The Experts below are selected from a list of 27471 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Muhammad Ali Imran - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
impact of climate smart agriculture csa through sustainable irrigation management on resource use efficiency a sustainable production alternative for cotton
Land Use Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Muhammad Ali Imran, Muhammad Ashfaq, Sarfraz Hassan, Richard CulasAbstract:Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) improves agricultural productivity and enhance farm income on a sustainable basis, enhance water and nutrients use efficiency, resilient to climatic stresses, and lowering the emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) to a minimum level. Water-smart, energy-smart, carbon-smart and knowledge-smart practices and technologies significantly contributed directly or indirectly to improve productivity, enhance resilience and reduce GHG emission. Cotton is one of the important cash crops of Pakistan. It is a climate sensitive crop and suffered by multiple shocks as climate change and market discrepancies during the last two decades. The present paper aimed to estimate and compare the resource use efficiency including technical, economic and water use efficiency of adopters of CSA and non-adopters in cotton production. The study was conducted along Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) irrigation system in Punjab, Pakistan. First-hand information was gathered through a well-structured and comprehensive questionnaire from 133 adopters of CSA and 65 farmers cultivating cotton with traditional methods. Input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis technique was employed to investigate the technical, economic and water use efficiency, assuming variable return to scale. The Bootstrap Truncated Regression was used to identify the factors influencing the resource use efficiency. The results showed that the adopters of CSA were using inputs more efficiently. The analysis revealed that adopters have higher cotton yield from per m3 irrigation water than non-adopters. Adopters were found to be financially sound, having easy access to credit and fast adaptation behavior towards environmental changes, and therefore, economically better off as compared to non-adopters. Bootstrap Truncated Regression analysis revealed that easy access to credit, provision of extension services, awareness regarding CSA, availability of good quality groundwater and Right of Ownership of tubewell were significantly affecting resource use efficiency. The finding suggested certain policy implications for creating awareness and financial support for the cotton growers to expedite the adaptation of CSA practices and technologies in the cotton growing area. This can enhance resource use efficiency, net farm income and livelihood of rural masses.
Richard Culas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
impact of climate smart agriculture csa through sustainable irrigation management on resource use efficiency a sustainable production alternative for cotton
Land Use Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Muhammad Ali Imran, Muhammad Ashfaq, Sarfraz Hassan, Richard CulasAbstract:Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) improves agricultural productivity and enhance farm income on a sustainable basis, enhance water and nutrients use efficiency, resilient to climatic stresses, and lowering the emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) to a minimum level. Water-smart, energy-smart, carbon-smart and knowledge-smart practices and technologies significantly contributed directly or indirectly to improve productivity, enhance resilience and reduce GHG emission. Cotton is one of the important cash crops of Pakistan. It is a climate sensitive crop and suffered by multiple shocks as climate change and market discrepancies during the last two decades. The present paper aimed to estimate and compare the resource use efficiency including technical, economic and water use efficiency of adopters of CSA and non-adopters in cotton production. The study was conducted along Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) irrigation system in Punjab, Pakistan. First-hand information was gathered through a well-structured and comprehensive questionnaire from 133 adopters of CSA and 65 farmers cultivating cotton with traditional methods. Input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis technique was employed to investigate the technical, economic and water use efficiency, assuming variable return to scale. The Bootstrap Truncated Regression was used to identify the factors influencing the resource use efficiency. The results showed that the adopters of CSA were using inputs more efficiently. The analysis revealed that adopters have higher cotton yield from per m3 irrigation water than non-adopters. Adopters were found to be financially sound, having easy access to credit and fast adaptation behavior towards environmental changes, and therefore, economically better off as compared to non-adopters. Bootstrap Truncated Regression analysis revealed that easy access to credit, provision of extension services, awareness regarding CSA, availability of good quality groundwater and Right of Ownership of tubewell were significantly affecting resource use efficiency. The finding suggested certain policy implications for creating awareness and financial support for the cotton growers to expedite the adaptation of CSA practices and technologies in the cotton growing area. This can enhance resource use efficiency, net farm income and livelihood of rural masses.
