Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Agricultural Structures (agricultural + structure)
Selected AbstractsCauses and Impacts of Agricultural StructuresJOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2010Holger Bergmann No abstract is available for this article. [source] 710 , Agricultural structureASIAN-PACIFIC ECONOMIC LITERATURE, Issue 1 2002Article first published online: 9 OCT 200 No abstract is available for this article. [source] The CAP for Turkey?EUROCHOICES, Issue 2 2005Budgetary Implications, Potential Market Effects EU accession negotiations with Turkey are scheduled to start in October 2005. The period of accession negotiations will probably last for ten years or longer, but the effects of applying the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to Turkey are currently a controversial discussion in the EU. Effects of Turkish accession on EU agricultural markets are likely to be small. The EU would gain additional export opportunities for cereals and animal products. On the other hand, Turkish agricultural exports to the EU are projected to increase for only a few fruit and vegetable products. EU budgetary outlays for the application of the CAP to Turkey could total between £3.5 and £6.3 billion in 2015 , depending on whether direct payments are phased in or not , and £5.4 billion in 2025. Most of these outlays would be for direct payments to agricultural producers and that may not be in Turkey's best interest. This is because direct payments tend to be capitalized in land prices and may thus inhibit the necessary process of improving the Turkish agricultural structure. Transfers under the second pillar of the CAP may hold more interest for Turkey, because they can be targeted at improving productivity and thereby income. Projected outlays for the CAP take a backseat to projected transfers to Turkey under the structural policy of the EU. Les négociations sur l'adhésion de la Turquie à l'UE doivent commencer en octobre 2005. Les préliminaires vont sans doute durer au moins une dizaine d'années, mais les effets de l'application de la Politique Agricole Commune (PAC) à la Turquie font déjà l'objet de controverses au sein de l'UE. Sur les marchés, on s'attend à des effets plutôt faibles. L'UE gagnerait certaines possibilités d'exportation de céréales et de produits animaux. Par ailleurs, les exportations de la Turquie vers l'UE ne s'accroîtraient que pour quelques fruits et légumes. Les dépenses budgétaires totales qui résulteraient pour l'UE de l'application de la PAC à la Turquie se situeraient en 2015 entre 3,5 et 6,3 milliards d'Euros, selon que les paiements directs seront ou ne seront pas progressivement éliminés. Elles atteindraient 5,4 milliards en 2025. Il s'agirait pour l'essentiel de paiements directs aux producteurs agricoles, ce qui ne correspondrait pas forcément à l'intérêt bien compris de la Turquie. De fait, les paiements directs tendent àêtre capitalisés en valeurs foncières. Ils pourraient par conséquent inhiber le processus d'amélioration des structures, pourtant bien nécessaire. Les transferts liés au second pilier de la PAC pourraient être plus utiles, parce qu'ils peuvent être ciblés sur les accroissements de productivité et donc de revenus. C'est pourquoi il y a lieu d'envisager des transferts à la Turquie au titre des politiques d'amélioration de structures en arrière plan des budgets prévisionnels pour la PAC. Im Oktober 2005 sollen die EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei beginnen. Diese Verhandlungen werden wahrscheinlich über einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren oder länger geführt werden, die Auswirkungen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) auf die Türkei werden im Moment in der EU jedoch kontrovers diskutiert. Der EU-Beitritt der Türkei wird sich wahrscheinlich nur geringfügig auf die EU-Agrarmärkte auswirken. Die EU erhielte zusätzliche Exportmöglichkeiten für Getreide und tierische Erzeugnisse. Die Agrarexporte der Türkei in die EU hingegen würden vermutlich nur bei einigen wenigen Obstund Gemüseprodukten zunehmen. Durch die Anwendung der GAP auf die Türkei würde der EU-Haushalt im Jahr 2015 mit 3,5 bis 6,3 Milliarden Euro (je nachdem, ob die Direktzahlungen schrittweise eingeführt werden oder nicht) und im Jahr 2025 mit 5,4 Milliarden Euro belastet. Der grö,te Teil dieser Kosten entstünde aufgrund von Direktzahlungen an landwirtschaftliche Erzeuger. Dies dürfte für die Türkei nicht die bestmögliche Alternative darstellen, da Direktzahlungen zumeist in den Bodenpreisen kapitalisiert werden, wodurch der notwendige Prozess zur Verbesserung der türkischen Agrarstruktur ins Stocken geraten könnte. Transferleistungen im Rahmen der zweiten Säule der GAP dürften für die Türkei interessanter sein, da sie auf eine Produktivitätssteigerung ausgerichtet werden könnten, um so die Einkommenssituation zu verbessern. Die zu erwartenden Ausgaben für die GAP im Rahmen der Strukturpolitik der EU spielen im Vergleich zu den zu erwartenden Transferleistungen an die Türkei eine untergeordnete Rolle. [source] Reconstruction of activity areas at a formative household in northwest ArgentinaGEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2005María Marta Sampietro This paper analyzes the spatial pattern of landscapes and domestic unit activity areas at an archaeological site in northwest Argentina. The site is on a cone glacis in the Tafí Valley on the east side of Aconquija Mountain. The archaeological structures are associated with one of the earliest permanent villages of the region and date to the Formative Period of the Tafí culture (2296 ± 70 yr B.P. to 1140 ± 50 yr B.P.). Using photointerpretation, we distinguished two main structure types: agricultural structures, such as stone terraces, and circular houses. Statistical analysis of the different types of circular structures indicates that simple units had a uniform distribution, which reflects the main function of the area. The patio of one unit was excavated, and three burial cists were found under a Formative Period floor. Archaeological artifacts, together with 107 soil samples from the floor, were collected to establish activity areas within the domestic space. By analyzing soil chemistry (pH, calcium, organic and inorganic phosphorous) and ceramic and animal bone distributions, three major activity areas (animal processing, plant storage, and burials) were identified. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] Green biorefinery demonstration plant in Havelland (Germany),BIOFUELS, BIOPRODUCTS AND BIOREFINING, Issue 3 2010Birgit Kamm Abstract The Green Biorefinery (GBR) is a complex and full-integrated system of environment- and resource-protecting technologies for comprehensive material and energetic use of green biomasses. GBR's are multiproduct systems and perform and produce in accordance with the physiology of the corresponding plant material preserving and using the diversity of the synthesis generated by nature. In addition to the general biorefinery concept, GBR's are based strongly on sustainable principles (sustainable land use, sustainable raw materials, gentle technologies, autarkic energy supply, etc.). Existing agricultural structures of the green crop processing industry, such as green crop drying plants, offer good opportunities for the implementation of biorefinery technologies that will help overcoming energy-intensive and partially obsolete technologies, such as the thermal drying of feedstock. Accordingly, the primary fractionation of green biomasses and the integrated production of proteins, fermentation media, animal feed, and biogas was projected and will be realized in a demonstration facility directly linked to the existing green crop drying plant, Selbelang, in Havelland (Germany, state Brandenburg, 50 km west of Berlin). The primary refinery will have an annual capacity of 20 000 tons alfalfa and grass biomass and can be diversified in modules for the production of platform chemicals and synthesis gas. We discuss the processes, products, operating costs and climate protection effects through examination of the basic engineering of the primary refinery. The production site and planned demonstration facility are also presented. Copyright © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd [source] | ||||||||||