area. Since 1995, arable land decreased by 2.9 % (-40,191 hectares).

The land dedicated to permanent grassland and meadow accounted for 47.5 % of the

Austrian utilised agricultural area in 2013 (563,662 hectares of intensive and 733,443 hectares of

extensive grassland). The decrease in the area of permanent grassland (-33 %) compared to 1995 is

partly the result of improved topographical surveying in alpine regions, allowing better distinction

of areas unfit for agricultural use from the actual rough grazing areas, The extent of this

phenomenon however is hard to quantify (see discontinuous changes depicted in Figure 4).

Figure 4 Land use in Austria

Source: Agricultural Structure Survey, Statistics Austria 2014

29

Under the impact of expanding settlements and transport areas, the utilised agricultural area

in Austria is continuously reduced. Land take in Austria remains on a high level compared to the

goal of the Austrian Strategy on Sustainable Development 2010 with a land take of max.

2.5 hectares per day (see Figure 5). In the period 2013 to 2015 the average land take in Austria

(16.1 hectares per day) was less than in the previous years. This reduction was mainly attributable

to lower growth in recreation and quarrying areas. However, it remains to be seen whether this trend

will persist in the next few years against the background of forecasted population growth in urban

areas and the resulting increase in pressure on the finite soil resource (UBA 2016).

Figure

5 Development of land take in Austria in hectares per day

Source: EAA 2016

Definitions

The Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) is defined as the total area – taken up by arable

land, permanent grassland and meadow, permanent crop and kitchen gardens – used by the holding,

regardless of the type of tenure or whether it is used as a part of common land (Eurostat 2016).

Methodological notes

In Austria, the first survey on agricultural and forestry holdings was conducted in 1902.

Subsequent surveys were held in 1930, 1939 and 1951, and every ten years from 1960 to 1990.

Since 1995, Austria has conducted the farm structure survey in compliance with the EU regulations

(Eurostat 2016). Due to different definitions and various accuracies a direct comparison of time

series is only possible to a limited extent.

30

1.2 Legal and political background of the withdrawal of agricultural land

Spatial planning and soil protection in Austria

As a federal state, Austria has three levels of government: national, regional (nine Provinces

Bundesländer) and local (2,100 municipalities). The distribution of powers within the federal

system is determined by the Constitution, which provides the following framework for legislative

and regulatory activities of the different territorial authorities (OECD 2001): (a) In principle, the

competent authorities for spatial planning regulation and implementation are the governments in the

nine Austrian Provinces, (b) local authorities are responsible for spatial planning at the local level

and (c) the federal government (national level) can issue sectoral regulations for spatial planning in

sectors that come within its responsibility (e.g. trading code, transport and traffic laws, water and

forestry, mining law).

Based on the decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfSlg 2674/1954), that defines

spatial planning as a competence of the provinces’ federal governments and nominal spatial

planning as a public task, the spatial planning acts of the Austrian provinces form the backbone of

the legally binding planning instruments (eight provinces have enacted a spatial planning law, the

city of Vienna rules spatial planning under the title of “city planning” within the building law).

Spatial planning laws include a bunch of – partly contradicting – planning goals, e.g. (a) ensure a

land-saving development, (b) provide spatial conditions for agriculture and food security and (c)

ensure favourable conditions for commercial and industrial development. Spatial planning decisions

require a consideration of different planning goals regarding environmental, economic and social

aspects.

Supralocal spatial planning programmes concretise the goals of spatial planning and define

measures for the achievement of the spatial objectives. Within its remits, the province governments

can enact integrative or sectoral regulations with spatial validity for the province territory or

regional subspaces. For instance, in Lower Austria a sectoral spatial planning programme aims at

the conservation of open and unwooded landscape inter alia on behalf of agricultural structure.

In Austria, soil protection was declared a national goal by the Federal Constitutional Law on

Comprehensive Environmental Protection (Federal Legal Gazette No 491/1984) and is directly

regulated by national law for the Clean-up of Contaminated Sites (Altlastensanierungsgesetz 1989)

as well as Soil Protection Acts in five out of the nine provinces, targeted at the maintenance of

productivity of agricultural soils (Gentile et al. 2009). The reduction of pollutants, the prevention of

soil erosion and/or soil compaction as well as the control of the application of sewage sludge and

the survey and inspection of soil status count among the specific objectives in the soil protection

acts. National objectives and targets for soil conservation have been established in the Austrian

Sustainability Strategy and the Soil Protection Protocol of the Alpine Convention.31

At the federal level, there are no specific regulations on soil protection addressing for

example the containment of soil erosion or the maximum input of pollutants. However, a number of

regulations address soil protection indirectly:

Klärschlamm- und Müllkompostverordnungen (Sewage Sludge and Waste Compost

Ordinances) of the Federal Provinces;

Kompostverordnung (Compost Ordinance);

Düngemittelverordnung (Fertiliser Ordinance);

Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz (Persticides Act);

Luftreinhaltegesetz (Air Pollution Control Act);

Wassserrechtsgesetz (Water Act).

Spatial Planning Acts of the Federal Provinces

Burgenländisches Raumplanungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 18/1969 idgF LGBl. Nr. 44/2015;

Kärntner Raumordnungsgesetz – K-ROG LGBl. Nr. 76/1969 idgF LGBl. Nr. 24/2016;

Niederösterreichisches Raumordnungsgesetz 2014 LGBl. Nr. 3/2015 idgF LGBl. Nr.

63/2016;

Oberösterreichisches Raumordnungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 114/1993 idgF LGBl. Nr. 69/2015;

Salzburger Raumordnungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 30/2009 idgF 9/2016;

Steiermärkisches Raumordnungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 49/2010 idgF 139/2015;

Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 101/2016;

Vorarlberger Raumplanungsgesetz LGBl. Nr. 39/1996 idgF LGBl. Nr. 54/2015.

Soil Protection Acts of the Federal Provinces

Burgenländisches Bodenschutzgesetz LGBl. Nr. 87/1990;

Niederösterreichisches Bodenschutzgesetz LGBl. Nr. 6160;

Oberösterreichisches Bodenschutzgesetz LGBl. Nr. 63/1997;

Bodenschutzgesetz Salzburg LGBl. Nr. 80/2001;

Steiermärkisches landwirtschaftliches Bodenschutzgesetz LGBl. Nr. 66/1987.

Further legal regulations of the Federal Provinces

Oberösterreichisches Landesraumordnungsprogramm LGBl. Nr. 21/2017;

Oberösterreichisches Alm- und Kulturflächenschutzgesetz LGBl. Nr. 79/1999 idgF LGBl.

Nr. 95/2015;

Burgenländische Klärschlamm- und Müllkompostverordnung LGBl. Nr. 82/1991;32

Kärntner Klärschlamm-und Kompostverordnung LGBl. Nr. 74/2000;

Kärntner Abfallwirtschaftsordnung LGBl. Nr. 17/2004;

Niederösterreichische Klärschlammverordnung LGBl. Nr. 6160/2;

Oberösterreichische Klärschlammverordnung LGBl. Nr. 62/2006;

Klärschlamm-Bodenschutzverordnung Salzburg LGBl Nr 85/2002;

Steiermark: Gülleverordnung LGBl. Nr. 88/1987;

Steiermärkische Klärschlammverordnung 2007 LGBl. Nr. 89/2007;

Steiermark: Bodenschutzprogrammverordnung LGBl. Nr. 87/1987;

Tiroler Feldschutzgesetz 2000 LGBl. Nr. 58/2000;

Vorarlberg: Gesetz über die Ausbringung von Klärschlamm LGBl. Nr. 41/1985;

Vorarlberg: Klärschlammverordnung LGBl. Nr. 75/1997;

Vorarlberg: Klärschlammgesetz LGBl. Nr. 41/1985;

Burgenländisches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz LGBl. Nr. 32/1995;

Kärntner landwirtschaftliches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz LGBl Nr 31/1991;

Niederösterreich: Gesetz über die Verwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der

Landwirtschaft LGBl. 6170–2;

Niederösterreichische Pflanzenschutzverordnung LGBL. 6130/1–6;

Oberösterreichische Pflanzenschutzmittelanwendungsverordnung LGBl. Nr. 42/2008;

Salzburger landwirtschaftliches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz LGBl. Nr. 79/1991;

Tiroler Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz 2006 LGBl. Nr. 5/2007;

Vorarlberg: Pflanzenschutzmittelverordnung LGBl. Nr. 18/2008;

Wiener Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz LGBl. Nr. 09/2008.

1.3 Economic tools to protect of agricultural land

In Austria, subsidies are available to farmers through the Agri-environmental Programme

(ÖPUL) that pursues an integral and horizontal approach and seeks to achieve maximum

participation of agricultural holdings across all nine provinces (BMLFUW 2016).

The Agri-environmental Programme ÖPUL is Austria’s programme for the promotion of an

agricultural management system which is appropriate to the environment, extensive and protective

of natural habitats. ÖPUL is a key instrument of the agricultural policy and the rural development in

Austria and comprises in its fifth programme version (ÖPUL 2015) twenty-two sub-measures that

aim at counteracting the two essential trends in Austrian land management: abandonment of

utilisation and intensified utilisation. By means of ÖPUL, farmers are compensated for additional

environmental services they provide by participating in the programme.

33

In line with the objectives of the Austrian Rural Development Programme for the 2014 to

2020 period ÖPUL 2015 serves the following targets (BMLFUW 2016):

Protecting, maintaining and enhancing biological diversity, also in Natura 2000 areas and

in areas that are less-favoured due to natural constraints or other, specific constraints, land

management with a high natural value as well as the state of the European landscapes;

Improving water management, including the use of fertilisers and pesticides;

Preventing soil erosion and improving soil management;

Reduction of greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from agriculture and promotion of

carbon storage and carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry;

Promotion of the innovation, the cooperation and the development of the knowledge base

in rural areas.

The following key ÖPUL approaches contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of soil

fertility (BMLFUW 2016):

Environmentally sound and biodiversity-promoting management;

Greening of arable land – intermediate crops;

Greening of arable land – “evergreen” system;

Direct seeding and seeding on mulch;

Erosion protection in fruit, vineyards and hops;

Preventative surface water protection on arable land.

ÖPUL contributions to the maintenance of cultivated landscapes rich in structures and

species comprise (BMLFUW 2016):

Environmentally sound and biodiversity-promoting management;

Maintenance of endangered livestock breeds;

Greening of arable land – “evergreen” system;

Renouncement of silage;

Cultivation of mowed mountain grassland;

Mountain grazing and herding;

Organic farming;

Animal welfare – grazing of livestock.

34

1.4 Obstacles and stimuli in realisation of the withdrawal of agricultural land

Agriculturally used areas are continuously reduced under the impact of expanding

settlements and transport areas (EEA 2016). The following causes are responsible for an increase in

land withdrawal:

Increase in traffic areas;

Structural and land use changes in farming

Land owner have interests to increase land values by getting land zoned as building land.

The website www.bodenpreise.at offers an overview of median values of purchasing prices

for properties in Austrian municipalities (building land, open space);

Municipal financing

is based on the number of inhabitants and the number of employees. On the one hand, the

municipalities’ share of financial compensation from tax balancing between public bodies -

which forms a substantial part of their budgets - depends on the amount of persons who are

registered with a main residence in the municipality. On the other hand, the municipal tax

is derived from the economic performance of the enterprises with a location within the

municipality’s territory. Municipalities levy a general payroll tax of 3 % on total salaries

and wages. Therefore, municipalities have a strong interest in zoning building land in order

to shape attractive conditions that allow for new housing and/or commercial/industrial

developments (EAA 2016);

Limited effectiveness of spatial planning instruments.

Against the background of the above described tendencies, many local decisions lead to

undesirable consequences from a regional perspective, like high amounts of land take and urban

(housing) sprawl. Supralocal spatial planning programmes with counteracting determinations as for

instance settlement boundaries or agricultural priority areas do not exist for the whole territory of all

Austrian provinces. Furthermore, spatial planning usually focuses on the two-dimensional system of

land and does not recognise the three-dimensional soil system.

The Conference of Officials in Charge of Agriculture in the Federal Provinces of Austria has

set up a working group with the mandate to elaborate suggestions for measures in order to protect

agricultural soil against further land take (BMLFUW 2015). These recommendations represent a

basis for the realisation of soil protection and include (EAA 2016):

Comprehensive law on quantitative soil protection;

Implementation of soil function evaluation in planning processes in all Austrian Provinces;

Increase in awareness raising for soil issues in municipalities, agriculture, construction

sector, schools and the broad public;

35

http://www.bodenpreise.at/

Definition of soil conservation targets depending on spatial archetypes;

Advancement of soil conserving spatial development;

Establishment of site pools in order to avoid compensatory measures on high value

agricultural land.

1.5 Case study

Bodenbündnis (European Land and Soil Alliance) – awareness raising

The European Land and Soil Alliance (ELSA) is a platform for European cities, towns, rural

districts and comparable local authorities which aim at promoting sustainable treatment of soils.

Based on the Manifesto of Bolzano the member communities commit themselves in awareness of

their global responsibility to purposeful action on the local level. In addition, member authorities

participate in joint activities in the fields of soil protection and spatial development. At the same

time, they benefit from advantages of the cooperation and the exchange of information and

experiences with other members of the alliance (see ELSA Declaration of Membership).

In Austria, the Land and Soil Alliance comprises about 150 members including municipalities and

associate members (Bodenbündnis 2017).

Best practice:

“Communal spatial planning and soil protection” – training course for political

decision-makers and public administration staff members in local authorities

This course conveys practice-oriented and comprehensive basic knowledge on the topics of

spatial planning, revitalisation of town and village centres, land take and infrastructure

costs, legal framework, settlement extensions as well as soils as basis of life;

Guideline for communities: soil protection

One chapter of the guideline “Climate protection in municipalities” is dedicated to the

subject of soil and offers background information and an instruction “step by step to soil

protection”;

Exhibition with rollups presenting issues of soil development, soil functions, agriculture,

home and garden, flood protection, spatial planning, communal activities, climate

protection;

Lectures, information material, etc.

www.soil-alliance.org / www.bodenbuendnis.at / www.bodenbuendnis.or.at

36

http://www.bodenbuendnis.or.at/

http://www.bodenbuendnis.at/

http://www.soil-alliance.org/

Soil function evaluation - Integration of soil protection in spatial planning

(best practice case Salzburg)

An integrative strategy on soil conservation in spatial planning requires a shift of

perspectives from land to soil (Seher 2014). In order to integrate soil-related issues in decision

making processes, a broad spectrum of specific soil services should be considered (Haslmayer et al.

