On the way to balance of forestry land use of Ukraine: ecological-and-economic aspect


Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this work is to investigate the ecological-and-economic aspect of certain factors to ensure the balanced use of forest lands; develop proposals for the formation of the basis for the development of sustainable forestry.

Methodology / approach. We used the following methods: dialectical method of cognition for the analysis of scientific works of scientists concerning problems of balanced use of lands of forestry purpose; method of analogies (transfer of patterns of development of one process with certain amendments to another process or territory); statistical (based on quantitative indicators that allow drawing conclusions about the pace of the process); comparative analysis (comparison of indicators of forest resources and their use for Ukraine and Poland); correlation analysis (identification of factors on which the forecast significantly depends; clarification of relationships, their relationship with the predicted phenomenon under the influence of certain factors), graphical, abstract-logical (theoretical generalizations and formulation of conclusions). The information base of the study is the data of the Global Assessment of Forest Resources of FAO 2020, the data of the Monitoring of Land Relations in Ukraine, the reporting of the State Forest Agency of Ukraine, the data of the Forest Stewardship Council®. Based on the annual reports of the State Forestry Agency of Ukraine, some indicators of the report of 288 state forestries for 2018–2020 are consolidated in terms of 24 regional departments of forestry and hunting.

Results. In the dynamics for 2018–2020, changes in the volume of forest resources, forest reserves, biomass, and carbon density were studied; the indicators of forest resources and their use for Ukraine and Poland are compared. The volumes of forest certification by regions of Ukraine are estimated. The relationships between capital investments in forestry production and the price of sold wood, the volume of net income of state forestry, the amount of profit, the degree of depreciation of fixed assets; between the tax burden on state forestries and financial stability was studied. Based on the assessment of the relationships and changes in individual indicators, the need to update the fixed assets of forest enterprises through the improvement of the investment instrument is justified. The results of this study are a summary of evidence on the environmental and economic aspects of the impact of certain factors on the sustainable use of forest lands, which in turn forms the scientific basis for achieving the goals of state environmental policy of Ukraine.

Originality / scientific novelty. The studied interdependencies between the statistical characteristics of individual indicators of forestry land use made it possible to identify factors to ensure balanced use of forestry lands. It is substantiated that reforestation, forest certification, renewal of fixed assets of forestry enterprises through the improvement of the investment instrument, optimization of the tax burden of forestry activities are favorable factors to ensure the balance of forestry land use. It is proved that the excessive tax burden is a deterrent to the balanced use of forest lands. It is proposed to alleviate the tax burden on forestry activities by reducing the rate of deduction of net income of state forestry enterprises, eliminating the problem of double taxation of the forest fund, which under limited budget funding will allow state forestries to accumulate their own financial resources to ensure sustainable land use.

Practical value / implications. The main results of the study can be used to: (I) structure the factors of sustainable use of forest lands; (II) defining the goals of sustainable development when developing the strategy of forestry enterprises; (III) analysis of the achievement of sustainable development goals at the national level, defined by the Basic Principles (strategy) of the state environmental policy of Ukraine for the period up to 2030. The results of the study can be used both at the level of forest management entities, as well as at the regional and national levels, to make management decisions on the implementation of measures that ensure the balanced use of forest land. Also, the causal links between indicators that arise from the response of indicators to certain factors open up new opportunities for forest management planning. These results can provide important information for the protection and use of forest resources in all regions of Ukraine.

