Ecological and economic reporting as an indicator of the state of forestry land use


Keywords: ecological and economic indicators, forestry lands, balanced land use, reporting of forestry enterprises.

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical and methodological justification of the completeness, accessibility and transparency of indicators of environmental and economic reporting of forestry enterprises as an indicator of the state of forestry land use in the context of sustainable development (on the example of Male Polissya of Ukraine); to find out the causal relationships between individual indicators that characterize the course of certain processes in forestry.

Methodology / approach. Theoretical and methodological bases of the research are based on the analysis of a set of ecological and economic indicators of reporting of forestry enterprises as indicators of the state of use of forest lands in the context of balanced development. Such methods were used: dialectical method of cognition for the analysis of laws and regulations and scientific works of scientists on the issue of sustainable use of forest lands; method of analogies (transfer of influences that were found in other areas with similar objects and properties, to the area under consideration); analysis of the most pressing problems of accessibility to the public of indicators of the state of forest land use; correlation analysis – in determining the closeness of the relationship between statistical characteristics indicators of forest use; synthesis and logical generalization of conceptual bases of necessity and preconditions of improvement of ecological and economic indicators; monographic to identify factors for improving indicators; abstract-logical theoretical generalizations and formulation of conclusions. In the study we used quantitative analysis with data from primary and secondary sources to assess the availability of information on the state of forestry land use. In this study, there were analyzed not the values of the indicators, but how they were structured and what information they contained.

Results. The article summarizes the completeness, accessibility and transparency of the system of indicators of ecological and economic reporting of forestry enterprises on the example of Male Polissya of Ukraine. The work investigates in terms of sustainable land use practices in the field of reporting using data from state and municipal forestry enterprises of Male Polissya of Ukraine, online service ProZvit (freely available database of enterprises since 2016). The studied value of the correlation between the statistical characteristics of individual indicators of forest land use makes it possible to identify the course of certain positive or negative processes in forest land use on the basis of the objectively existing causal relationship between phenomena and indicators. Based on the analysis of the data published on the Internet, some shortcomings of the set of indicators available to the public are highlighted, in particular the need to update them in accordance with the legislation of the European Union. The results of this study indicate the need to rethink the national focus of reporting from a purely economic to environmental and economic.

Originality / scientific novelty. The structural scheme of public information access to ecological and economic indicators of forest land use is proposed, which will ensure completeness and transparency, openness and accountability to the public of information on environmental consequences of forest land use. We propose to introduce additional environmental reporting indicators, which can be further used as indicators of the balance of forestry land use in the country, in particular: the accumulation of carbon in forests and changes in such accumulation; degree of soil erosion; humus content; indicators of productivity (quality) of forest lands depending on soil conditions in different areas of Ukraine; indicators of the state of populations of species of fauna and flora to be protected and preserved; diversity of types of natural resources used by the population in the territory of the planned activity and in the zone of its influence; diversity of ecosystem services; in addition to absolute data, apply relative indicators per 1 ha of forest land. We propose to include these indicators in the reporting for the following blocks: the impact on land and soil; impact on fauna, flora, biodiversity; impact on surface waters; impact on landscapes; impact on atmospheric air; carbon accumulation; volumes of reforestation, silvicultural works.

Practical value / implications. On the example of forestry enterprises located in the territory of Male Polissya, it is proved that the set of economic and environmental reporting indicators available online is an indicator of the state of use of forestry lands. Based on research, the bases for improvement of the information base of the reporting are prepared at different scales, both in the country and in each forest enterprise in a particular region, as regional sectoral improvements will help achieve balanced land use at the national level.