2016) beyond the focus on the function as building and infrastructure site. Two Austrian Federal

Provinces (Salzburg and Upper Austria) have enacted legally binding guidelines to respect soil

functions in spatial planning procedures.

In the Austrian province Salzburg, an assessment of the effects on soil is required for

various planning and construction processes. In 2010, a guideline for the assessment of soil

functions was elaborated on the basis of the law for soil protection of Salzburg, the soil protection

protocol of the alpine convention, as well as EU directives on environmental impact assessment

(EIA) and strategic environment assessment (SEA).

In order to promote and standardise soil evaluation, the advisory board for soil fertility and

soil protection of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water

Management provides a manual on soil evaluation (BMLFUW 2013) which has been adopted by

the Austrian Standards Institute into an Austrian standard (ÖNORM L 1076). Haslmayr et al.

(2016) present two evaluation examples from Austria, one focusing on soil functions in a local

context and the second one on a state scale.

Guideline: soil protection in planning projects (Salzburg);

Das Schutzgut Boden im SAGISonline. Lesehilfe zur Bodenfunktionsbewertung.

References1. BMLFUW – Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und

Wasserwirtschaft. 2013. Bodenfunktionsbewertung: Methodische Umsetzung der ÖNORM

L 1076. Erarbeitet vom Fachbeirat für Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Bodenschutz des BMLFUW.

Vienna.

2. BMLFUW – Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und

Wasserwirtschaft. 2015. Reduzierung des Verbrauchs landwirtschaftlicher Böden –

Maßnahmenvorschläge. Erarbeitet vom Fachbeirat für Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Bodenschutz

des BMLFUW. Vienna.


Wasserwirtschaft [Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water

Management]. 2015. Reduzierung des Verbrauchs landwirtschaftlicher Böden –

37

Maßnahmenvorschläge [Reduction of land take of agricultural areas – suggested measures].

Vienna.



Management]. 2015. Data, Facts & Figures 2015. Vienna.



Management]. 2016. Agri-environmental Programme ÖPUL 2015. Agriculture,

Environment and Nature. Vienna.



Management]. 2016. Measure overview ÖPUL 2015 (according to art. 28, 29, 30 and 33 of

EU-regulation 1305/2013 in the context of the Austrian Rural Development Programme

2014-2020). Austrian programme to promote an environmentally friendly, extensive and

habitat-protecting agriculture 2017+. Vienna.

7. BODENBÜNDNIS. 2017. Mitglieder im Bodenbündnis Österreich.

http://www.bodenbuendnis.or.at/mitglieder/mitglieder-im-bodenbuendnis (28.03.2017).

8. EAA – Environment Agency Austria. 2016. 11. Umweltkontrollbericht. Umweltsituation in

Österreich [11th State of the Environment Report] Vienna.

9. EUROSTAT. 2016. Agricultural census in Austria. Statistics Explained.

10. GENTILE, A. R. - BARCELÓ-CORDÓN, S. - VAN LIEDEKERKE, M. 2009. Soil

Country Analyses Austria. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 23959 EN,

Luxembourg.

11. HASLMAYR, H. P. - GEITNER, C. - SUTOR, G., KNOLL, A., BAUMGARTEN, A. 2016.

Soil function evaluation in Austria – Development, concepts and examples. Geoderma, 264,

379-387.

12. HASLMAYR, H. P. - GERZABEK, M. H. 2010. Bewertung der Bodenfunktionen

landwirtschaftlicher Böden auf Basis der östereichischen Datengrundlagen [Functions of

arable soils – assessment based on datasets available in Austria]. Die Bodenkultur, 61(2),

19-34.

13. Land Salzburg (2010): Bodenschutz bei Planungsvorhaben. Leitfaden. Salzburg.

14. Land Salzburg (2010): Das Schutzgut Boden im SAGISonline. Lesehilfe zur

Bodenfunktionsbewertung. Salzburg.

15. OECD (2001): OECD Proceedings Towards a New Role of Spatial Planning.

38

http://www.bodenbuendnis.or.at/mitglieder/mitglieder-im-bodenbuendnis

16. ÖNORM, L. 1076. 2013. Grundlagen zur Bodenfunktionsbewertung. [Principles of soil

function evaluation].

17. SEHER, W. 2014. Von der Fläche zum Boden - Plädoyer für einen Perspektivenwechsel in

der Raumplanung. Local land and soil news, 50, 29-32.

18. Statistics Austria. 2014. Agrarstrukturerhebung 2013. Betriebsstruktur. [Farm Structure

Survey 2013. Farm structure] Vienna.

2 Case BulgariaTo better understand the process of land use in Bulgaria, we present some historical

conditions related to land reform in Bulgaria since 1990.

Land reform in Bulgaria

The key elements of land reform in Bulgaria have been the restitution of land and the

liquidation of collective farms. According to official data, the ownership structure of the land

inherited from socialism was characterized by state control of more than 80 % of arable land2. The

Law on Ownership and Use of Agrarian Land (Law on Land) of February 1991 is the basic law that

regulates land reform. The law established restitution as the mechanism for land privatization. In

accordance with the law, former owners from 1940s, prior to the collectivization, were entitled to

receive land in the same quantity as the land they had surrendered to the collective farms. The law

allowed the transformation of the collective farms into new cooperatives, avoiding their break-up.

According to this law, cooperatives would be forced to pay rent and dividends to their members

(Law on Cooperatives).

In spite of the difficulties, the restitution was concluded in 2000, when 99 % of the land was

delivered to its owners. Land use in Bulgaria after the restitution process is shown in Table 2. Half

of the total area of the country, that is 5,782,461 ha, is agricultural land while arable land is

3,238,782 ha, 56 % of agricultural land.

1998 2003Total Agricultural Land 5,923,603 5,782,4611. Utilized land 5,645,089 5,326,3281.1. Arable land 3,392,126 3,238,7821.2. Permanent crops, pastures, houses gardens < 1 ha 2,252,963 2,087,5462. Land not cultivated temporally (more than 3 years) 278,514 456,133Total abandoned land (2003): 911 931 (28 % of arable land)

Table 2 Land use (ha)

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2004)

2 National Statistical Institute39

As a result of the process of restitution the private ownership became the dominant form,

representing 81 % of the total agricultural land and 96 % of arable land.

The aim of the land reform was to establish market relationships in the field of land use in

order to:

Land exchange be possible;

Price of the land to be determined within the framework of the exchange;

Stipulate the offer-price-demand mechanism.

In Bulgaria, the processes of land transfer have not been developed significantly and the

prices of land are low. Land sales remain marginal and only renting has increased during the period

of transition. Especially active in renting are the new cooperatives renting the land from their

members who get rental payments. Land fragmentation is one of the main obstacles for the

development of land market. Another result of the land reform is the large area of non-cultivated

land. According to data of the Ministry of Agriculture, the abandoned land is approximately 30 %

of arable land. The growth of subsisting farms in Bulgarian agriculture is also significant (72.7 %).

There are mostly small-scale farms.


Bulgaria covers the area of 11,087,900 ha, out of that agricultural land represents

4,976,815 ha. In Bulgaria, there is 0.70 ha of agricultural land per capita.

Agricultural land (ha)

Conversion of agricultural land between 2000 and 2006 (ha)

Change in land from agriculture to artificial surfaces between 2000 and 2006

2000 2006 To Housing, services and recreation

To construction sites

To transport facilities

To mines and waste dumpsites

To industrial and commercial sites

Total as a percentage of agriculture area in 2000 (%)

5,739,833

5,736,606

510 643 91 1,679 493 3,416 0.06 %

Table 3 Conversion of agricultural land between 2000 and 2006 (ha)

Source: European Environment Agency

40

In the period 2009 - 2014, there has been a steady trend towards increasing the area

occupied by farmland and reduced uncultivated lands.

Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Utilized agricultural area, % of the country's area

45.1 45.5 45.8 46.2 45.0 44.8

Utilized agricultural area /UAA/ (ha) 5,029,585 5,051,866 5,087,948 5,122,983 4,995,111 4,976,815

Arable land, % of the UAA 62.3 62.6 63.4 64.3 69.3 69.7

Arable land area (ha) 3,122,516 3,162,526 3,227,237 3,294,685 3,462,117 3,469,388Table 4 Availability and use of agricultural land (%)

Source: Ministry of agriculture and food, 2014-2015

For the period 2009 - 2014 the structure of land use in Bulgaria is variable. In 2014 the

utilized agricultural area (UAA) is 4,976,815 ha or 44.8 % of the country as a decrease by 0.4

percent compared to the previous year. Uncultivated lands in 2014 were 216,125 ha and occupy 2.4

percent of the country, decreasing by 18.0 percent compared to the previous year. (Table 4,

Figure 6).

Figure 6 Utilization of agricultural land (%)

Source: Ministry of agriculture and food, 2014

One of the major goals set up in the "Roadmap for a resource-efficient Europe" (COM

(2011) 571) is significantly reducing the rate of utilization of the land. Figure 7 shows the change of

use of agricultural land for non-agricultural needs in Bulgaria – according to the Decision of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

41

Figure 7 Change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes (ha)

Source: Ministry of agriculture and food, 2009 – 2014

In 2014, the Agricultural Land Commission has examined a total of 688 proposals for

approval of sites and/or routes to design and change of use of agricultural land, by finding solutions

for change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural needs of a total of 226 ha.

Commissions to the Regional directorates "Agriculture" examined a total of 626 proposals for

change of use of agricultural land, as enacted solutions to 177 ha.


The Law on the property and use of the agricultural lands and its ordinances restored the

property of agricultural lands for it former owners. The owners are free to choose the way to use

agricultural lands by their purpose. They are able to consolidate their land in the cooperation for the

cultivation. By this way they will keep the property of their land.

Law for preservation of the agricultural lands

Prom. SG. 35/24 Apr 1996, amend. SG. 14/18 Feb 2000, amend. SG. 26/29 Mar 2000,

amend. SG. 28/23 Mar 2001, Last amend. SG. 61/5 Aug 2016

The purpose of this law is to preserve from damage the restoration and improvement of the

fertility of agricultural lands and determine the conditions for changing their designation.

Bulgarian agricultural land ownership and use act

Prom. SG. 17/1 Mar 1991, Last amend. SG. 13/7 Feb 2017

This Act shall regulate the ownership and use of agricultural land.

42

Law of the spatial planning

Prom. SG. 1/2 Jan 2001, amend. SG. 41/24 Apr 2001, Last amend. SG. 13/7 Feb 2017

This law provides the public relations, connected with the structure of the territory, the

investment designing and the construction in the Republic of Bulgaria, and determines the

restrictions of ownership for development purposes. The law states that the territory of the Republic

of Bulgaria is national wealth. Its structure shall guarantee sustainable development and favourable

conditions for living, work and recreation of the population.

The procedure to regulate a plot of land is determined in the Spatial Development Act. To

regulate streets, neighborhoods, plots of land in order to build on them and for other purposes which

do not involve building you need to have a Detailed Layout Plan.

Regulations for implementation of the law for protection of agricultural lands

Prom. SG. 84/4 Oct 1996, Last amend. SG. 35/8 May 2012

These Regulations determine the conditions, order, responsibilities and obligations of the

state, municipal bodies, physical persons, etc. in implementing the Law for protection of

agricultural lands. The Regulations are divided into 9 Chapters, and transitional and concluding

provisions. Chapter 5 deals with the change of the designation of agricultural lands for non-

agriculture purposes and regulates the approval of plots for construction, tracks for linear sites and

terrains for inclusion within the boundaries of the settlements and the settlement formations and in

the boundaries of the forest entirety.


The specific economic tools in Bulgaria are as follows:

Fiscal mechanism – regulating the ecological relations between the state, the business and

the consumers concerning the use of the natural resources; ecological taxation, fees, fines,

etc.;

Financial mechanism – manages and stimulates the environmental investment process;

grants, subsidies, etc.;

Mechanism for liability and insurance – regulates the relations between the responsible

bodies and the population and the ecosystems; compensations, bank guarantees, etc.;

Market mechanism – creates new markets, for example, for carbon emissions trading.

Fees to be paid:

For the preparation of a comprehensive construction plan and its coordination;

Special taxes calculated by a special tariff. Their amount depends on:

43

The category of the agricultural land indicated in the act for categorization of the

land;

The size of the land included in the borders of the defined building site or trace of

the object;

The location of the land according to the functional type of the village or town,

defined by the Single classifier of administrative-territorial and territorial units

(EKATTE) in Bulgaria;

Type of the object;

Irrigation possibilities.

Importance for the size of the taxes have the purpose and the type of the constriction -

whether it is a trade object or industrial object, storage object, administrative object, holiday

property, sport and touristic objects or residential buildings or complexes. For example the

government tax for changing the status agricultural land which is 4th category is about 3,200 levs

for 1,000 square meters. The specialized consulting companies which undertake the task for

completing and processing all paperwork for you define their fees in large range according to the

volume of the work and it varies between 1.5 and 3 euro per square meter. The expenses are rather

high and the procedure for the land withdrawal is complicated.


Based on art. 2 from the Agricultural Land Preservation Act /ALPA/ the change of use of

agricultural land is allowed as an exception when there is a proven need and when the terms and

conditions in the Agricultural Land Preservation Act and the related regulatory acts are followed.

Agricultural land is categorized into 10 bond categories based on the productivity of the soil,

climate, terrain, technological qualities of the land, the appropriateness for production of different

vegetables and the imposed restrictions for use of the land under the terms and condition of the

Decree for categorization.

The empowered bodies which are responsible to change the use of agricultural land for non-

agricultural purposes according to art. 17 from the Agricultural Land Preservation Act are:

The Commissions at the Regional directorate "Agriculture and forestry" when the territory

of the land is up to 50 dka and the land is located in the certain region;

The Commission for agricultural land formed at the Ministry of agriculture and forestry for

the rest of the cases.

