Withdraw or extend the moratorium: the essence of the debate
Related article: How to privatize the land under the house with the two owners?The debate, which goes to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and society regarding the extension or lifting of the moratorium on the sale of agricultural land, in reality nothing more than a struggle between the oligarchs, who already control enough from their point of view of pieces of land and land-poor oligarchs. " After all, it is no secret that some, and others interested in the land not as a means of production, as well as the subject of speculation and the possibility of obtaining specific rents when the purpose - from agricultural land to land for cottage or an apartment building near large cities, and also in the sale of large tracts of land under agricultural production for foreigners.
Heated discussion broke out solely because of the fact that supporters of the de facto moratorium already have a proper ground and successfully engaged in this "business" if they also lobbied "moratorium". Lifting the moratorium generates undesirable for them to compete. A "land-hungry oligarchs" count in the implementation of "land market" to use the fact that they have now - the power and force "oligarchs moratorschikov" share most tasty morsel of land.
None of the parties, including communists, do not care about the issue, will bring the victory of their position some benefit farmers, agriculture or the State of Ukraine.
In fact, for Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and agriculture is harmful as the extension of the moratorium on the sale of agricultural land, and its mechanical removal.
The real goal of reform
To replace the moratorium should come a set of measures, whose application would lead to the creation of highly efficient agricultural production and civilized regulate supply and demand on the sale of land. In this case, a start should not from some theoretical schemes and the experience of other countries who have never solved the problems before any was our state. As a starting point we must take the real state of land tenure and agriculture, in which Ukraine found themselves in early 2011.
In particular, the objective fact is that virtually all agricultural land is divided into shares and is privately owned. Consequently, reforms that do not take into account this circumstance, it would be not only foolhardy, but antikonstitutsionnno. When planning for land reform must take into account the desire of a large number of peasants to sell their shares to the shareholders, because they really need the money for treatment, study, improvement of housing conditions.
At the same time, domestic demand for the purchase of agricultural land to agricultural production (without the introduction of an effective mechanism for agricultural credit as well as the purchase of land for agricultural use), seems much less cash offer for the sale of shares. Without an effective mechanism for lending to the lion's share of demand for land purchase will be a demand by the oligarchs to buy up for a song and subsequent resale of the real foreign investor.
Conversations about what to organize agricultural production is possible and on leased land, can not stand any criticism at least from the fact that the tenant will never care about the safety of the natural fertility of the land - it is easier and cheaper, an exhausted land, rent another.
Indeed, in the short term offer of land for lease by the peasants of shareholders deprived of choice, will exceed the demand from potential tenants. Therefore, build a strategy for agricultural development, relying on the rental relationship between the peasants, land owners and prospective organizers of agricultural production - is deliberately turning the fertile black soil into the void.
At the same time in the current Ukrainian reality, when the money is just the oligarchs who do not have the slightest desire to engage in agricultural production, and only want for next to nothing to take away land from peasants in order to resell it to investors, foreigners, the introduction of the free market of agricultural land - an absurdity and a crime against Ukraine.
The aim of land reform should be to ensure that the monopoly of speculators in the wild land market. Namely, that are making today (each in its own way) and the oligarchs - the parents stay, and the oligarchs who are struggling for the lifting of the moratorium and the introduction of "free" (for them!) Land market. The aim of land reform should be to create conditions for the development of modern high agricultural production.
Mediator could be the state
One of the most important conditions for the creation of such production in the Ukrainian reality early 2011, no doubt - meeting the desires of the peasants as shareholders, to sell the land, and potential investors, residents buy the land. But for this there is no need to reduce them head-on the wild and free land market. There are more modern and civilized way. After all, the "free land market" between them will still grow a mediator in the form of an oligarch, who will buy the land from the peasants by monopolistically low price and sell the real investor at a price of monopoly high. So why place this mediator does not take the state?
In order to be successful, land reform should be transparent and understandable especially for farmers - owners of land shares and potential investors in agricultural production.
To realize the desire of a large peasant shareholders to sell at a fair price and to give his share last chance to handle their shares to farmers, shareholders who want it, and to allow investors to buy this land for agricultural production - the state must become a real member of a civilized land market. By establishing a National Land Agency and the State Mortgage (land) bank.
For owners of land shares as a result of land reform, the state should create a real choice:
1) take the credit and try to handle his share alone. Obligation to provide such loans on security of land should be assigned to a specially created State Mortgage (land), the bank, and the right to grant such loans must obtain and commercial banks;
2) or join in the agricultural production cooperative, which together will process units;
3) or for a monetary reward to return land share the state represented by a specially created institutions - the National Land Agency (GZA). The basis for the calculation of this remuneration in case of redemption of shares by the state land should be taken market (auction) the cost of land. The farmer for his share shall receive from the state of market (auction), the land value less costs GZA to organize land auctions;
4) or to pay a high enough tax on land from other sources and expect "the best of times."
For residents (legal and natural persons) who meet certain restrictions and want to engage in agricultural production, the government must create a real opportunity to:
1) the purchase of agricultural land at an auction at the State Land Agency;
2) a loan secured by mortgage of land in the State (Land) Bank;
3) insuring the risks of crop losses resulting from adverse natural events;
4) implementation grown produce at market prices.
Start land reform needed to adopt new laws or amendments to existing legislation, which would include:
1. Establishment of the State Mortgage (land) of the bank. Formation and increase the authorized capital of the bank may come at the expense of the State budget and from proceeds from land auctions. Failure to return the loans pledged land to be sold through land auctions, and the funds sent from the auctions to replenish the bank's authorized capital.
2. Granting the right to commercial banks also provide loans secured by land, provided that in case of failure to return this land loan from commercial banks should buy on the general conditions (same conditions as that of the peasants shareholders) of the State Land Agency.
3. Establishment of the State Land Agency, whose responsibilities will include purchase of land from an owner who wants, and the sale of land at auction to residents (individuals and legal entities) that meet certain legal conditions (eg, compulsory agricultural education of the resident person, or Head resident enterprise, and the like).
4. Prohibition of change of purpose of land that are privately owned (the rent on the change of purpose of land should not be attributed to land speculators, it must be wholly owned by the state!). Only state and local governments through the adoption of the master plan of the respective administrative-territorial unit may determine the specific purpose of either plot. The owner of the site will have the right to sell the state land agencies, such as agricultural land and buy him the same plot of land for industrial or residential (cottage) in the building where such building provided the master plan of the village, city, district or region.
5. Guaranteed right of landowners to return the land to the State for payment by the State Land Agency, or get a loan secured by land.
6. The ban on possession of non-resident land for agricultural purposes.
7. Sale of land to residents of Ukraine exclusively through land auctions the State Land Agency and the State Mortgage (land) by the bank.
8. Ransom from the owners of land (real estate) for the social needs for the construction of roads, communications, etc. at market value, but not higher than the average price at which the owner of the land pay land tax for the past five years. This simple step will protect the state from prosperity, "business" of officials who have information about future infrastructure projects.
Of course, the listed measures are not limited to the steps that need to make for a successful land reform. But such measures are necessary for successful reform.
Is able to take such steps the current overbearing "elite"? And soon, whether in Ukraine will receive power force able to put the interests of the Ukrainian people and the state above their personal interests and the interests of his clan?