Bram Akkermans - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Concurrence of Ownership and Limited Property Rights
European review of private law, 2010Co-Authors: Bram AkkermansAbstract:In Comparative and European Property law, there is a clear need for studies into the fundamental basis of the legal systems in Europe. One part of this fundamental basis is the creation and extinction of property Rights. One of the most interesting elements of this subject and the reason for this article is the idea of concurrence of the Right of Ownership and a limited property Right burdening that same Right of Ownership held by the same person. This possibility is not recognized in every legal system. In the discussion on the development of a European property law, this fundamental question and the differing treatments it receives in various European legal systems are very vital. Very interestingly, the argumentation used in German, French, Dutch and English law is very similar but reaches different results. The possibility of holding a property Right and Ownership over the same object is recognized in German law, but generally not in Dutch, French and English law. Only when the position of third parties is taken into account some convergence between the various approaches to this problem can be reached. The European Commission, when working on property law proposals such as a possible Right of Euro-Mortgage, other property security Rights, but also in the area of EU consumer law, should therefore take these doctrinal differences and similarities between these four Member States into account.
-
Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations
European Law Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Bram Akkermans, Eveline RamaekersAbstract:Research that has been conducted over the last decades shows that neither the scope of application nor the exact meaning of Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC) is clear from its wording. This article seeks to clarify its meaning through analysis of the drafting of the Article as well as the use of it by the EU's institutions and by the Member States. Article 345 TFEU, formerly Article 295 EC and, before that, Article 222 EEC, is an Article that limits, but not prevents, the application of the TFEU Treaty as a whole to the way in which rules of a Member State deal with the Right of Ownership of undertakings. The conclusion can be drawn that Article 345 TFEU only concerns the private or public Ownership of undertakings, with which the Community shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves. Most importantly, the Article does not concern the content of the Right of Ownership, nor the objects of a Right of Ownership. It does therefore not form an obstacle to the development of a European property law.
-
Article 345 TFEU (ex. 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations
2009Co-Authors: Bram Akkermans, Eveline RamaekersAbstract:Research that has been conducted over the last decades shows that neither the scope of application nor the exact meaning of Article 345 TFEU (ex. Art 295 EC) is clear from its wording. This contribution seeks to clarify its meaning through analysis of the drafting of the Article as well as the use of it by the Union’s Institutions and by the Member States. Article 345 TFEU, formerly 295 EC and, before that, 222 EEC, is an Article that limits, but not prevents, the application of the TFEU Treaty as a whole to the way in which rules of a Member State deal with the Right of Ownership of undertakings. The conclusion can be drawn that Article 345 TFEU only concerns the private or public Ownership of undertakings, with which the Union shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves, especially since there is no apparent reason why the reference to undertakings was removed from the final version of the Article. Most importantly, the Article does not concern the content of the Right of Ownership, nor the objects of a Right of Ownership. It does therefore not form an obstacle to the development of a European property law.
Eveline Ramaekers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations
European Law Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Bram Akkermans, Eveline RamaekersAbstract:Research that has been conducted over the last decades shows that neither the scope of application nor the exact meaning of Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC) is clear from its wording. This article seeks to clarify its meaning through analysis of the drafting of the Article as well as the use of it by the EU's institutions and by the Member States. Article 345 TFEU, formerly Article 295 EC and, before that, Article 222 EEC, is an Article that limits, but not prevents, the application of the TFEU Treaty as a whole to the way in which rules of a Member State deal with the Right of Ownership of undertakings. The conclusion can be drawn that Article 345 TFEU only concerns the private or public Ownership of undertakings, with which the Community shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves. Most importantly, the Article does not concern the content of the Right of Ownership, nor the objects of a Right of Ownership. It does therefore not form an obstacle to the development of a European property law.
-
Article 345 TFEU (ex. 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations
2009Co-Authors: Bram Akkermans, Eveline RamaekersAbstract:Research that has been conducted over the last decades shows that neither the scope of application nor the exact meaning of Article 345 TFEU (ex. Art 295 EC) is clear from its wording. This contribution seeks to clarify its meaning through analysis of the drafting of the Article as well as the use of it by the Union’s Institutions and by the Member States. Article 345 TFEU, formerly 295 EC and, before that, 222 EEC, is an Article that limits, but not prevents, the application of the TFEU Treaty as a whole to the way in which rules of a Member State deal with the Right of Ownership of undertakings. The conclusion can be drawn that Article 345 TFEU only concerns the private or public Ownership of undertakings, with which the Union shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves, especially since there is no apparent reason why the reference to undertakings was removed from the final version of the Article. Most importantly, the Article does not concern the content of the Right of Ownership, nor the objects of a Right of Ownership. It does therefore not form an obstacle to the development of a European property law.
Béatrice Kan-balivet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social accession to real estate Ownership in France: The end of the individual property model?