44

There are several obligatory preconditions for completion of change of use of agricultural

land following the procedure and they are summarized below:

Act for categorization of agricultural land when changing its use issued according the

procedure of the Decree for categorization of agricultural land when changing its use;

Approved building ground with Detailed layout plan project and positive Evaluation of the

affect on the environment under the procedure for "Determining and approving building

ground, terrains for lineal objects and including the land in the boundaries of the

settlements and the forestry fund";

Approved detailed layout plan for the terrain (art. 40, par. 1 from the Regulations for

application of the Agricultural Land Preservation Act);

Right for ownership over the land. Only physical or judicial bodies who are owners of the

land have the right to change its use. When the land is owned by a person or a company and

there is a building ground approved for construction of an object not related to the purpose

of the usage of the land, the person or the company building the object or the investor may

request change of use of the land only after he/she acquires the right for construction or

ownership over the land. (art. 40, par. 3 from the Regulations for application of the

Agricultural Land Preservation Act). When the land is included in the government or the

municipal landed fund but it is not used for government or municipal purposes and there is

a building ground or a terrain for building an object by a person or a company approved for

it, the investor is obliged to obtain the right for ownership of the land or the right for

construction before changing its use (art. 40, par. 4 from the Agricultural Land Preservation

Act);

The change of use of agricultural land has to be only for own non-agricultural purposes.

When changing the use of agricultural land the owner pays government fee based on the

Tariff for the taxes for change of use of agricultural land approved by the Ministry council.

Seven days after the decision for change of use of agricultural land comes into effect, the

responsible commission sends a copy of it to the Cadastre where the property is located to mark the

changes in their registry. When there are newly formed plots of land according to art. 24, par. 3

from the Law for cadastre and the property registry, the Cadastre agency gives identification

number for the newly formed properties.

After the plot is listed in the Cadastre, if the owner requests, the plot's borderlines are

marked based on the information at the Cadastre agency (art. 26 from the Agricultural Land

Preservation Act).

45

To prevent future losses of biological diversity, the many threats must be addressed in a co-

ordinated and mutually reinforcing manner. A comprehensive conservation program, entailing a

wide variety of activities, is needed. Such a long-term program is the National Biological Diversity

Conservation Strategy.

2.5 Case study

Conservation of biodiversity in Uzana through sustainable land management

This case study presents the results of a project implemented by the Association for

Sustainable Tourism “Uzana” in the period of 2009-2010. The motto of the project is: "To have it

mine, yours, our house - the Earth!"

Background

The Uzana area occupies the western ridge part of the Shipka-Tryavna part of the Balkan

Mountains. It is a high alpine pasture at 1,300 m altitude, located near the mountain peak of Ispolin

(1,524 m above sea level). The high ecological and conservation value of the site is increased by

the fact that it is included in the European ecological network and the national ecological Natura

2000 network, within “Central Balkan – buffer - BG0001493”. 85 % of the surface of the ridge

meadow Uzana is formed by the so-called Mountain hay meadows (code 6520), which is a habitat

of various in nature and structure flora. There are three factors which have a decisive role in the fast

development of Uzana Site as a tourist and resort destination, namely: unique environment with a

highly conserved status and central geographical location (the Geographical centre of Bulgaria is

located there), existing contemporary tourist lodgings and equipment (with expected expansion

in the future) and the vicinity to the town of Gabrovo (22 km). The unique nature of the Site, as

well as the opportunity for active tourist recreation on the territory of the two nearby parks –

Central Balkan National Park and Nature Park “Bulgarka”, are the emotional and attractive features

of the alpine meadow. During the last 15-20 years the Site gained recognition as an alternative

tourist destination, offering opportunities for active recreation which led to increased

anthropological pressure and a number of negative consequences. According to the Detailed Layout

Plan, the Site is subject to regulated urbanization. This will lead to changes which will affect the

status of the conservation habitats and the existing fauna to a much higher extent than anything else

until now. The main tourist product - nature, is being progressively destroyed as a result of the

increased tourist interest. The desire and motivation for implementation of the project came up

as an answer to the pressing need for the implementation of urgent and adequate measures

against the loss of biodiversity in the Site, as well as measures for reduction of the negative

46

anthropological pressure through the creation of appropriate conditions for active recreation

and tourism in a conserved environment.

Figure 8 Uzana area

Source: http://www.ngobg.info/en/organizations/2861-sustainable-tourism-association-uzana.html

Overall objective of the project

Protection and reduction of biodiversity extinction in Uzana Site and sustainable

management of habitats with European and national signifikance;

Implementation of effective integrated management of a zone included in Natura 2000.

Specific objectives

To provide conservation of biodiversity and reduction of its destruction through elaboration

and adoption of a Concept for sustainable development of Uzana Site;

To ensure management of the tourist flow in a manner that would ensure its redirection

away from the vulnerable areas in the Site towards the periphery and the new and already

existing infrastructure;

To build infrastructure and equipment for provision of alternative recreation opportunities

through sparing, non-aggressive activities in nature;

To expand the environmental awareness and knowledge of the visitors in the Site and

promote more environment-friendly behavior and practices through information provision;

To establish and strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships for successful sustainable

management of the Site;

To ensure practical participation of the NGO sector in the management of a zone included

in Natura 2000.

The project emerged as an answer to the need of sustainable management of the processes

taking place in the resort district and was implemented as presented below:

47

Through elaboration of a Concept which regulates the practical ways for realization of a

coordination mechanism among the interests of involved parties in the management process

of the Site;

Publishing of information materials (a book) aimed at an information campaign presenting

the value of the protected territory, thus promoting informed attitudes and active

environment-friendly behaviour;

The adequate management of tourist flow is achieved through the construction of a bike

park which also provides alternative opportunities for the leisure time in a non-aggressive

and nature-protecting behavior; sports and alternative activities in a conserved environment

form sensitivity not only towards the aesthetical, but also towards life-supporting role of

nature; this gives rise to a feeling of shared responsibility and creativity with respect to life-

supporting mechanisms. Thus an attitude is being formed (through direct contact with

nature) for realizing the significance of the personal acts to the conservation of nature and

the sustainable development of the Site, the region and the country;

The purchased equipment for the bike park (bicycles and outfits) makes possible the

organization of events aiming at formation of ecological knowledge and behavior through

sports in a conserved environment.

Results

Elaborated Concept for sustainable development of Uzana Site and submitted model for

processes management in the resort until 2020, coordinating the interests of all involved

parties; provided conditions for improving the conservation of (6520) Mountain hay

meadows habitat;

Good management of the tourist flow through adequate redirection away from vulnerable

and highly eroded areas of (6520) Mountain hay meadows habitat towards less injured

areas and recreation infrastructure in the periphery;

Constructed alpine bike park consisting of 17 elements for mountain biking, which

provides alternative opportunities for recreation through practice of nature-sparing, non-

aggressive activities in a conserved environment; improved aesthetical status of the

landscape;

Bike park equipment - 12 bicycles together with the necessary outfits;

600 copies of “Uzana – the Green Heart of Bulgaria” published and disseminated,

promoting the formation of environmental awareness and nature-friendly behaviour among

the visitors of the Site;

48

Publicity of all project activities and results: 2 commemorative plaques, 3 press

conferences, 3 press releases and 1 PR panel, 40 publicity souvenirs, 100 sets of

information materials;

Enhanced organizational and management capacity of Association for Sustainable Tourism

„Uzana”; strengthened effective and fruitful partnership for joint sustainable management

of the Site.

References1. Agrarian Report, 2015, Ministry of agriculture and food.

2. BOEV – TZVETAN - KIRIL STOYANOV - KALCHEV, I. 2014. Actual problems of

Geodesy and Cadastre in Bulgaria - an opinion and suggestions. From "Cadastre 2014 to

2034 Cadastre"

3. DE ARRIBA BUENO, R. 2007. Evaluating land reform and market in Bulgaria.

EAST_WEST Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. X – 2007, No 1 (11-33).

4. Financial Mechanism of the EEA. Realized good practices in Bulgaria 2008 – 2011, Sofia

2011.

5. National Rural Development Program, 2007 – 2013.

6. Procedure for Exchange of Agricultural Land / forests of municipal land fund agricultural

land / forests owned by individuals and legal entities.

7. http://agronovinite.com/ognyan-boyukliev-agrarnata-reforma-izleze-nad-400-mln-usd/

8. http://dnes.dir.bg/temite/tag/zamenki-63794

http://www.mzh.government.bg/mzh/bg/Documents/AgrarenDoklad.aspx

9. http://gradat.bg/forumgradat/

2010/09/06/956163_koncepciiata_za_ustoichivo_razvitie_na_mestnostta/&rubrname=news/

10. http://www.flgr.bg/bg/innovations/?iid=1730

11. http://www.mzh.government.bg/MZH/bg/ShortLinks/PRSR.aspx

12. www.monitor.bg

3 Case Italy


Italy covers the area of 30,133,600 ha, out of that agricultural land represents 13,630,000 ha.

In Italy, there is 0.22 ha of agricultural land per capita.

49

http://gradat.bg/forumgradat/2010/09/06/956163_koncepciiata_za_ustoichivo_razvitie_na_mestnostta/&rubrname=news/

http://gradat.bg/forumgradat/2010/09/06/956163_koncepciiata_za_ustoichivo_razvitie_na_mestnostta/&rubrname=news/

The consumption of soil in Italy has grown from 8,100 km2 in the 1950s to 21,100 km2 in

2015 (Figure 9). As shown in Figure 10, in terms of share of total national area, these figures

respectively represent 2.7 % in the 1950s and 7.0 % in 2015. Anyway, in recent years the

withdrawal of soil has slowed down in Italy. After reaching high levels of depletion at the

beginning of the century (the land was lost at a speed of 8 square meters per second in 2000), the

consumption of soil decelerated in the period 2008-2013 (6-7 square meters per second) and even

more in 2014-2015 (4 square meters per second).

Consumption of soil in Italy (square km) 1989-2015

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

'50 1989 1996 1998 2006 2008 2013 2015

Selected yearsSource: ISPRA, 2016

Figure 9 Consumption of soil in Italy (square km), 1989-2015

Source: ISPRA, 2016

Soil consumption in Italy in percentage of total country area 1989-2015

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

'50 1989 1996 1998 2006 2008 2013 2015

Selected years

Soil

cons

umpt

ion

(%)

Source: ISPRA, 2016

Figure 10 Soil consumption in Italy in percentage of total country area, 1989-2015

Source: ISPRA, 2016

However, the situation of soil consumption is not homogeneous across the national territory.

As displayed in Figure 11, the North West is the area in which the consumption of soil covers the 50

largest surface compared to the rest of the country (8.5 % against a national average of 7 % in

2015). This evidence is not so surprising, considering that historically the North West represents the

most industrialized macro-region of the country (the so called industrial triangle formed by the

cities of Milan, Turin and Genoa); in addition, it is worth observing that, in countertendency with

other Italian macro-regions, the North West shows an acceleration of soil withdrawal in the period

2008-2013.

The other macro-region that exhibits a soil consumption above the national average is the

North East (7.3 % of its total area in 2015). This macro-region, usually named “Third Italy” (to

distinguish it from the North West and the South), includes important Italian industrial districts

specialized in manufacturing productions, like textiles, ceramic, mechanical engineering, wooden

furniture, etc. Until 2008, this macro-region registered the highest rates of growth of soil

consumption compared to other Italian macro-regions.

The macro-region with the lowest consumption of soil is the South (6.3 % of its total area in

2015), historically the less industrialized area of the country.

Soil Consumption in Italian macro-regions (% of total area) 1989-2015

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

'50 1989 1996 1998 2006 2008 2013 2015Selected years

Soil

cons

umpt

ion

(%)

ItalyNorth WestNorth EastCentreSouth

Figure 11 Soil Consumption in Italian macro-regions (% of total area), 1989-2015

Source: ISPRA, 2016

Italy is a peninsula with a long coastline (7,600 kilometres) that, in the course of time, has

been impacted by an intensive human exploitation of the soil, involving many activities like

residential constructions, industrial production, touristic infrastructures, etc. On a national basis, up

to 2015, more than 20 % of the soil within 300 meters from the coastline has already been

withdrawn (ISPRA, 2016).

51

Figure 12 shows that in recent years (in the period 2012-2015) especially areas located in the

range of distance 1-10 km from the coast have registered the highest soil consumption growth rates

(with rates between 1 and more than 2 percent, in some cases; see regions like Marche, Molise,

Basilicata, Calabria and Sicily). However, Basilicata exhibits a high soil consumption growth rate

(+1.8 %) also in the range of distance 300-1,000 meters from the coast. In general, albeit at lower

rates, the occupation of soil with constructions and artificial surfaces in areas very close to the sea

coast (<300 m) has continued in recent years, by compromising nature, landscape and ecosystem

services.

Percentage change 2012-2015 in soil consumption by distance from sea coast. Only Italian regions touched by the sea.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Vene

to

Friu

li Ve

nezi

a G

iulia

Ligu

ria

Emili

a Ro

mag

na

Tosc

ana

Mar

che

Lazi

o

Abru

zzo

Mol

ise

Cam

pani

a

Pugl

ia

Basi

licat

a

Cala

bria

Sici

lia

Sard

egna

Italia

Italian regions

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

<300m

300-1000m

1-10km

>10km

Figure 12 Percentage change 2012-2015 in soil consumption by distance from sea coast (only Italian regions

touched by the sea)

Source: ISPRA, 2016

In recent years, hydraulic and seismic hazards are very discussed issues in Italy after the

recurrence of catastrophic episodes linked to these kind of risks (a series of floods occurred in

Liguria, Piedmont, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Marche, Calabria, Sardinia and Sicily in the period

2014-2017; and various earthquakes occurred in Abruzzi, Umbria, Lazio, Emilia Romagna since

2009). Beyond the underlying natural causes, these risks are also influenced by a large spectrum of

factors linked to human activities, like intensive urbanization, high density of population,

unauthorized constructions, intensive deforestation, abandonment of mountain territories, etc. For

this reason, it is important to implement monitoring actions able to observe the dynamics of soil

consumption in territories at high hydraulic and seismic risk.

52

With reference to hydraulic risk, Figure 13 shows that in 2015 the regions Trentino Alto

Adige, Liguria and Marche exhibit the highest shares of soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard

zones (12.0 %, 22.4 % and 36.9 %, respectively). Except Liguria, these regions also show the

highest growth rates of soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard zones in the period 2012-2015.

