The Role of Environmental and Land Transaction Regulations on Agricultural Land Price: The example of Brittany. Factor Markets Working Document No. 52, June 2013

Using data from individual transactions for the period 1994-2010 in the French NUTS2 region Brittany, the authors investigated how environmental regulations and transaction land regulations influence the price of sold plots. Regressions on three sub-samples of buyers were performed in order to assess whether different buyers have different attitudes or plans regarding the farmland purchased: a sub-sample including only farmer-buyers, a sub-sample including non-farmer individual buyers, and a sub-sample including non-farmer non-individual buyers. Estimations were performed ignoring and accounting for spatial interactions (model SARAR). Results indicate that the price of land decreases when buyers are farmers, that the nitrate surplus area zoning increases the price of land, even more so for farmer-buyers. Regarding land transaction regulations, there is a negative effect, on land price, of the purchaser being the current tenant or being the land regulating public body SAFER. Estimating the model on different sub-samples depending on the buyers’ type shed light on the factors that are more important for each buyer.

A Comparative Analysis of Regulations on Involuntary Loss of Nationality in the European Union. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, 75/December 2014

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU.