“To mow someone else’s field, but neglect your own. The State Property Fund doesn’t notice its own inefficiency, but justifies the seizure of NAAS landsThe acting head of the State Property Fund admitted that a significant part of the land transferred to the Fund is not being used.
Despite this, the State Property Fund wants to receive another 135.2 thousand hectares of NAAS land.”, — write: unn.ua
DetailsAlmost a year ago, the State Property Fund created the first state land operator, “State Land Bank” LLC, the purpose of which is to lease plots and thus fill the state budget. The first pool of state lands, which the State Property Fund took from various state enterprises and institutions, was transferred there. Currently, the Fund wants to receive another 135.2 thousand hectares of land from the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences. This caused a sharp reaction from the Academy, a number of people’s deputies and the public.
Ivanna Smachilo noted that the Fund offered NAAS to independently determine which lands they can “give away”.
The State Property Fund communicated and corresponded with representatives of NAAS: we proposed that the academy itself outline the land plots that are needed for science, and which ones can be subleased on Prozorro so that they are not idle (because now many small and medium-sized farmers are investing in these lands). The talks lasted a long time, but did not yield results. However, we want there to be interaction between us and we do not seek to destroy science. At the same time, the State Property Fund understands that the lion’s share of NAAS agricultural land is used “in the grey area”. Therefore, we need to find a consensus
At the same time, according to Smachilo, the first pool of land, which was previously under the jurisdiction of NAAS, is almost 30 thousand hectares. But only almost 13 thousand hectares have been put up for auction, that is, less than half. Another about 9 thousand hectares were subleased, and the rest continue to stand idle.
This statement actually refutes the Fund’s claim that the reason for the withdrawal of land from NAAS is allegedly their inefficient use. After all, Smachilo herself confirmed that part of the land that has already been taken from NAAS is also not used.
Then the question arises, why are state scientific institutions actually punished by confiscating land for “inefficiency”, while the State Property Fund is also unable to effectively manage the already received plots and wants to receive even more land.
Let us remind youThe Verkhovna Rada’s Agrarian Committee demands a detailed analysis of the state lands of the State Property Fund transferred for sublease. People’s deputies suspect violations of the law during the transfer, in particular, failure to take into account the type of land. In addition, the relevant committee demands a report on state lands that were transferred to the Fund, but were never subleased.
Committee members also called on the Cabinet of Ministers not to withdraw state lands of NAAS in favor of the State Property Fund. People’s deputies are convinced that this threatens the loss of domestic selection, scientific schools, jobs and food security. Committee members emphasized that the dispossession of scientific institutions and state enterprises of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, which carry out effective economic activity, will result in a reduction of jobs, which will lead to social tension in the context of the war and undermining of food and economic security of Ukraine.
In addition, the government should determine the optimal amount of land use by scientific institutions and enterprises of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, which will ensure the implementation of state programs and statutory tasks and the preservation of the selection, seed production, horticulture, viticulture and microbiology industries.
At the same time, the State Property Fund of Ukraine should withdraw, review and amend the draft order of the CMU on the withdrawal of state land plots, in particular, NAAS. After a wave of criticism, the Fund still admitted that it was forced to review the scandalous draft order.