As shown in Figure 13, the dynamics in the period 2012-2015 seems to reinforce the ranking of the

regions with the highest share of soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard zones. In other words,

the evidence reported in Figure 13 doesn’t seem to signal relevant countertendencies in action in

order to limit the effect of soil consumption on hydraulic risk.

Soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard zones by Italian regions. (Percentage share of total regional area in 2015 and percentage change in 2012-2015)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Piem

onte

Valle

d'A

osta

Lom

bard

ia

Tren

tino

Alto

adi

ge

Vene

to

Friu

li Ve

nezi

a G

iulia

Ligu

ria

Emili

a Ro

mag

na

Tosc

ana

Umbr

ia

Mar

che

Lazi

o

Abru

zzo

Mol

ise

Cam

pani

a

Pugl

ia

Basi

licat

a

Cala

bria

Sici

lia

Sard

egna

Italia

Italian regions

Soil

cons

umpt

ion

(sha

re)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

% c

hang

e share in 2015 (Y-left)% change 2012-2015 (Y-right)

Figure 13 Soil consumption in high hydraulic hazard zones by Italian regions

Source: ISPRA, 2016

With regard to seismic risk, Figure 14 shows that three regions, Lombardy, Veneto and

Campania, display shares of soil consumption in high seismic hazard zones above 10 %.

However the dynamics in the period 2012-2015 also reveals that a group of regions of Central Italy

(Umbria, Marche and Lazio) and a group of Southern regions (Abruzzi, Apulia, Basilicata and

Sicily) register rates of growth of soil consumption in zones at high seismic risk above the national

average. It is worth mentioning that earthquakes occurring in Italy in 2016-2017 hit Umbria,

Marche, Lazio and Abruzzi.

53

Soil consumption in high seismic hazard zones by Italian regions. (percentage share of total regional area in 2015 and percentage change in 2012-2015)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Piem

onte

Valle

d'A

osta

Lom

bard

ia

Tren

tino

Alto

adi

ge

Vene

to

Friu

li Ve

nezi

a G

iulia

Ligu

ria

Emili

a Ro

mag

na

Tosc

ana

Umbr

ia

Mar

che

Lazi

o

Abru

zzo

Mol

ise

Cam

pani

a

Pugl

ia

Basi

licat

a

Cala

bria

Sici

lia

Sard

egna

Italia

Italian regions

Soil

cons

umpt

ion

(sha

re)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

% c

hang

e

share in 2015 (Y-left)

% change 2012-2015 (Y-right)

Figure 14 Soil consumption high seismic hazard zones by Italian regions

Source: ISPRA, 2016


The lost of agricultural land has been an important issue in Italy since the end of WWII. The

geological situation of the Country is characterized by two very long mountain chains, of almost the

same length of more than one thousand kilometers each.

The Alps have at the bottom the vast Po Valley, the backbone of the Italian agriculture and

economy, which hosts some of the biggest and richest cities like Milan, Turin, Bologna; some the

most renewed foods at international level like the Parmesan Cheese and the Parma Ham come from

this very prosperous area. The rest of Italy is much more complicated related the situation of

agricultural land.

The distance from Apennine chain to the sea is very short and therefore the rivers do not

have enough course to pose sedimentation like the exceptionally good top soil of the Po Valley. The

plains under the Apennines are usually quite small and in some areas with a high density of

population, as in the province of Naples.

Often this peculiar geographical situation shapes extremely beautiful landscape which have

contributed to make Italy one of the major tourist attraction in the world; the Maritime Alps over

Genoa have a conformation similar to Apennines, with some of the same water management

problems. The breathtaking beauty of sceneries of the town of Amalfi or the Cinque Terre in

Liguria is determined by the interrelationship between sea and mountains.

There is an additional element of complication related the geomorphology. The mountains in

Italy are the results of two completely different tectonic plates, one from the North and one from the

54

South. This remote consolidation has made to emerge mountains of different geological frame.

Volcanoes therefore are present a in many South Italy and in several islands of the Tyrrhenian Sea,

among of the most active in the world. The tremendous danger and terror of these volcanoes have

also anyway some blessings: the production of wine "terroir" considered some of the best in the

world. Even the Romans understood that: Pompei, the archeological wonder of a city submerged by

a tragic eruption, was a main center of marketing of red wine. Frequent earthquake is also a

characteristic of the Apennine fragile territory.

The management of these problems has been a challenge since the Italian Unification. The

so called "Historical Right Wing" (promoted by the immediate followers of the father of Italian

Unification in 1861, Count Camillo Benso of Cavour and that most of historians consider the best

ruling class ever expressed by Italian politics) posed itself someway the problem but finally the

legal framework enacted was quite weak, being based especially on the legislation n. 2359 of 1865

which affirmed some principles having as aim the health safety of people as result of the

development of cities; some main issues were not dealt at all. The later "Historical Left Wing",

which started in 1876, considered a sort of starting point of some bad behavior of poor policy and

even corruption, concentrated the its land policy legislation to eliminate the immensely vast

Catholic Church land ownership, with the legislation "Crispi" so named after the Prime Minister

who proposed that; this was a shrewd way to get a solid political base creating big private properties

of a new rural bourgeoisie. However, it started also the destruction of the complicated and often

customary based system of community rights which ended in heavy exploitation of the agricultural

land.

The twenty years of the Fascism were a period of huge production of legislation on the

territory. It is intellectually honest to affirm that some of the Fascist legislation was technically

accurate. If all the constitutional change that Mussolini brought using the loopholes of the "Statuto

Albertino", the old fashioned Monarchic Constitution, ended in some legal aberration, like the

destruction of the democratic system and of most of civil liberties and finally the shameful anti-

semitic law, on the other end some bills and decrees on civil and administrative law were well

drafted by very prominent jurists; ironically some if the best legislation on territory management

started in this otherwise infamous political regime. The very well written law on restrictions related

of water and soil management of 1923 has been the base for the protection of land. Ii is true

however that the legislation of 1927 on the Commons contributed to end of a millenary traditions of

community rights to favor the prevalence of the full ownership on the rural areas but on the other

hand we should note the good legislation "Bottai", that got this name after an intelligent and

learned Fascist Minister (who however finally decided to fight with Free France of Charles De

Gaulle in the Foreign Legion), which started the legal instruments for a protection of some 55

landscape from irrational exploitation. World War II stopped any implementation of such clever and

well written set of rules but it must be noted that during the war, in 1942, it was approved the new

Civil Code and the General Law on urban planning. Most of the Civil Code has remained until our

days as the focus point of the private law legislation. Of course, the property rights were strongly

affirmed; there was the principle of the "numerus clausus" of property rights, because only the

legislation and not customary rules could create legal burden on the enjoyment of the real estate by

owners. The Civil Code had also very interesting provisions related the legal management of

swampland; that had been a long story related to Italian geomorphology, because between the

Apennine Mountains and the sea often there were marshes. The Roman Empire, with its

exceptional system of water drainage and engineering, had limited this natural phenomenon but

later vast areas were abandoned and malaria disease had spread for centuries rending most part of

Central and South Italy not suitable for farms. The Fascism put a very good agrarian strategist,

Arrigo Serpieri, as head of the policies of swampland recovery and in 1933 there was a legislation

on this issue which was later partially embodied in the Civil Code. The immense swampland near

Rome was drained and since then in the province of Latina it has been created a highly productive

agricultural land; similar achievements were reached in Apulia and other parts of South Italy.

Moreover, the tremendous effort of the Serpieri' s ideas contributed to limit in Italy the

consequences of the huge economic crisis of the thirties; it worked as a sort of public additional

demand, like Keynes was theorizing in that time. It is true, anyway, that the malaria was effectively

erased only with the help of the Americans after the defeat of the Fascism; anyway, the elimination

of swampland destroyed some of the most biologically diversified eco-system in Europe.

In 1948, after the end of WWII and the return of a democratic system a new Constitution

was enacted. The drafting of the Constitution was the result of a compromise among the principal

political parties emerged that time, especially the Christian Democratic Party and the Communist

Party. The new legal framework on agrarian policies was based on article 42 and article 44 of the

Constitution of the Italian Republic; the former introduced the "social function" of property and the

latter gave the way to the Legislative to put limits to the owner's use of private property. Those

rules allowed a long-standing legislation on land tenure and the agrarian reform of 1950 which

created a very large number of small farmers. In this historical period started the fragmentation of

rural land and meantime alternative use of rural areas.

The General Law of 1942 on urban planning had left the agricultural land in a quite obscure

situation; anyway, for long time the urban planning was mandatory only for big cities and not for

rural towns. It started in the fifties of last century the devastating phenomenon of an irrational use of

the territory, this endangered even the ancient Roman Via Appia, one of the most interesting rural

landscape in the world; many prominent intellectuals of that time, led by the archeologist and rural 56

developer thinker Umberto Zanotti Bianco, asked vehemently new legislation of rural areas,

remembering to the legislator the article 9 of our Constitution, a sort a forgotten or at least

overlooked rule to protect the landscape. Regarding the huge economic recovering of Italy, in that

period Italian industry system started to invest on car industry; to create a vast internal market, a

huge part of public infrastructure was devolved to build a nexus of highways that for the first time

in history connected Italy in a decent way, problems of geomorphology were bypassed using

tunnels and flyover ways. Alternative systems of transportation, like the maritime cabotage, were

not pursued, at expense of rural territory especially in the best agricultural plain areas.

With the more and more stringent legislation on urban planning however it started in the

sixties the illegal practice of the so called "abusive houses", especially in rural areas which are very

difficult to control; constructions without any legitimate authorization were made. Time by time

the Central Government has pardoned the abusive owners and this bad but politically gaining policy

has contributed to the disappearance of many plots of cropped land. In the situation, also the legal

scene has been complicated by the role of the twenty Regions, which were started in 1970; a very

peculiar system if almost federal system, with zoning policies shared between Central Government

and Regional government. It must also consider that the enormous and often confused legislation to

rule the territory has been someway limited by the Constitutional Court which has affirmed the

principle that the "core" of land ownership cannot be taken away by the public administration

without compensation, a financial limit that in recent years has represented a strong stop to policies

affecting private ownership of agricultural land. Anyway meantime starting in the eighties the

Parliament passed some outstanding pieces of legislation, the best since the time of Fascism: the

Bill "Galasso" of 1985, named after the illustrious historian who for good fate of the Italian

landscape was for a short time member of the Central Government, and the Law about the national

Parks of 1991. The law 183 of 1989 on the soil preservation completed the legal structure; however

unfortunately Regions, quite sensitive to pressure of developers' lobbies, got power to derogate the

outstanding system started in 1923. The application of the „Nature 2000" directives of E.U. has

contributed to design a very large part of territory covered by different kind of environmental

protection; additionally, many Regions have started they own parks, with sometime different sets of

rules burdening the same area.

The overall legislation has been merged in some Unified Bills, but this does not help too

much to clarify the overlapping of rules and the difficulties of an organic interpretation. Actually,

the complication of legislation has not stopped the diverting of farmland to different use than the

agricultural one; the losing ground of cropland has continued almost inexorably.

In all these years the mountain areas have lost quite a lot of population, especially young

farmers. There are now on the Apennine areas that are almost deserted by people; in the general 57

weak demographic growth of Italy, one of the lowest in world, vast rural areas have been left by

people. Increase of poor quality woods, emerging of fire problems during summer and neclected

management of infrastructure have bees the outcome of this long-standing process. Meantime the

prime farmland in the plains continue to lose ground because alternative use, especially near the big

cities. Anyway, it is possible to understand that all the legislation to protect rural areas has not been

a total failure; it has contributed to create a social sensibility to the bad of territory, especially

environmental sensitive zones but also cropland.


In the standard economic analysis, land is one of the key factors of production (as well as

labour and capital) and is the fundamental basis for the agricultural production and housing. In

general, the abundance of land and natural resources represents a necessary prerequisite for

economic growth even if, in absence of other crucial factors like capital accumulation and

technological progress, this condition may be insufficient for the economic take-off of a country.

Moreover, in the course of time, economic development of a country is not necessarily linked to the

static configuration of its factor endowment but could depend on alternative and dynamic uses of its

factors of production. Changes in land use is an example, in the history of economic development,

of how alternative employment of resources has spurred productivity and social welfare (take the

industrial revolution, for instance).

But nowadays, especially in developed economies, the transformation of farmland and

forests in urban areas entails strong socioeconomic contraindications and costs: a reduction of the

soil available for food and timber production; a menace for the survival of local agricultural

economies and rural communities; a danger for the quality of the air and, in general, for the

provision of ecosystem services; a reduction of open spaces and environmental amenities for

residents; an increase in income inequalities among communities, if land conversion goes hand in

hand with suburbanization processes (Wu, 2008).

In order to limit the costs associated with land withdrawal, regulatory measures - such as

direct land use controls, development impact fees, purchases of development rights, preferential

property taxation - are absolutely necessary even if, as in the U.S. experience, they could imply

social welfare losses in terms of higher housing prices, smaller houses, inefficient land use patterns

(Cheshire and Sheppard, 2002; Walsh, 2007).

In other words, and excessive regulatory activity could also inhibit the best use of market

opportunities. For this reason, land use regulation should balance public and private interests.

58

In the case of Italy, historically, the balance was adverse for public welfare. After the

Second World War, the economic development of Italy has profoundly changed the use of land. In

1951, the economic structure of the country was essentially based on the agriculture, a sector

absorbing more than 45 % of employed labour force. Over a time, span of 15 years, the share of

agricultural in total employment halved and continued to contract over time until reaching only

3.7 % in 2015. In addition, the dualistic character of Italian economic development induced,

especially in the 1950s and 1960s, huge migration flows from southern regions to the North, with

strong repercussions in terms of abandonment of farmland and urban congestion. In recent times, a

revival of internal migration flows from the South to the North has occurred in Italy (especially in

the period 1995-2008), depending on the different degrees of international integration of the two

areas of the country: a North able to export and to attract skilled and well educated workers from

the South, an area, instead, less integrated in the world economy and still suffering a chronic

backwardness with high level of unemployment, growing poverty and social distress.

The processes of international economic integration and the dynamics of globalization have

deeply affected the use of land in Italy. For instance, economic instruments of European Union

policies (like subsidies and taxes) have played a relevant role in shaping agriculture and land

management. Particularly, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has contributed to improve

productivity of cropping systems via agricultural intensification and farm specialization. However,

beyond the short/medium term economic benefits, this evolution has also meant the end of

traditional cropping systems and the intensification of land degradation (Costantini and Dazi, 2013).