References

1. Liubachyna A., Secco L., Pettenella D. Reporting practices of state forest enterprises in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics. 2017. Vol. 78. Pp. 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.019.
2. GRI Environmental Standards 2018. URL: https://www.globalreporting.org.
3. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
4. Сокіл О. Г. Теоретико-методологічні засади бухгалтерського обліку сталого розвитку сільськогосподарських підприємств: моногр. Мелітополь: ТОВ «Колор Принт», 2018. 454 с.
5. Свірко С. В., Баришнікова О. М. Звітність сталого розвитку як засіб відображення стану економіко-екологічної безпеки підприємства. Проблеми теорії та методології бухгалтерського обліку, контролю і аналізу. 2015. № 3(33). С. 309–325. https://doi.org/10.26642/pbo-2015-3(33)-309-326.
6. Туниця Ю. Ю. Екоекономіка і ринок: подолання суперечностей. Київ: Знання, 2006. 314 с.
7. Синякевич І. М. Концепція формування системи інструментів національної екополітики. Лісівнича академія наук України: наукові праці. 2002. Вип. 1. С. 35–39.
8. Синякевич І. М., Синякевич Н. М. Екологічна і лісова політика України у контексті Кіотського протоколу. Регіональна економіка. 2009. № 4. С. 125–132.
9. Лебедевич С. І., Клим Н. М., Хомик Х. Р. Обліково-аудиторське забезпечення підприємств лісового господарства для сталого розвитку України: моногр. Львів: Вид-во «Ліга-Прес», 2014. 268 с.
10. Герасим П. М., Клим Н. М. Актуальні питання формування екологічної звітності підприємствами лісового господарства. Глобальні та національні проблеми економіки. 2016. № 12. С. 389–393.
11. Баришнікова О. М. Формування, облікове забезпечення та верифікація звітності сталого розвитку підприємств: дис. … канд. екон. наук. Житомир, 2016. 282 с.
12. Макаренко А. Обліково-аналітичне забезпечення як фактор підвищення результативності управління раціональним лісокористуванням. Agricultural and Recourse Economics. 2017. Vol. 3. No. 2. Pp. 109–121.
13. Ochieng R. M., Visseren-Hamakers I. J., Brockhaus M., Kowler L. F., Herold M., Arts B. Historical development of institutional arrangements for forest monitoring and REDD + MRV in Peru: discursive-institutionalist perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics. 2016. Vol. 71. Pp. 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.007.
14. Köhl M., Neupane P. R., Mundhenk P. REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – a cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments. Ecological Economics. 2020. Vol. 168. 106513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106513.
15. Marcos-Martinez R., Bryan B. A., Schwabe K. A., Connor J. D., Law E. A. Forest transition in developed agricultural regions needs efficient regulatory policy. Forest Policy and Economics. 2018. Vol. 86. Pp. 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.021.
16. Zhang K., Song C., Zhang Y., Zhang Q. Natural disasters and economic development drive forest dynamics and transition in China. Forest Policy and Economics. 2017. Vol. 76. Pp. 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.010.
17. Shi M., Yin R., Lv H. An empirical analysis of the driving forces of forest cover change in northeast China. Forest Policy and Economics. 2017. Vol. 78. Pp. 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.006.
18. Mombo F., Lusambo L., Speelman S., Buysse J., Munishi P., van Huylenbroeck G. Scope for introducing payments for ecosystem services as a strategy to reduce deforestation in the Kilombero wetlands catchment area. Forest Policy and Economics. 2014. Vol. 38. Pp. 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.004.
19. Gumbo D., Clendenning J., Martius C., Moombe К. et al. How have carbon stocks in central and southern Africa’s miombo woodlands changed over the last 50 years? A systematic map of the evidence. Environmental Evidence. 2018. Vol. 7. 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0128-0.
20. Самойленко Ю. І. Інструментарій економічних гарантій забезпечення громадського екологічного управління проектами. Збалансоване природокористування. 2017. № 3. С. 155–161.
21. Makarenko I., Kravchenko O., Ovcharova N., Zemliak N., Makarenko S. Standardization of companies’ sustainability reporting audit. Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2020. Vol. 6. No. 2. Pp. 78–90. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.02.05.
22. Plastun A., Makarenko I., Grabovska T., Situmeang R., Bashlai S. Sustainable development goals in agriculture and responsible investment: a comparative study of the Czech Republic and Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2021. Vol. 19. Is. 2. Pp. 65–76. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.06.
23. Baliuk S. A., Kucher A. V. Spatial features of the soil cover as the basis for sustainable soil management. Ukrainian Geographical Journal. 2019. Vol. 3. Pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2019.03.003.