2018Co-Authors: Béatrice Kan-balivetAbstract:This contribution comes within the framework of an event organized by Malmö University as part of a reflection on land and buildings developed in collaboration with the University Jean Moulin Lyon 3 (France), the University MC Gill (Canada) and the Royal University of Law and Economic Sciences (Cambodia). This contribution is a reflection on social home Ownership in France. After having placed the topic in its context in time and, in particular, the contemporary context (fight against co-Ownership in difficulties, fight against thermal sieves...), the author adopts an approach that is both global and technical. It critically examines public policies on social homeOwnership over time. Social home Ownership is still promoted in France. New or old tools are used, particularly in tense urban areas, to identify mobilisable land and to mobilise it effectively by reducing its cost (in particular by using long-term leases and discount systems). In addition, support measures for first-time buyers are being implemented at the legal level by using mechanisms enabling future buyers to test their ability to become owners, in particular through capital leases, and by developing guarantees, both upstream and downstream, so that the candidate for accession can give informed consent and can, in the event of a life accident, limit the consequences of his choice to become an owner. However, the question of social home Ownership, as a mode of access to housing, must not be approached only from the prism of the supposed interest of the individual in becoming a homeowner. A global approach to access to housing must be taken into account, involving an assessment of all the interests involved: the legitimate interest of a person who aspires, more than to a roof, to become the owner of it, the particular interest of the other occupants in the context of a collective housing, the collective interest of the condominium association and the general interest. Man's action or inaction has an influence on the whole of our planet. The building sector is an energy-intensive sector and is therefore one of the target sectors in the fight against global warming. However, France has 7 to 8 million thermal sieves, including 600,000 in the social sector. Each question can only be addressed by selecting an answer adapted to all these issues, which are social, economic and environmental. The choice to continue to pursue the dream of a France of owners is questionable. Does social Ownership still correspond to individual Ownership? Private land Ownership, temporary Ownership... social Ownership covers various legal realities, but a very real financial reality: whoever has a Right of Ownership at least over the building must assume all the obligations associated with it, in terms of maintenance, energy renovation or other. Is the Right of Ownership then appropriate? for all? Wouldn't the use of a Right of use be more so in cases where households cannot bear more than the use value of the property?
-
Social accession to real estate Ownership in France: The end of the individual property model?
2018Co-Authors: Béatrice Kan-balivetAbstract:This contribution comes within the framework of an event organized by Malmö University as part of a reflection on land and buildings developed in collaboration with the University Jean Moulin Lyon 3 (France), the University MC Gill (Canada) and the Royal University of Law and Economic Sciences (Cambodia). This contribution is a reflection on social home Ownership in France. After having placed the topic in its context in time and, in particular, the contemporary context (fight against co-Ownership in difficulties, fight against thermal sieves...), the author adopts an approach that is both global and technical. It critically examines public policies on social homeOwnership over time. Social home Ownership is still promoted in France. New or old tools are used, particularly in tense urban areas, to identify mobilisable land and to mobilise it effectively by reducing its cost (in particular by using long-term leases and discount systems). In addition, support measures for first-time buyers are being implemented at the legal level by using mechanisms enabling future buyers to test their ability to become owners, in particular through capital leases, and by developing guarantees, both upstream and downstream, so that the candidate for accession can give informed consent and can, in the event of a life accident, limit the consequences of his choice to become an owner. However, the question of social home Ownership, as a mode of access to housing, must not be approached only from the prism of the supposed interest of the individual in becoming a homeowner. A global approach to access to housing must be taken into account, involving an assessment of all the interests involved: the legitimate interest of a person who aspires, more than to a roof, to become the owner of it, the particular interest of the other occupants in the context of a collective housing, the collective interest of the condominium association and the general interest. Man's action or inaction has an influence on the whole of our planet. The building sector is an energy-intensive sector and is therefore one of the target sectors in the fight against global warming. However, France has 7 to 8 million thermal sieves, including 600,000 in the social sector. Each question can only be addressed by selecting an answer adapted to all these issues, which are social, economic and environmental. The choice to continue to pursue the dream of a France of owners is questionable. Does social Ownership still correspond to individual Ownership? Private land Ownership, temporary Ownership... social Ownership covers various legal realities, but a very real financial reality: whoever has a Right of Ownership at least over the building must assume all the obligations associated with it, in terms of maintenance, energy renovation or other. Is the Right of Ownership then appropriate? for all? Wouldn't the use of a Right of use be more so in cases where households cannot bear more than the use value of the property?