In general, globalization and the competitive pressure carried out by agribusiness multinationals

have rendered many agriculture and forestry soils no longer competitive with the consequence to

made them susceptible to be abandoned. To confirm this, in recent years land covered by fodder

crops are increasing at expense of arable land, especially in Italian central and southern regions. In

addition, as effect of international competition, land values are decreasing in marginal areas of

central and southern Italy, but are rising in the North, where the most competitive areas are located

(Costantini and Dazi, 2013)

However, global markets also represent an important economic opportunity and not only a

menace, especially for Italian products. Quality is the element inherent in Italian productions and

the implementation of strategies enhancing this potential represents the fundamental key to

conjugate economic opportunities and public interest. In recent times, especially in Europe,

consumer preferences are orienting towards high quality food obtained from new forms of

agriculture, organized in harmony with natural environment, animals, health of citizens, territory

traditions, etc. Italy is in the best position to take advantage of this trend, for the richness of its

territory and the variety and quality of its products. Besides necessary regulatory instruments 59

aiming to limit the land withdrawal, incentive measures for supporting quality- based food

production and the traceability of products - in order to identify the whole value chain and the

geographical origin - are all elements of a proactive strategy for combining market opportunities

and the conservation of land.


A main issue related of agricultural land conservation in Italy is the withdrawal of

agricultural land; this is fostered by the very little average size of Italian agricultural farms. The

opportunity to split the properties in agricultural areas has brought to a sort of "bad diversification",

especially in the plain areas near the big cities. Actually, the Italian Civil Code, approved with

Regius Decree 262 in the 1942, at Article 845 adopted the rule that in the transfer of property rights

of agricultural land should have respected a minimum cultural size; this size had to be intended the

land that a typical rural family could farm under good agricultural practices. This article never was

enforced, therefore in the years after WWII there has been a huge dividing of agricultural land.

Finally, the rule of the Civil Code about size of agricultural land was repealed in 2001 by the

Legislative Decree 228, which should be considered a sort of general law about agriculture. At

article 5 of the d.lgs. 228/2001, as modified by the d.lgs, 99/2004 some incentives have been

introduced to avoid agricultural land to be divided, because the purchaser which accepts this rule

must oblige himself not to sell any portion of the land for at least ten years. The earlier legislative

rule was related to mountain areas, while, eventually, it has been extended to any kind of

agricultural land. In the agricultural land, also buildings related to farming are enclosed. Therefore,

for ten years the land should be considered a indivisible unit and any legal deed aimed to bypass

this obligation should be considered null and void. It is possible to combine also plots of lands that

are not near each other; the unit should be considered not under a geographical perspective but

under economic and legal reason. It has been accepted a minimum size for the land to be granted

this kind of legal structure, while maximum extent never has been fully clarified; anyway, some

Regions, taking advantage of the Constitutional powers related to agriculture, have issued

legislation also on the maximum of extent. The problem of this legal tool to preserve the integrity

of agricultural destination is that it is a volunteer scheme, moreover it is strictly related to some tax

incentives (some of whose have been eliminated). The additional weakness of the legislation is that

the major sanction to the contract is just for the sale, while abandoning the farming by the same

owner has just the loss of taxation relief. It is anyway interesting the legal provision that imposes

also in case of inheritance the obligation to respect the original purchase contract, after the death of

the owner. This is one of the few rules in which the preservation of integrity of farmland prevails on

60

the rights of disposing also by will the splitting up of farmland; as for the contracts, also the part of

the will related fractionation among heirs should considered void. If there is no other real estate to

compensate the additional heirs it is necessary to balance all the quotas by money; of course, this

kind of compensations could be difficult in case of big properties and therefore in such

circumstances an additional quite recent legal instrument can be useful, the so called agricultural

companies.

In the original text of the Italian Civil Code the only opportunity given to farmers to operate

together was by cooperatives or the so called "simple partnership". No limited partnership or

company could be set up for farming business; at least if such company was created it had no

protection by the golden rules regarding to the farmer drafted in the V book of the Civil Code. The

agricultural company is an additional provision by the d.lgs. 99/2004 and it requires objective and

subjective conditions: it must operate in the farming business and in must have as member or

manager at least one "professional farmer".

It is worth to note that the original goal of the legislation was probably to bring fresh capitals

to the agricultural business, allowing to high net worth individuals to invest in agriculture, anyway

conserving the protection of article 2135 of the Civil Code. As often it happens in the law, the real

results have been different.

The agricultural company is an effective legal tool against the split of agricultural land,

especially in the inheritance division. It is possible to have the farm managed by all the heirs,

allowed that at least one is a professional farmer. Very noteworthy case of a legislation that is

reaching purposes much more intriguing than the original aim. Vast properties can remain

undivided also for long time, given that they belong to companies; therefore, a legal tool thought for

economic reason has had as side effect to contribute to a orderly management of the agricultural

areas. Indeed, farms which maintain a sizeable cropland tend to be both a viable business entities

and a farmland preservation legal device.

This last consideration opens the reflection about the use of private law versus

administrative law mechanism for land preservation. For many years the idea that public policies

should be the best way to manage the farmland; the combining of imposed limitations to private

properties and the providing of funds, often thanks to the Plans of Rural Development funded by the

Regions mainly by the money of the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policies, has

seemed the perfect blending to preserve rural areas. Anyway, frequently these policies backfired;

the limitations to private property have been often administrative burdens managed through a

bureaucratic system in which self-legitimacy of bodies of civil clerks have prevailed over a bottom-

up opportunity by the farmers. The culture of farmers' organizations has not helped the creation of

suitable ways of land management involving private and public stakeholders. Therefore, sometimes 61

the public funds for land management have been scattered in fruitless distribution under measures

that seemed good on desk but out of context in the real application.

In the legal debate about which instruments to use, the private law schemes, certainly softer

and of longer expectations, have appeared like the good solutions for a correct use of the

agricultural land and farming. Interesting has been also the role of the civil society in this

interesting but complicated "Italian Way" to farmland preservation. Notorious has been the role of

private associations (like "Italia Nostra", Slow Food, Legambiente and so on) to operate as

connections between the farmers and other stakeholders interested in good practices in the rural

areas. Slow Food associations has started the so called "Praesidia" which tend to preserve the

territory favoring small and ancient production otherwise doomed by the factory farms. An

excellent idea with the beginning in Italy but that later has spread in many other countries.

The double system of the Italian development, a rich and creative civil society and an

extremely Byzantium-style public sector, has been present therefore also in the practices related the

land preservation. Anyway, in the long term this two separate and often conflicting environments

should learn to work together. Very difficult goal but the only effective way to preserve an

agricultural territory mainly created by history and characterized by enchanting beauty.

References1. COSTANTINI, E. - DAZZI, C. 2013. ed. by., The soils of Italy, Springer, Berlin.

2. CHESHIRE, P. - SHEPPARD, S. 2002. “The welfare economics of land use planning,

Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 242–69.

3. WALSH, R. 2007. “Endogenous open space amenities in a locational equilibrium”, Journal

of Urban Economics, 61, 319–44.

4. WU, JUNJIE. 2008. “Land use changes: economic, social, and environmental impacts”,

Choices, 23(4), 6-10.

4 Case Poland


Poland covers the area of 31,267,900 ha, out of that agricultural land represents

14,410,000 ha. In Poland, there is 0.38 ha of agricultural land per capita.

A systematic decline in the area of agricultural grounds can be observed since the beginning

of political transformation in Poland. It is mainly due to exclusion of these grounds for non-

62

agricultural purposes. The largest area, nearly 6 thousand hectares of agricultural grounds were

excluded for non-agricultural purposes in 1990, which is presented in Figure 15.

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Figure 15 Agricultural grounds excluded for non-agricultural purposes in the years 1990-2015 (ha)

Source: Data from The Polish Central Statistical Office (GUS): Environmental Protection

In the years 1990-1994, 3 to 7 thousand hectares of grounds were excluded annually from

agricultural use. The protection of agricultural and forest grounds has been tightened since 1995.

Pursuant to 12.7 of the Act dated February 3, 1995 on the protection of agricultural and forest

grounds, the tools for economic protection of agricultural grounds have been tightened because

there was an increase in receivables for the exclusion of production of 1 ha of the best agricultural

grounds (class I-III). Since the moment of the provision of the Act on the protection of agricultural

and forest ground of 1995 becoming valid, until the accession of Poland to the European Union, 1

thousand to 3 thousand ha were excluded annually, in line with applicable provisions of this Act.

An accelerated regional development after the accession of Poland to the EU structures resulted in

an increase in the surface of excluded grounds from agricultural use [Szymańska 2015]. In the

years 2004-2008 3 to 5 thousand ha of agricultural grounds were excluded for purposes other than

agricultural or forest, of which more than a half were made up of good agricultural soils (class from

I to III), which is illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 16.

Years Class I-III Class IV Class V-VI1990 1,196 1,617 3,1231995 876 431 1122000 1,053 393 552005 1,783 858 1412010 922 798 1112015 1,401 788 119

Table 5 The area of agricultural lands excluded for non-agricultural purposes, according to valuation class in

Poland in the years 1990-2015 (ha)

Source: Environmental Protection, GUS, Warsaw 2003-201663

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

class I-III class IV class V and VI

Figure 16 The area of agricultural lands excluded for non-agricultural purposes, according to valuation class in

Poland in the years 1990-2015 (ha)


After 2008, when the symptoms of the global crisis became noticeable also in the Polish

economy, one has observed a decrease in the loss of the grounds for non-agricultural and non-forest

purposes. In the years 2009-2015, 2 to 3 thousand hectares of grounds were annually excluded from

agricultural use.

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

200400600800

100012001400160018002000

for residential areas for industrial areasfor roads and communication routes for miningfor other purposes

Figure 17 The directions of exclusion of agricultural grounds for non-agricultural purposes in Poland in the

years 1990-2015 (ha)


The dominant direction of exclusion of agricultural grounds for non-agricultural purposes in

Poland is their allocation to the housing development, which is illustrated in Figure 17. This applies

mainly to rural areas located in the proximity of large urban centers. [Kacprzak, Mackiewicz 2013].

64

In the years 1990-2008, 33.7 thousand ha of agricultural lands were excluded for this purpose. It is

still the main direction of exclusion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes.

Considerable area of land is excluded for the purposes of industry and the surface mining land in

use.


The protection of agricultural ground in Poland is implemented on the basis of the Act on

the protection of agricultural and forest grounds dated February 3, 1995 as amended, published on

June 9, 2015 (Journal of Laws 2015, item 909).

The Act regulates the principles of protection of agricultural and forest lands and reclamation, as

well as improvement of the grounds use value.

The agricultural lands, within the meaning of the Act, are the lands:

Specified in the land register as agricultural lands;

Under fish ponds and other water reservoirs, intended solely for the needs of agriculture;

Under residential buildings forming an agricultural holding, and other buildings and

devices intended solely for agricultural production and agricultural and food processing;

Under buildings and devices used directly for agricultural production considered a special

section, pursuant to the provisions of the personal income tax and the corporate income tax;

Rural parks and under stand density and field woods, including also wind protection belts

and flood-preventing devices;

Family allotment gardens and botanical gardens;

Under water reclamation, flood-preventing and fire protection devices, supplying

agriculture with water, sewage systems and waste water disposal and waste materials for

the needs of agriculture and rural residents;

Recultivated for the needs of agriculture;

Peat lands and waterholes;

Under access roads to agricultural grounds.

According to the Act, the protection of agricultural grounds consists in:

Limiting their allocation to non-agricultural or non-forest purposes;

Preventing agricultural grounds degradation and devastation processes and losses in

agricultural production, arising due to non-agricultural activities and mass movement of the

earth;

Recultivating and developing of grounds for agricultural purposes;

65

Maintaining peat lands and waterholes as natural water reservoirs;

Limiting the changes in the natural topography of the earth.

A person competent in matters of agricultural grounds is the staroste or, in designated

situations, a marshal of the voivodship, who take actions in the field of government administration.

The Act sets forth that for non-agricultural purposes one can assign primarily the grounds that are

marked in the land register as wastelands, and should there be none - other grounds with the lowest

production usefulness, while when expanding or modernizing facilities connected with industrial

activity (as well as other civil structures), one should use solutions that limit the effects of negative

impact on the grounds.

The allocation of agricultural grounds, representing agricultural lands, to non-agricultural

purposes of class I-III requires the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. In the case of the

grounds of inferior quality, the permission shall be issued by the marshal of the voivodship, after

obtaining an opinion of the Chamber of Agriculture. A commune administrator (mayor, city

president) shall be the party to the proceedings for the exclusion of the grounds for non-agricultural

purposes, and he shall direct the application to the relevant Minister through the marshal of the

province. Such actions should be reflected in the local spatial development plan.

The marshal of the voivodship supplements the application for exclusion of the grounds for

non-agricultural purposes with his opinion, and in certain cases, he can be requested by the Minister

to submit an application in several versions presenting different directions of the planned spatial

land development. An application to the Minister must include a justification for the need to

change the purposes of the grounds, a list of areas of the grounds including valuations classes, an

economic justification for the planned changes including receivables and annual fees and the size of

losses to be incurred by the agriculture as a result of a negative impact of investments located on

transformed grounds.

In the case of grounds whose area exceeds 10 ha intended for the purposes of mining

investments, an application should also include variant solutions for reclamation and development

of the grounds and after the completion of industrial activities (the costs of reclamation and

development and agricultural losses).

The legislator has foreseen several situations in the Act, when the approval of the Minister

of Agriculture is required. It relates primarily to the situation where the grounds are allocated to

construction purposes. Because the legislator excludes the grounds located in the area of compact

structures from the necessity of obtaining the minister's decision (no less than 5 buildings, between

which the greatest distance of neighboring buildings does not exceed 100 m). In addition, the

grounds can be allocated to non-agricultural purposes that are located no further than 50 m form the

66

border of the nearest buildable plot or no further than 50 m from the public road. The agricultural

grounds with area not exceeding 0.5 ha are also not subject to the protection against allocation to

non-agricultural purposes.

The approval of the above institutions is not required in the case of a temporary exclusion

(up to 10 years) in the following situations:

Controlling natural disasters and their consequences;

Exploring hydrocarbons, hardcoal, lignite, iron ores, etc.