24. Semenyshena N., Sysiuk S., Shevchuk K., Petruk I., Benko I. Institutionalism in accounting: a requirement of the times or a mechanism of social pressure? Independent Journal of Management & Production. 2020. Vol. 11. No. 9. Pp. 2516–2541. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v11i9.1440.
25. Zamula I., Tanasiieva M., Travin V., Nitsenko V., Balezentis T., Streimikiene D. Assessment of the profitability of environmental activities in forestry. Sustainability. 2020. Vol. 12(7). 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072998.
26. Baliuk S. A., Solovey V. B., Zakharova M. A., Kucher A. V., Truskavetskyi S. R. Analysis of information support for the condition of soil resources in Ukraine. Agricultural Science and Practice. 2015. Vol. 2. No. 2. Pp. 77–84. https://doi.org/10.15407/agrisp2.02.077.
27. Mohammed J., Kofi Osei-Fosu A., Yusif H. Factors influencing households’ participation in forest management in the northern region of Ghana. Independent Journal of Management & Production. 2017. Vol. 8. No. 4. Pp. 1324–1340. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v8i4.631.
28. Myroshnychenko I., Makarenko I., Smolennikov D., Buriak A. The approach to managing corporate social and environmental responsibility in manufacturing. TEM Journal. 2019. Vol. 8. Is. 3. Pp. 740–748. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM83-07.
29. Pronko L., Furman I., Kucher A., Gontaruk Y. Formation of a state support program for agricultural producers in Ukraine considering world experience. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2020. Vol. 9. No. 1. Pp. 364–379. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n1p364.
30. Kravchenko O., Kucher A., Hełdak M., Kucher L., Wysmułek J. Socio-economic transformations in Ukraine towards the sustainable development of agriculture. Sustainability. 2020. Vol. 12(13). 5441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135441.
31. Plastun A., Makarenko I., Khomutenko L., Osetrova O., Shcherbakov P. SDGs and ESG disclosure regulation: is there an impact? Evidence from Top-50 world economies. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2020. Vol. 18. Is. 2. Pp. 231–245. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.20.
32. Vasyl’eva Т. А., Leonov S. V., Makarenko I. O. Мodern methodical approaches to the evaluation of corporate reporting transparency. Scientific bulletin of Polissia. 2017. No. 1(9). Part 2. Pp. 185–190.
33. Zhurakovska I., Sydorenko R., Fuhelo P., Khomenko L., Sokrovolska N. The impact of taxes on the reproduction of natural forest resources in Ukraine. Independent Journal of Management & Production. 2021. Vol. 12. No. 3. Pp. 108–122. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v12i3.1511.
34. Хомик Х. Р. Облік і внутрішній аудит екологічних витрат підприємств лісового господарства: дис. … канд. екон. наук. Львів, 2016. 282 с.
35. Global Forest Resources Assessments. URL: http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment.
36. Изменение климата и земля. Специальный доклад МГЭИК об изменении климата, опустынивании, деградации земель, устойчивом управлении земельными ресурсами, продовольственной безопасности и потоках парниковых газов в наземных экосистемах. Резюме для политиков. Межправительственная группа экспертов по изменению климата, 2020, 39 c. URL: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/SRCCL_SPM_ru.pdf.
37. Онлайн-сервіс ProZvit. URL: https://prozvit.com.ua.
38. Моніторинг земельних відносин в Україні: 2016–2017: стат. щорічник. URL: http://land.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/monitoring.pdf.
39. Про затвердження методичних рекомендацій з розробки звіту з оцінки впливу на довкілля в галузі лісового господарства: Наказ Міністерства енергетики та захисту довкілля України від 02.03.2020 р. № 136. URL: http://mpe.kmu.gov.ua/minugol/control/uk/doccatalog/list?currDir=50043&documentList_stind=1.
40. Єдиний реєстр з оцінки впливу на довкілля. URL: http://eia.menr.gov.ua.
41. Вебсайт Державного агентства лісових ресурсів. URL: http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/index.
42. Про затвердження Методичних рекомендацій зі складання звіту про управління: Наказ Мінфіну України від 07.12.2018 р. № 982. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0982201-18#Text.
43. Eurostat. Forestry. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/forestry.
44. Про Основні засади (стратегію) державної екологічної політики України на період до 2030 року: Закон України від 28.02.2019 р. № 2697-VIII. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2697-19.
45. Про внесення змін до Податкового кодексу України та деяких законів України щодо стимулювання утворення та діяльності сімейних фермерських господарств: Закон України від 10.07.2018 р. № 2497-VIII. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2497-19#n21.