What is important - the provisions regarding the limitation of the allocation of agricultural

grounds to non-agricultural purposes do not apply to agricultural grounds located within the

administrative borders of cities. However, the provisions on exemption from exclusion of the

ground from agricultural production and financial burdens connected thereto do apply to these

grounds.

One should also indicate the regulations that exclude the legal effect of the Act on the

protection of agricultural and forest grounds, and thus the protection of these grounds against the

exclusion for non-agricultural purposes. They are:

The Act dated April 10, 2003, on special rules of preparation and implementation of

investments in national roads (Journal of Laws 2003, No. 80, item 721 as amended) – the

so-called special purpose Road Act;

The Act dated July 24, 2015 on preparation on implementation of strategic investments in

transmission networks (Journal of Laws of 2016, item 266, 1250) – the so-called special

purpose Transmission Act.

By virtue of the above Act the title to a real estate (including agricultural grounds), on which

the investments will be implemented in national roads or transmission networks, shall be be taken

over by operation of law. It means that after obtaining a final decision authorizing the

implementation of investments in respect of roads or transmission networks, the real properties, by

virtue of law, become properties of the State Treasure, a competent unit of local government or the

investor. Whereas, a compensation for a given real property shall be determined in a separate

decision.

To some extent the protection of agricultural grounds against non-agricultural application

was also introduced by the Act of April 14, 2016 on Suspending the Sale of Real Properties

Included in the Agricultural Property Stock of the State Treasury and Amending Some Other Acts

(Journal of Laws of 2016, item 585), which entered into force on April 30, 2016. This Act

introduces significant control in trade of agricultural grounds both owned by the State and private

67

owners. Thereunder, within 5 years of the date of its entry into force, the sale of real properties or

parts thereof included in the Agricultural Property Stock of the State Treasury, shall be suspended.

This regulation does not apply to selling:

Real properties and parts thereof designated in:

The local spatial development plan or

Conditions and courses of spatial development study of the commune, or

A final zoning decision - for purposes other than agricultural, especially

technological parks, industrial parks, business and logistics centers, warehouses,

transport investments, housing, sports and recreation facilities, or

Real properties located within the borders of special economic zones, or

Houses, housing apartments, outhouses and garages along with necessary grounds and

home gardens, or 4) real agricultural properties with an area of up to 2 ha.

The Act provides that only individual farmers can be the purchasers of agricultural real

properties. The exception is, among others, purchasing of the land by persons close the seller, unit

of local government, State Treasury, as well as churches and religious associations. In the case of

other entities, the sale of land must be approved by the president of the Agricultural Property

Agency. The purchase of real properties is permanently connected with the requirement to run the

farm business personally and the ban on selling and leasing the purchased land for 10 years. The

approval to sell the land prior to the expiration of this term can be issued by a court only in random

case.

The new rules for marketing of real properties do not apply to the purchasing of land as a

result of inheritance, decision of the court or a law enforcement authority. The marketing of private

farmland plots of up 0.3 ha is also not subject to restrictions. It is similar in the case of habitats -

developed agricultural grounds with an area of up to ha, which, on the date of new provisions

entering into force, will be occupied by residential buildings, facilities, structures and devices not

yet used for agricultural production, along with their adjacent grounds that allow their proper

utilization - if these grounds form an organized economic unit and their agricultural status has not

been changed. The marketing of agricultural real properties, which, on the date of the Act entering

into force in the final zoning decisions will be used for purposes other than agricultural, will also

not be limited.

In justifications, the legislator explains that is a protection against “speculative” purchase of

land, which is aimed at capital investment in the first place, and then non-agricultural use.

68


The economic tools connected with the process of exclusion of agricultural grounds form

agricultural use include: fees, fines and taxes.

Fees

Changing the agricultural status of the ground, depending on its area and valuation class

may involve significant costs. In line with the provisions of the Act on protection of agricultural

and forest grounds, the person who obtained an approval to exclude the grounds from production is

required to pay a one-time charge and annual fees. Such an obligation arises from the actual date of

exclusion of agricultural grounds from production. The receivable for the exclusion of agricultural

lands (agricultural grounds and orchards) from production amounts to:

In relation to mineral and organic soils:

class I – 437,175 PLN per 1 ha;

class II – 378,885 PLN per 1 ha;

class IIIa – 320,595 PLN per 1 ha;

class IIIb – 262,305 PLN per 1 ha.

In relation to organic soils:

class IVa – 204,015 PLN per 1 ha;

class IVb – 145,725 PLN per 1 ha;

class V – 116,580 PLN per 1 ha;

class VI – 87,435 PLN per 1 ha.

The above receivable shall be reduced by the value of the land, determined according to

marker prices used in a given place of a land trade, on the actual date of exclusion of this ground

form production. To calculate the amount of receivables one should, therefore, multiply the surface

of the excluded ground of a given class by the rate for exclusion, e.g. 0.02 ha of class I ground x

437,175 PLN = 8,734.80 PLN. Then, from the calculated amount one should subtract the market

value of the excluded ground. An annual fee for a given year, on account of ground exclusion from

agricultural production, shall be paid to June 30th of a given year, in the amount of 10 % of

receivables calculated above, for a maximum period of 20 years. However, the Act provides for

some exceptions to the obligation of paying the receivable and annual payments. The exemption

includes, e.g.: exclusion of the grounds from agricultural prediction for housing purposes up to 0.05

ha in the case of a single-family building and up to 0.02 ha for each residential building in the case

of a multi-family building.

69

In the case of exclusion of agricultural grounds from production of classes I, II, IIIa, IIIb, III,

IVa and IV and peat lands, once can impose the interested party with an obligation to remove

humus and use it to improve the use value of the grounds.

A failure to perform this obligation results in the person that excludes the grounds from

production having to pay for each 1 m3 of improperly used humus, a fee, which ranges from PLN

174 thousand to PLN 291 thousand.

The owner of the grounds being agricultural lands and the grounds recultivated for

agricultural purposes is required to counter soil degradation, including erosion, in particular. The

decisions ordering one to take appropriate measures in protection of the soil against erosion can be

issued by the public administration authority, and the costs of these actions will be compensated.

Moreover, in a situation of the owner's improper care in respect of appropriate agricultural

technology the commune administrator can order such actions. A person causing the loss or

limitation of the use value of the grounds is required to recultivate them on his/her own expense.

Penalties for an illegal exclusion of the agricultural grounds from use

It follows that, in principle, when it comes to agricultural lands, except lands derived from

mineral soils of classes IV-VI, in the case of decultivation, there is an obligation to obtain a

decision allowing the exemption. The sanction for exclusion from production not made in

accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Lands (actual

exclusion without the required decision), is to determine and impose on the perpetrator of the

exclusion a fee of twice the receivables. In such a case the regulation does not apply, in line with

which the amount of the receivable shall be reduced by the market value of the ground. It is also

important to note that sanctioning does not depend on how long it took to exclude the ground from

production and whether the causer had the intention of permanent exclusion. The legislator did not

limit the use of the above sanction for cases of permanent exclusion of the ground from agricultural

production. Starting an activity other than agricultural use of the ground, and then discontinuing

such a use, and even restoring the ground to the original condition, will not protect the causer from

being sanctioned.

Taxes

Reclassification of agricultural land (only for non-agricultural purposes) is also associated

with the change of the tax burden. In principle, agricultural land is burdened with agricultural tax

(Act on Agricultural Tax from November 15, 1984, Journal of Laws 1984 No. 52, item. 268, as

amended). The basis for taxation are the so-called comparative fiscal hectares, determined on the

basis of the agricultural land area, their valuation class and tax districts. The agricultural tax rate for 70

1 comparative fiscal hectare is calculated as the equivalent of 2.5 q rye for the lands used by farms

and 5 q rye for the remaining agricultural lands (due to the low price of rye the agricultural tax

burden is relatively low). Lands that are no longer used for agriculture are subject to real estate tax

(Act on Local Taxes and Charges from January 12, 1991 (Journal of Laws 1991 no. 9, item 31 as

amended), whereas the real estate tax rates are much higher.


Agricultural lands are non-renewable natural resources. Due to their specificity and their

functions, they require effective and sustainable legal protection. As it has already been pointed out,

in Polish legislation a crucial protective role is now played by the Act from February 3, 1995 On the

Protection of Agricultural and Forest Lands. It should be noted, however, that the legal solutions

constituting the Polish system of agricultural land protection go far beyond the scope of this Act.

Protective regulations can in fact be found in the legal acts concerning, among other things, spatial

planning, or the regulations focused on protecting the environment and nature.

The Act from 1995 On the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Lands covered protection of

agricultural land, involving the limiting of their utilization for non-agricultural purposes and the

prevention of degradation or devastation processes arising due to non-agricultural activities.

Processes associated with industrialization and the need of development of technical infrastructure

resulted in many amendments of the Act from 1995. The general direction of the changes was to

release agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and the removal of administrative barriers

that hinder investment plans. During the construction, expansion or modernization of industrial

activity structures one had to apply such solutions that would reduce negative impact on land. In the

case of the use of class I-III agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, there was a need to pay

duties and annual fees. The Act also protected bonitation class IV-VI agricultural lands, comprised

from organic soils.

The forthcoming period of Polish accession to the European Union and the associated

inclusion of Polish agriculture and rural areas in the common EU agricultural policy, including

direct subsidies to the agricultural areas, favored retaining land for agricultural use (Urban 2003).

On the other hand, the funds that flowed in from the pre-accession aid funds fostered interest in

acquisition of agricultural land for investment purposes.

The accelerated socio-economic development of Poland after the accession to the EU

structures was conducive to the growth of prices of agricultural land in the vicinity of cities and

allocating it for non-agricultural purposes. New land-consuming investments were implemented.

Diversification of the regime of protection of agricultural lands depending on their location was

71

introduced by an amendment to the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Lands from

December 19, 2008 (Journal of Laws No. 237, item 1657). The Act permitted the allocation of the

agricultural lands located within the administrative boundaries of cities for non-agricultural

purposes without the requirement to obtain the consent of the competent authority to change their

purpose, adopting a local development plan and paying the appropriate fees (Klusek 2014). The

introduced changes limited the ability to protect land with high production suitability, they resulted

in higher prices of land near cities, expanding the administrative boundaries of cities and dispersion

of development - it is a consequence of the allocation for the purpose of urbanization in planning

documents of development areas that were too large in relation to what was strictly necessary

(Krasowicz et al. 2011).

It seems that land - as a good with a unique value - should be strictly subjected to more

respect and protection than ever.

4.5 Case study

Sokółka

The decision of exclusion of activities towards identification of deposits of gravel and sand

with the intention of its later exploitation engaged the area located in north-eastern Poland in the

municipality of Sokolka. It should be noted that this area is already under significant pressure from

the entities exploiting gravel and sand. In 2016 in the territory of this municipality exploitation of

aggregate was conducted in an area of about 600 hectares. The municipal authorities determining

the policy of municipality development established three zones (each of about 1,000 hectares)

foreseen in terms of aggregate exploitation. First zone covers the area currently exploited. In the

second zone are areas prepared for the operation and areas that already have identified deposits. The

third zone is the area where aggregates occur, but it is foreseen for use in term of 20-30 years.

Figure 18 Municipality Sokółka

Source: www.google.maps.com

72

http://www.google.maps.com/

In 2016 local government undertaking a decision concerning approval of planned geological

works on the area of over 70 hectares referred to The Geological and Mining Law (Dz.U. 2011 nr

163 poz. 981.) and The Study of Conditions and Directions of Cities and Villages Development,

The Resolution No. XVII/103/2011 of the City Council in Sokolka of 29 September 2011

concerning the change of The Study of Conditions and Directions of Land Management of Cities

and Villages of Sokolka Municipality. Referring to the geological and mining law it was stated that

undertaking and carrying out activities in terms of geological research and potential latter

exploitation is permitted only when it does not violate its intended use of property specified in the

local land-use plan and in other regulations (in this case it was indicated above The Study of

Conditions and Directions of Land Management of Cities and Villages of Sokółka Municipality).

Under the current Study, part of plots indicated in the entrepreneur application are located in the

area of agriculture and forestry. They are partly situated in the area of river valleys as well as in the

area of a farm buildings.

According to notations of the Study, in the area of agricultural production it is expected to

be: long-lasting, sustainable development, taking into account the economic social and spatial

governance, maintaining biodiversity of the natural environment and ecological requirements. The

decision ascertains, among others: "In order to protect the surface of the soil and the rational use of

its functional values one should: protect agricultural production area from earmarking it for

purposes other than agricultural and protect the surface from the negative effects of surface

exploitation of mineral resources."

In the explanation it was pointed out that the mining exploitation of the gravel and sand

causes:

Degradation of geomorphological forms;

Degradation of the landscape;

Change in habitat conditions;

Creating barriers of animal migration;

Threat to the life of animals (especially birds);

Deterioration of soil quality;

Liquidation of balks, trees and forests, and as a result, the impoverishment of the landscape

and the loss of specific species of plants and animals.

It was also indicated that the proposed study should take place in the immediate vicinity of

the landscape protected area called ’Sokolka hill’. This area should be subject to particular

protection, which run down resolutions of Act of Arable and Forestry Land (Dz.U. 2015 poz. 909),

73

where it was pointed out the need for reduction of changes of the natural shape of the earth in order

to preserve the characteristic landscape for the future generations.

References1. KACPRZAK, E. – MACKIEWICZ, B., 2013. Farmland conversion and changes in the land-

use pattern in the Poznań agglomeration in the years 2000-2009. Questiones Geographicae,

32(4): 91-102.

2. KLUSEK, T. 2014. Uwarunkowania i skala wyłączania na cele nierolnicze gruntów o

największej przydatności produkcyjnej, Roczniki Naukowe SERiA, tom CVI, z. 6

3. KRASOWICZ, S. – OLESZEK, W. – HORABIK, J. – DĘBICKI, R. – JANKOWIAK, J. –

STUCZYŃSKI, T. – JADCZYSZYN, J. 2011., Racjonalne gospodarowanie środowiskiem

glebowym Polski, Polish Journal of Agronomy, 7,43-58. Ochrona środowiska, GUS,

Warszawa 2003-2016.

4. SZYMAŃSKA, J. 2015. Ubytek ziemi rolniczej w Polsce w długim okresie (wybrane

problemy). Roczniki Ekonomiczne Kujawsko-Pomorskiej Szkoły Wyższej w Bydgoszczy,

nr 8: 145-163.

5. URBAN, S. 2003., Rola ziemi w rolnictwie zrównoważonym a aktualne jej zasoby w

Polsce, Acta Agraria et Silvestria. Series Agraria, Sekcja Ekonomiczna, vol. XL, Oddział

PAN Kraków.

5 Case Slovakia


Slovakia covers the area of 4,903,700 ha, out of that agricultural land represents

1,928,500 ha. In Slovakia, there is 0.36 ha of agricultural land per capita.

The development of the structure of land resources in recent decades in Slovakia is

characterized by a significant loss of agricultural land in connection with the intensive construction

activities and reducing the importance of farming to the total gross domestic product.

Since 1950 there has been a decrease of more than 380,000 ha of agricultural land. The

reason for this phenomenon is the preference of technical and economic benefits of agricultural land

withdrawal for capital construction activities (Jahnátek, 2016).

As demonstrated in Figure 19 the biggest agricultural land withdrawal in Slovakia was

registered in 2008. This year was exceptional because it was the last year when the contributions for

74

the agricultural land withdrawal were not paid. For the period of nine years, i.e. from 2007 to 2015

a total of 15,141.40 ha of agricultural land was withdrawn.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150.00

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

1,311.64

4,919.69

2,834.92

2,146.43

733.87

951.64 930.60

740.08572.53

withdrawal of agricultural land

ha

Figure 19 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha)

Source: Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of Slovak Republic, 2007-2015

In 2008, the most of agricultural land, i.e. 25 % was withdrawn in the quality group 6,

representing 1,152.49 ha. On the other hand, the least of agricultural land, i.e. 4 % of the total was

withdrawn in the quality group 1, representing 188.94 ha. In the quality groups 1-4, 1,611.38 ha

was withdrawn and in the quality groups 5-9, 3,038.04 ha of agricultural land was withdrawn (see

Figure 20).

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

quality group 1 quality group 2 quality group 3 quality group 4 quality group 5quality group 6 quality group 7 quality group 8 quality group 9

ha

Figure 20 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha) according to CSEU


75

The results in Figure 21 show that only 28.80 % of agricultural land was withdrawn for

housing purposes, followed by industry 21.82 % and transportation 15.62 %. Interestingly, the

agricultural land withdrawal for the purpose of setting up solar power plants in the years 2007-2015

represented 1,097.39 hectares, while the highest amount of withdrawals was recorded in 2010,

representing 89.79 % of the total area of the withdrawn area. The reason why the highest amount of

withdrawals was recorded in 2010 was the fact that the state began providing subsidies for

photovoltaic power plants in this year. In this case, an economic instrument did not play any

decisive role in protecting agricultural land.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Housing Industry Transport Mining OtherWind Power Plants Fast Growing Trees Photovoltaic Power Plants

ha

Figure 21 The area of agricultural land withdrawal in the period 2007-2015 (ha) according to purpose



As far as the integration of environmental aspects into the protection of agricultural land is

concerned, subsidy policy of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (I. and II. Pillar) played an

important role, because it made the full amount of direct payments (single area payment) subject to

by meeting the requirements of the cross-compliance (I. Pilar of the CAP) and to implement

Measures of the II: Pilar od the CAP in particular Measure 10 Agri-environmental- climate action

(non-project measure) and Measure 11 Organic farming (non-project measure).

Slovak legal and political background follows the European environmental and agricultural

political framework. Legal regulation of the agricultural land is fully in the competence of the

Slovakia. Agricultural land is regulated by Act No. 220/2004 Coll., on the conservation and use of

agricultural land and amending the Act No. 245/2003 Coll. on integrated pollution prevention and

control and amending certain acts as amended. In terms of Section 1 of the Act, subject of the Act is

legislative regulation of:76

Protection of qualities and functions of agricultural land and ensuring of its sustainable

management and agricultural exploitation;

Protection of the environmental functions of agricultural land, which are: biomass

production, filtration, neutralization, and transformation of substances in nature,

maintenance of the environmental and genetic potential of living organisms in nature;

Protection of agricultural land area against unauthorized occupation for non-agricultural

use;

Procedures used when changing land type and procedures used when withdrawing

agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes;

Penalties for breach of the obligations established by the Act.

Part II of the Act (Section 3-8 of the Act) lays down the principles of the sustainable

agricultural land use and agricultural land management and land protection. Within the framework

of the agricultural land care, the subjects mentioned are obliged to (Section 3 of the Act):

Implement agro-technical measures aimed at the protection and preservation of the

qualitative features and functions of the agricultural land and the protection against damage

and degradation;

Prevent the occurrence and spread of weeds on uncultivated lands;

Ensure that the agricultural land is used in the way that does not threaten the ecological

stability of the area and maintains the functional interrelatedness of the natural processes in

the landscape;

Organize and harmonize the agricultural land type with its data registered in the Cadastre.

Thus part II of the Act adjusts the most important environmental risks emerging in the

agricultural land (degradation, erosion, compaction and protection against hazardous substances)

and the maintenance of soil organic materials. The agricultural land care is left solely as an

obligation of the owner, tenant or manager of agricultural land. Although the National Agricultural

and Food Centre – Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute such serving representing a

soil service can monitor and propose appropriate measures to mitigate or eliminate the

unsatisfactory state, the implementation of the agro-technical measures itself, including financial

costs, is left to the entities mentioned above.

The key part of the Act is part IV referring to the protection of agricultural land related to

non-agricultural use. This part of the Act had been amended in order to limit the decrease in the

amount of agricultural land several times. The basic principle in the protection of the agricultural

land area is defined by Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the Act, which states that the agricultural land can

77

be used for construction purposes and other non-agricultural purposes only when necessary and in

legitimate amount.


With the amendment of the Act No 219/2008 Coll. which came to the force 1st April 2008

was reintroduced contributions on withdrawal of agricultural land for the construction and other

non-agricultural purposes through the institute of contributions on withdrawal of agricultural land

representing a systematic economic instrument for the protection of agricultural land of the highest

quality. Contributions are regulated by the Governmental regulation No 58/2013 Coll. on the

contributions and unauthorized withdrawal of agricultural land as amended.

Establishing the contributions on withdrawal results in achieving three objectives beneficial

for the whole society:

Protection and stabilization of the Slovak agricultural land area of the highest quality;

Guidance and, in a certain way, forcing construction investors to decrease the financial

costs via directing at Slovak sites outside of the Bratislava and Trnava regions and

orienting at soil of lower quality (BSEU in the 5th to 9th group), sites less important in

terms of the agricultural primary production and offering lower levies, and, based on the

same economic interest, to limit their land requirements on the extent of withdrawal

necessarily needed as well;

Ensuring the financial means for the operation of certain provisions of the Act, mainly

activities related to the organization of agricultural land data in the Cadastre, including the

true state of the terrain, the identification of the risk areas of the agricultural landscape

and funding the remediation of the contaminated and otherwise devalued agricultural land

sites, the establishment of an information system on lands.


Agricultural land in Slovakia is mainly privately owned, but it is also a natural resource

which should be of mutual interest. For this reason, the land needs to be protected for future

generations. We can indentify different obstacles and stimuli:

Protection of biological functions of agricultural land - Law no. 220/2004 Coll. on the

protection and use of agricultural land and on the amendment of Act no. 245/2003 Coll. on

Integrated Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution and on the Amendment and

Supplementation of Certain Acts. The act emphasizes the protection of the environmental

functions of agricultural land, ensuring its sustainable management and exploitation, as 78

declared in the Principles of State Land Policy. The act stipulated that each owner or user

of agricultural land had to protect agricultural land from degradation, erosion, compaction

and from hazardous substances. The principles of sustainable land use, management and

conservation were defined and changes in land types were legally specified. In accordance

with this legislation, the Agricultural Land Protection Authority gives consent, at the

request of the owner or user, with a change of the type of agricultural land, a change of the

non-agricultural land to agricultural land or afforestation of agricultural land;

Contributions for withdrawal of agricultural land - based on the Law no. 220/2004

Coll. the contributions as economic instrument for land protection were introduced. We

believe that one way of protecting agricultural land against the degradation through its

withdrawal for other than agricultural purposes is the full use of different economic

instruments. These include, in addition to the contributions, taxes, fees and charges. They

apply in two main groups of payments, payments for environmental pollution and

payments for the use of natural resources;

Fragmentation of agricultural land - on of the big and unsolved obstales in Slovakia is

the land fragmentation.

5.5 Case study

Land consolidation and viniculture Ladice

Land consolidation project in the municipality Ladice was realized by the company ENVI-

GEO Ladice (http://envigeos.sk/en/). Material for Case study was elaborated based on the data from

the Chamber of land consolidation (http://www.kpu.sk/).

Viticulture is one of the areas where land consolidations are the only meaningful tool for

arranging land on which vineyards are planted.

Figure 22 Situation in Ladice before the land consolidation

Source: www.kpu.sk

79

http://www.kpu.sk/

The barrier to investing in the restoration of this type of vineyard is the fragmentation of

land ownership, consisting of both a large number of parcels and also a large number of owners and

co-ownership shares.

Redemption of a larger surface area by common commercial means is, in addition to time

consuming, also relatively risky - the success of the redemption of the entire intended area is highly

questionable. It involves dealing with all the known owners concerned and unknown owners or

owners with an unknown residence. Many investment activities are collapsing at this stage – co-

ownership shares that have not yet been the subject of inheritance proceedings can not be redeemed

- the entire consolidation of land is stretched and detained. The land of the original vineyards

becomes "impoverished property", which does not bring any benefits to the owner, but it is

burdened by them.

An example of a successful arrangement of ownership of land with vineyards is the Land

consolidation project of Ladice and the location of a former cooperative vineyard, in which only a

perennial resolution of ownership, without any additional costs on the part of the state, opened the

possibility of a private initiative leading to the conversion of neglected land into a production

vineyard.

Beginning of land consolidation: 02.05.2006

Final decision of Cadastre: 09.03.2012

1. Situation before land consolidation

The larger upper part was completely neglected (remnants of concrete slabs, wires, old

vines, tree raft);

The lower minor part was used as a vineyard (less intensive).

The viticulture and winemaking company has shown interest in cultivation of vineyards. The

cultivation was not feasible because of fragmentation of ownership (approx. 44 ha, more than 150

plots and hundreds of owners and owners with unknown residence).

The whole locality was intended to withdrawal for non-agricultural purpose.

80

Figure 23 Situation in Ladice before the land consolidation

Source: www.kpu.sk

2. Situation during the land consolidation

Owners and participants of land consolidation are aware that land consolidation is the only

way to solve the above mentioned problems;

Several owners who wanted to keep their land here were concentrated in the marginal part.

Land consolidation has created a prerequisite for the development of cultivation activities that

would otherwise not be possible.

3. Situation after land consolidation

Cultivation, construction of a supporting structure, new planting of the vineyard;

Development of viticulture in the region;

Job creation in agro- sector;

Soil fertilization and intensification of agricultural production;

Land protection and landscaping.

Figure 24 Situation in Ladice after the land consolidation

Source: www.kpu.sk

81

http://www.kpu.sk/

http://www.kpu.sk/

References1. CHAMBER OF LAND CONSOLIDATION. 2017. www.kpu.sk

2. JAHNÁTEK, Ľ. et al. 2016. Koncepcia podpory pre malých, mladých a rodinných

farmárov. Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva a rozvoja vidieka SR. Available online

http://www.mladyfarmar.sk/sites/default/files/6.2_koncepcia_podpory_pre_mmrf.pdf

3. KARTUSEK, V. 2017. Pozemkové úpravy a vinárstvo- PPÚ Ladice. Available online

http://www.kpu.sk/priklady-pu-z-praxe/pozemkove-upravy-vinarstvo-ppu-ladice

4. Štatistická ročenka o pôdnom fonde v SR podľa údajov katastra nehnuteľností k 1. januáru

2016. Bratislava : Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra Slovenskej republiky, 128 s. ISBN

978-80-89831-02-9.

5. ŠTEFANOVIČ, M. 2009. Právna úprava ochrany pôdy v Slovenskej republike. Česká

společnost pro právo životního prostředí. Available online

http://www.cspzp.com/dokumenty/konference01/stefanovic.doc

6 Case Spain


Spain covers the area of 50,599,200 ha, out of that agricultural land represents

25,194,940 ha. In Spain, there is 0.58 ha of agricultural land per capita.

According to the statistical series provided by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture on a

yearly basis, agricultural land in Spain remains stable since 1999, when it reached its peak. There

has been a slight reduction of agricultural land throughout the whole period (25,530,765 ha in 1999;

25,194,940 ha in 2015), but it is not significant in overall terms. Especially when fluctuations

during the period are fully taken into account (24,819,992 ha in 2005; 25,429,273 ha in 2011).

However, some major shifts have taken place in the use of the land. Disaggregated data

included in the statistical series since 2002 show that arable land and permanent crops have

consistently decreased during the period considered, while permanent grasslands have consistently

increased.

Year Arable land (ha)

Permanent crops (in ha)

Kitchen gardens

(ha)

Permanent grasslands (ha)

Utilised agricultural

area (ha)1999 18,338,457 7,192,308 25,530,7652000 18,304,203 7,033,068 25,337,2712001 18,043,715 7,210,535 25,254,2502002 12,555,112 5,253,025 106,587 7,407,536 25,322,2602003 12,522,966 5,186,194 108,009 7,275,102 25,092,271

82

http://www.kpu.sk/priklady-pu-z-praxe/pozemkove-upravy-vinarstvo-ppu-ladice

2004 12,390,556 5,064,502 101,281 7,263,653 24,819,9922005 12,426,232 5,051,325 100,904 7,329,335 24,907,7962006 12,287,758 5,055,761 96,891 7,625,432 25,065,8422007 12,302,373 5,097,682 109,234 7,568,517 25,077,8062008 12,286,955 5,111,845 103,680 7,922,601 25,425,0812009 12,100,739 5,054,095 101,792 7,991,101 25,247,7272010 12,035,808 4,999,130 105,881 8,067,863 25,208,6822011 11,979,792 4,945,818 107,556 8,396,107 25,429,2732012 11,975,873 4,928,289 111,191 8,360,026 25,375,3792013 11,880,005 4,928,364 110,805 8,464,390 25,383,5642014 11,857,384 4,942,775 112,746 8,380,468 25,293,3732015 11,830,241 4,976,256 112,515 8,275,928 25,194,940

Table 6 Land withdrawal in Spain in the period 1999-2015

Source: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente,Encuesta sobre superficies y rendimientos de

cultivo. Resultados 1999- 2015

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

24,800,000

24,900,000

25,000,000

25,100,000

25,200,000

25,300,000

25,400,000

25,500,000

25,600,000

Figure 25 Utilised agricultural area (ha)



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

Arable land (in ha.) Permanent crops (in ha.)Kitchen gardens (in ha.) Permanent grasslands (in ha.)