References
1. Liubachyna, A., Secco, L., and Pettenella, D. (2017), Reporting practices of state forest enterprises in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 78, pp. 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.019.
2. GRI Environmental Standards (2018), available at: https://www.globalreporting.org.
3. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
4. Sokil, O. (2018), Teoretyko-metodolohichni zasady bukhhalterskoho formu staloho rozvytku silkohospodarskykh pidpryyemstv [Theoretical and methodological principles of accounting for sustainable development of agricultural enterprises: a monograph], OOO “Color Print”, Melitopol, Ukraine.
5. Svirko, S. and Baryshnikova, O. (2015), Reporting of sustainable development as means of representation of enterprise’s economic and environmental security. Problems of Theory and Methodology of Accounting, Control and Analysis, vol. 3(33), pp. 309–325. https://doi.org/10.26642/pbo-2015-3(33)-309-326.
6. Tunytsia, Yu. (2006), Ekoekonomika i rynok: podolannia superechnostei [Ecoeconomics and the market: overcoming contradictions], Znannia, Kyiv, Ukraine.
7. Syniakevych, I. (2002), The concept of forming a system of tools of national environmental policy. Forestry Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: scientific works, vol. 1, pp. 35–39.
8. Syniakevych, I. and Syniakevych, N. (2009), Environmental and forest policy of Ukraine in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. Regional economy, vol. 4, pp. 125–132.
9. Lebedevych, S., Klym, N. and Khomyk, Kh. (2014), Oblikovo-audytorske zabezpechennia pidpryiemstv lisovoho hospodarstva dlia staloho rozvytku Ukrainy [Accounting and auditing support of forestry enterprises for sustainable development of Ukraine], Publishing house «Liha-Pres», Lviv, Ukraine.
10. Herasym, P. and Klym, N. (2016), Topical issues of environmental reporting by forestry enterprises. Global and National Problems of Economy, vol. 12, pp. 389–393.
11. Baryshnikova, O. (2016), Formation, accounting assurance and verification the enterprises sustainability reporting, PhD. Thesis, Zhytomyr State Technological University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine.
12. Makarenko, A. (2017), Accounting and analytical support as a factor of effectiveness of management of the rational forest use. Agricultural and Recourse Economics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 109–121.
13. Ochieng, R. M., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Brockhaus, M., Kowler, L. F., Herold, M. and Arts, B. (2016), Historical development of institutional arrangements for forest monitoring and REDD + MRV in Peru: discursive-institutionalist perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 71, pp. 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.007.
14. Köhl, M., Neupane, P. R., Mundhenk, P. (2020), REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – a cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments. Ecological Economics, vol. 168, 106513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106513.
15. Marcos-Martinez, R., Bryan, B. A., Schwabe, K. A., Connor, J. D. and Law, E. A. (2018), Forest transition in developed agricultural regions needs efficient regulatory policy. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 86, pp. 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.021.
16. Zhang, K., Song, C., Zhang, Y. and Zhang, Q. (2017), Natural disasters and economic development drive forest dynamics and transition in China. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 76, pp. 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.010.
17. Shi, M., Yin, R. and Lv, H. (2017), An empirical analysis of the driving forces of forest cover change in northeast China. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 78, pp. 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.006.
18. Mombo, F., Lusambo, L., Speelman, S., Buysse, J., Munishi, P. and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2014), Scope for introducing payments for ecosystem services as a strategy to reduce deforestation in the Kilombero wetlands catchment area. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 38, pp. 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.004.
19. Gumbo, D., Clendenning, J., Martius, C. et al. (2018), How have carbon stocks in central and southern Africa’s miombo woodlands changed over the last 50 years? A systematic map of the evidence. Environmental Evidence, vol. 7, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0128-0.
20. Samoilenko, Yu. (2017), Toolkit of economic guarantees for public environmental project management. Zbalansovane pryrodokorystuvannia, vol. 3, pp. 155–161.
21. Makarenko, I., Kravchenko, O., Ovcharova, N., Zemliak, N. and Makarenko, S. (2020), Standardization of companies’ sustainability reporting audit. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 78–90. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.02.05.
22. Plastun, A., Makarenko, I., Grabovska, T., Situmeang, R., and Bashlai, S. (2021), Sustainable development goals in agriculture and responsible investment: a comparative study of the Czech Republic and Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 19, is. 2, pp. 65–76. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.06.
23. Baliuk, S. A. and Kucher, A. V. (2019), Spatial features of the soil cover as the basis for sustainable soil management. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, vol. 3, pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2019.03.003.