Figure 26 Evolution of the land uses (ha)



83

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201511,800,000

11,900,000

12,000,000

12,100,000

12,200,000

12,300,000

12,400,000

12,500,000

12,600,000

Figure 27 Arable land (ha)



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20154,900,000

4,950,000

5,000,000

5,050,000

5,100,000

5,150,000

5,200,000

5,250,000

5,300,000

Figure 28 Permanent crops (ha)



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201595,00097,00099,000

101,000103,000105,000107,000109,000111,000113,000115,000

Figure 29 Kitchen gardens (ha)



84


Withdrawal of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is not seen as a major problem

in Spain. On the contrary, land set-aside has been widely supported and enhanced by public bodies

(at regional, national and European levels) for a long period of time. However, this process must be

considered within the framework of a broader agricultural policy that aims to improve rural

development and agricultural efficiency and to ensure rational land use and farmer generational

replacement.

Consistent research indicates that:

Deepest changes in the last decades are related to the creation of man-made landscapes,

usually unalterable, both on the coastal strip and inland areas.According to the records

provided by the Spanish National Geographic Institute (2014), the annual land use change

rate was around 26,000 has (until 2005). Urban development has affected agricultural lands

and to a lesser degree forest lands (low brush areas typically);

Irrigated areas have increased, despite the scarcity of water and the lack of hydrological

resources for environmental purposes (3,006.4 thousand has in 1985; 3,672.8 thousand has

in 2004). On the other hand, rainfed agriculture lands have decreased considerably

(17,409.0 thousand has in 1985; 14,285.1 thousand has in 2004);

A noticeable abandonment of rural areas has taken place, too. As a result, forest ecosystems

had suffered losses (forest fires, forest clearings) and gains (natural spread of low brushes

in burned areas), giving place to major interchanges within the forest cover. Soil erosion

and desertification had also helped to increase wastelands;

Finally, protected natural areas have also increased, as a result of the environmental and

nature conservation policies.

There are not specific legal acts ruling the withdrawal of agricultural land. Land taking for

non-agricultural purposes only receives an indirect protection through the urban development and

planning policies. Agricultural landowners are not allowed to undertake activities that may give

place to new communities or built-up areas (residential areas, industrial zone, commercial areas,

etc.). This kind of changes in the land use requires regulatory approval by the relevant authority

(local and regional). However, agricultural land owners are entitled to shift croplands into forest

areas or pastures or to decide any other kind of change in the land use as far as it does not entail the

conversion of rural land into urban land.

Urban development and planning policies are a matter under the jurisdiction of the Spanish

Regional Authorities (Autonomous Communities or Comunidades Autónomas). As a result,

applicable law changes in each region. In the case of Andalusia, the most relevant laws are:

85

Law 7/2002, passed the 17th of December, on Urban Planning in Andalusia;

Decree 206/2006, passed the 28th of November, approving the Territorial Plan of

Andalusia.


As previously stated, there are not specific legal acts ruling the withdrawal of agricultural

land. As a consequence, there are not economic tools to tackle the withdrawal of agricultural land

neither.

Nevertheless, some Regional Authorities (Autonomous Communities or Comunidades

Autónomas) have established some taxes that could have indirect effect in the withdrawal of

agricultural lands. The Autonomous Community of Andalusia and the Autonomous Community of

Asturias, which faced at that time a high unemployment rate, establishing the 1980s a tax on

underused lands:

Law 8/1984, passed on the 3rd of July, on the Agrarian Reform. Chapter IV. Tax on

underused lands (Autonomous Community of Andalusia);

Law 4/1989, passed on the 21st of July, on Agriculture and Rural Development. Title II.

Chapter VI. Tax on underused farms and lands (Autonomous Community of Asturias).

These taxes aimed to prevent the existence of vast areas of arable land underused. Their final

goal was to force the landowners of large estates to invest in their properties and to hire farm

workers.

From a certain point of view, these taxes could been seen as an economic tool to prevent the

abandonment of agricultural lands and their withdrawal. However, their implementation required

complex estimations on the medium optimal yield, and those figures have never been calculated. As

a result, these taxes on underused lands have never been applied.


Nowadays, there are no legal obstacles or stimuli to the withdrawal of agricultural land in

Spain. Nevertheless, decisions on the withdrawal of agricultural land can be largely determined by

the price of the lands in the market.

The real estate market pressure, especially on the coastal strip (for tourism purposes) and in

rapidly growing urban areas, has given place to the withdrawal of large areas of agricultural land

and forest degrees. Those lands have changed their use to allow the growth of the cities and the

building of new residential estates. These activities are far more financially profitable than

86

agricultural activities, which explains that property developers could offer prices high enough to

landowners to buy their agricultural lands in those areas.

Conversely, agricultural activities are usually the most financially profitable activities on

lands located far from those urban development areas. Especially when aids granted within the

framework of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union are taken into account. The

abandonment, the withdrawal or the diversion into forest or pastures of agricultural lands in those

areas would generally implya sharp low in their market prices. As a result, and in order to avoid the

depreciation of their land assets, landowners will not change their agricultural use.

6.5 Case study

The “luckylands” of Vejer de la Frontera: a successful example of the common

properties approach in land management

As in other European countries, common properties were extremely usual for centuries in

large areas of Spain as they ensured the subsistence of rural communities. They could typically

assume the form of pasture commons (e.g., for livestock grazing), common arable fields or common

forests (e.g., for firewood collection). These common properties were owned collectively by the

neighbors of each village and they were considered to be res extra commercium, which implied that

they could not be sold. This ownership legal regimewas the same in every village, but the rules to

enjoy and to manage common properties could often vary from one place to another. Since the

XIXth century, a series of different legal measures reduced common properties and even removed

them for good from many villages, which resulted into the impoverishment and the decline in living

standards of wide sections of their populations. Just a small number of villages managed to keep

their common properties in use and some of them have survived until today as a relic of the past.

Nevertheless, in recent times, scholars have focused on these remaining common properties

and have described them as sustainable, inclusive and alternative practices of land management.

Among these common properties that have remained in use until today, we can point out the “lucky

lands” (hazasde suerte) of Vejer de la Frontera.

Vejer de la Frontera is a small coastal village located in the south of Spain, by the Atlantic

Ocean (Cape Trafalgar). It has a population of just 13,000, nevertheless it has been permanently

inhabited since the Paleolithic period until today. As a result, it has been successively under the rule

of the Tartessus kings (Atlantic Bronze Age), the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine

Empire, the Muslims and, finally, the kings of the Crown of Castille and, eventually, of Spain.

Agricultural activities, husbandry and fishing have been its largest industries for centuries, while

87

tourism has also become a relevant economic activity in more recent times. As a consequence of its

long-standing history and continuing agricultural activities, Vejer de la Frontera developed specific

techniques of land management based upon the idea of land common property or common land.

The “lucky lands” of Vejer de la Frontera were created in 1288 by the King Sancho IV.

They were intended to be common lands collectively owned by the peasants and free from any

manorial jurisdiction. This privilege was confirmed in 1566 by the High Court of Granada (Real

Chancillería de Granada), when the Duke of Medina Sidonia tried to appropriate part of the lands.

The judgment given by this Court established that the common lands, which were divided into

356 arable plots of land, would beraffled every three years (every four years, since 1580). The lucky

winners were granted the means of living for them and their families for the following four years.

Originally, they were supposed to cultivate the assignedplot of land by themselves. However, since

1868 the lucky winners could either cultivate the assigned plot of land or lease it to a tenant (the so

called, Asentados), who had to pay the rent.

Currently, the winners only have the right to collect the rent due by the tenants. The amounts

of the rents vary according to quality of the plot of land awarded, fluctuatingbetween 700 and

1,300 euro per year. On the other hand, tenants of the village are included in a register and they are

granted the right to cultivate the lands for life in exchange of the payment of the rent. This rent is

lower than the rent paid to private owners for similar lands, which means an important advantage

for tenants, too.The plots of land cultivated by the tenants are also raffled every four years.

As a result, every leap year there is a double lottery, which takes place on the 22nd of

December: a raffle of rents among the families of the village and a raffle of plots among the tenants

included in the register. The last raffle took place on the 22nd of December 2016.

“Lucky lands” have a total extension of 3,489.80 hectares, divided into 232 plots of arable

land (partidos)3, which represent a 14 % of the total arable lands of the village and a 26 % of the

arable lands actually cultivated. Plots are typically long strips of land and their average area is about

12.5 ha. The size and shape of the plots aim to guarantee a fair distribution of good and bad soil

among all the lots. Tenants practice an intensive farming with crop rotation and cultivate wheat,

sugar beet, barley, sorghum, broad beans and chickpeas.

The management of the “lucky lands” was ruled by customary non-written laws for

centuries. In 1868, the municipality passed a Regulation ruling the allotment and management of

the luck fields and created a supervisory body, the “LuckyLands Board” (Junta de Hazas). At

present, this Board is presided by the Mayor and composed of seventeen councilmen and

3 In 1938, the former village of Vejer de la Frontera was divided into two new villages: Vejer de la Frontera and

Barbate. Up to 124 lots of land from the luck lands were included as a part of the territory of the newly created village

of Barbate. A few years later, these plots of land were transformed into a military manoeuvre field.88

councilwomen and an equal number of representatives of the people, elected every four years. This

Board is entrusted with the organization of the raffle of rents and of the raffle of plots and with the

supervision over the register of families and the register of tenants.The Regulation ruling the “lucky

lands” has also evolved to get adapted to the new social situations. For instance, equality of rights

between men and women and between married, unmarried or divorced people was introduced in

2000.

A strong common cultural identity has been developed on the basis of this common lands

and its peculiar management. Scholars have outlined that neighbors tend to see the “lucky lands”

and this lottery as a part of their cultural heritage. They are not just fully aware that they are taking

part in the collective management of a common property, but they also have the feeling of being the

real and rightful owners. The “lucky lands” are an essential part of their cultural heritage and also of

their identity. In fact, in addition to the raffles themselves, the village carries out multiple cultural

activities related to this tradition every year, including expositions and street performances showing

the historical origins of the “lucky lands” and the fight of the villagers against the Dukes of Medina

Sidonia through the years to keep the common lands.

This approach has fully involved the population in the protection of these common

properties. Not just the winners of the lottery, but the whole of the neighborhood is concerned by

the sustainable use of the lands and their protection against aggressive farming practices that might

deplete the soils or cause longstanding damages to them. Every neighbor has a legitimate

expectation of winning the raffle, which means that they all have a true interest in the conservation

of the lucky lands.

All in all, Vejer de la Frontera has recently submitted an application to put the “lucky lands”

under the protection of the “Intangible cultural heritage” promoted by UNESCO.

References1. BERNABÉ SALGUEIRO, A. 2006. Vecindad y derechos comunales en la comarca de La

Janda (Cádiz): las Hazas de Suerte de Vejer de la Frontera y Barbate , Ministerio de

Cultura, Madrid.

2. BERNABÉ SALGUEIRO, A. 2012. “Las Hazas de Suerte de Vejer”, Andalucia en la

historia, nº 36 (2012), pp. 46-49.

3. GONZÁLEZ JIMÉNEZ, M. 2014. Los Repartimientos de Vejer de la Frontera (1288-1318).

Real Sociedad Económica Amigos del País de Vejer.

4. MORILLO CRESPO, ANTONIO. 2014. El siglo de Juan Relinque. Ediciones del Faro.

Vejer de la Frontera (Cádiz).

89

5. MUÑOZ RODRÍGUEZ, A. 1995. “Juan Relinque y el origen de los pleitos de los vecinos

de Vejer con la Casa de Medina Sidonia”. Janda. Anuario de Estudios Vejeriegos, 2, pp. 19-

61.

6. MUÑOZ RODRÍGUEZ, A. 2007. El Patrimonio Cultural de Vejer de la Frontera. Grupo

de Desarrollo Rural la Janda Litoral. Vejer de la Frontera (Cádiz).

7. TEJEIRO SALGUERO, R. 2008. Las Hazas de Suerte de Vejer de la Frontera. Excmo.

Ayuntamiento de Vejer de la Frontera.

8. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Encuesta sobre superficies y

rendimientos de cultivo. Resultados 2015,

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletin2015_tcm7-

424015.pdf




384110.pdf



http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/

memo2013esyrcepdfa_tcm7-325292.pdf




Boletin2012web_tcm7-283312.pdf




boletinweb2011_corregido_tcm7-213919.pdf

13. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Encuesta sobre superficies y



boletinWeb2010_tcm7-191027.pdf


rendimientos de cultivo. Resultados

2009,http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/

boletin2009_tcm7-14343.pdf90

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletin2009_tcm7-14343.pdf


http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletinWeb2010_tcm7-191027.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletinWeb2010_tcm7-191027.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletinweb2011_corregido_tcm7-213919.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/boletinweb2011_corregido_tcm7-213919.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/Boletin2012web_tcm7-283312.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/Boletin2012web_tcm7-283312.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/memo2013esyrcepdfa_tcm7-325292.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/memo2013esyrcepdfa_tcm7-325292.pdf








14342.pdf




14341.pdf

17. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Encuesta sobre superficies y rendimientos

de cultivo. Resultados 2006, http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-

agrarias/boletin2006_tcm7-14340.pdf


de cultivo. Resultados 2005, http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-



de cultivo del año 2004, http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-








22. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Anuario de estadística

1999-2014, http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/publicaciones/anuario-de-

estadistica/#para3

91

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/publicaciones/anuario-de-estadistica/#para3

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/publicaciones/anuario-de-estadistica/#para3















Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times