24. Semenyshena, N., Sysiuk, S., Shevchuk, K., Petruk, I. and Benko, I. (2020), Institutionalism in accounting: a requirement of the times or a mechanism of social pressure? Independent Journal of Management & Production, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 2516–2541. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v11i9.1440.
25. Zamula, I., Tanasiieva, M., Travin, V., Nitsenko, V., Balezentis, T. and Streimikiene, D. (2020), Assessment of the profitability of environmental activities in forestry. Sustainability, vol. 12(7), 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072998.
26. Baliuk, S. A., Solovey, V. B., Zakharova, M. A., Kucher, A. V. and Truskavetskyi, S. R. (2015), Analysis of information support for the condition of soil resources in Ukraine. Agricultural Science and Practice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 77–84. https://doi.org/10.15407/agrisp2.02.077.
27. Mohammed, J., Kofi Osei-Fosu, A. Yusif, H. (2017), Factors influencing households’ participation in forest management in the northern region of Ghana. Independent Journal of Management & Production, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1324–1340. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v8i4.631.
28. Myroshnychenko, I., Makarenko, I., Smolennikov, D. and Buriak A. (2019), The approach to managing corporate social and environmental responsibility in manufacturing. TEM Journal, vol. 8, is. 3, pp. 740–748. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM83-07.
29. Pronko, L., Furman, I., Kucher, A. and Gontaruk, Y. (2020), Formation of a state support program for agricultural producers in Ukraine considering world experience. European Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 364–379. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n1p364.
30. Kravchenko, O., Kucher, A., Hełdak, M., Kucher, L. and Wysmułek, J. (2020), Socio-economic transformations in Ukraine towards the sustainable development of agriculture. Sustainability, vol. 12(13), 5441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135441.
31. Plastun, A., Makarenko, I., Khomutenko, L., Osetrova, O. and Shcherbakov, P. (2020), SDGs and ESG disclosure regulation: is there an impact? Evidence from Top-50 world economies. Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 18, is. 2, pp. 231–245. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.20.
32. Vasyl’eva, Т. А., Leonov, S. V. and Makarenko, I. O. (2017), Мodern methodical approaches to the evaluation of corporate reporting transparency. Scientific bulletin of Polissia, no. 1(9), part 2, pp. 185–190.
33. Zhurakovska, I., Sydorenko, R., Fuhelo, P., Khomenko, L. and Sokrovolska, N. (2021), The impact of taxes on the reproduction of natural forest resources in Ukraine. Independent Journal of Management & Production, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 108–122. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v12i3.1511.
34. Khomyk, H. (2016), Accounting and internal audit of environmental costs of forestry enterprises, PhD. Thesis, National Forestry University of Ukraine, Lviv, Ukraine.
35. Global Forest Resources Assessments (2021), available at: http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment.
36. Climate change and land (2020), IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Summary for politicians. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/SRCCL_SPM_ru.pdf.
37. ProZvit online service, available at: https://prozvit.com.ua.
38. Land Relations Monitoring in Ukraine: 2016–2017: statistical yearbook (2018), available at: http://land.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/monitoring.pdf.
39. Ministry of Energy and Environmental Protection of Ukraine (2020), Order of the Ministry of Energy and Environmental Protection of Ukraine «On approval of the methodological recommendations for the development of a report on environmental impact assessment in the field of forestry», available at: https://menr.gov.ua/documents/2749.html.
40. Unified register for environmental impact assessment (2021), available at: http://eia.menr.gov.ua.
41. Website of the State Agency of Forest Resources (2021), available at: http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/index.
42. Ministry of Finance of Ukraine (2018), Order of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine «About the statement of methodical recommendations on drawing up of the report on management», available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0982201-18#Text.
43. Eurostat. Forestry (2021), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/forestry.
44. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2019), The Law of Ukraine «On the basic principles (strategies) of the state environmental policy of Ukraine for the period until 2030», available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2697-19.
45. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2018), The Law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Tax code of Ukraine and some laws of Ukraine on encouraging the establishment and activity of family farms», available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2497-19#n21.
Published
2021-06-20
How to Cite
Furdychko, O., Drebot, O., Palianychko, N., Dankevych, S., & Okabe, Y. (2021). Ecological and economic reporting as an indicator of the state of forestry land use. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, 7(2), 219-250. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.02.12
Section
Articles