References

1. Lin Y., He C. Evaluation of livelihood sustainability in the context of natural forest land degradation vulnerability: a case study of five counties in China. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 12. 6580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126580.
2. Demydenko O., Velychko V. Humus state of chernozem at different ways of tillage in the agrosystems of the left-bank forest steppe of Ukraine. Agricultural Science and Practice. 2015. Vol. 2. No. 3. Pp. 61–77. https://doi.org/10.15407/agrisp2.03.061.
3. Meli P., Rey-Benayas J. M., Brancalion P. H. S. Balancing land sharing and sparing approaches to promote forest and landscape restoration in agricultural landscapes: land approaches for forest landscape restoration. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. 2019. Vol. 17. No. 4. Pp. 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.09.002.
4. Environment at a Glance 2020. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1787/4ea7d35f-en.
5. Tretiak A., Tretiak V., Sakal O., Kovalenko A., Tretiak N., Shtogryn H. The value added chain in the mechanism of public-private partnership for the development of the land use economy of rural territories. Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2020. Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp. 112–134. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.03.07.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Вебсайт Міжурядової групи експертів по зміні клімату. URL: https://www.ipcc.ch/languages-2/russian.
9. Kucher A. V., Lialina N. S., Kucher L. Yu. Investment attractive of land use of agricultural enterprises. International Journal of Ecological Economics & Statistics. 2019. Vol. 40. No. 1. Pp. 118–130.
10. Садиков М. А., Родченко В. Б., Завгородній А. В. Методологічні підходи щодо управління інвестиційним ризиком: теорія і практика. Український журнал прикладної економіки. 2021. Т. 6. № 1. С. 75–84. https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2021-1-9.
11. Карпук А. І., Дзюбенко О. М., Кватирко О. М. Формування інституціонального середовища інвестиційно-інноваційного розвитку лісового сектора в контексті підвищення його конкурентоспроможності: природно-ресурсні та еколого-економічні передумови. Агросвіт. 2019. № 24. С. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2019.24.9.
12. Sakhno A., Hryvkivska O., Salkova I., Kucher L. Evaluation of the efficiency of enterprises by the method of analysis of functioning environment. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism. 2019. Vol. X. No. 3(35). Pp. 499–507. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v10.3(35).04.
13. 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. No. 7. 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072998.
14. 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.
15. Ковальва О., Ярова І., Мішеніна Г., Пізняк Т., Дутченко О. Еволюція удосконалення нормативної грошової оцінки земель сільськогосподарського призначення. Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2021. Vol. 7. No. 1. Pp. 137–163. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.01.08.
16. Макаренко А. Обліково-аналітичне забезпечення як фактор підвищення результативності управління раціональним лісокористуванням. Agricultural and Recourse Economics. 2017. Vol. 3. No. 2. Pp. 109–121.
17. Shevchenko H., Petrushenko M., Burkynskyi B., Khumarova N. SDGs and the ability to manage change within the European green deal: the case of Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2021. Vol. 19. No. 1. Pp. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.05.
18. Gualotuña Parra J. A., Tarquis A. M., Grau Olivé J. B., Colombo Speroni F., Saa-Requejo A. An analytical approach to assess the influence of expert panel answer on decision making: the case of sustainable land use in Ribadavia Banda Norte, Salta (Argentina). Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 12. 6705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126705.
19. Gutiérrez Rodríguez L., Hogarth N., Zhou W. et al. Socioeconomic and environmental effects of China’s conversion of cropland to forest program after 15 years: a systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence. 2015. Vol. 4. 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0033-8.
20. Gutiérrez Rodríguez L., Hogarth N., Zhou W. et al. China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environmental Evidence. 2016. Vol. 5. 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0071-x.
21. Johansson J., Ranius Th. Biomass outtake and bioenergy development in Sweden: the role of policy and economic presumptions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2019. Vol. 34. No. 8. Pp. 771–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2019.1691645.
22. Kärenlampi P. P. Capital return rate and carbon storage on forest estates of three boreal tree species. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 12. 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126675.
23. Combes J.-L., Combes Motel P., Minea A., Villieu P. Deforestation and seigniorage in developing countries: a tradeoff? Ecological Economics. 2015. Vol. 116. Pp. 220 230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.029.
24. Bukvareva E., Grunewald K., Klimanova O., Kolbovsky E., Shcherbakov A., Sviridova T., Zamolodchikov D. TEEB-Russia: towards national ecosystem accounting. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 12. 6678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126678.
25. Global Forest Resources Assessments. URL: http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/fra-2020/country-reports/ru.
26. Базовий звіт з лісового господарства в Німеччині з рекомендаціями для України. URL: https://apd-ukraine.de/images/2018/APR/APD_APR_02_2018_ukr.pdf.
27. Моніторинг земельних відносин в Україні: 2016–2017: стат. щорічник. URL: http://www.kse.org.ua/uk/research-policy/land/governance-monitoring/yearbook-2016-2017.
28. Forest Stewardship Council®. URL: https://ua.fsc.org/ua-ua/nasha-diyalnist/facts_and_figures.
29. Про затвердження Порядку відрахування до державного бюджету частини чистого прибутку (доходу) державними унітарними підприємствами та їх об’єднаннями: Постанова Кабінету Міністрів України від 23.02.2011 р. № 138. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/138-2011-%D0%BF/ed20201127#Text.
30. Проєкт Державної стратегії управління лісами України до 2035 року. URL: https://tlu.kiev.ua/pro-nas/novini-zakhodi/novina/article/zaproshujemo-do-obgovorennja-projektu-derzhavnoji-strategiji-upravlinnja-lisami-ukrajini-do-2035-roku-zaprop.html.
31. Офіційний вебсайт Державного агентства лісових ресурсів. URL: http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/index.

References
1. Lin, Y. and He, C. (2021), Evaluation of livelihood sustainability in the context of natural forest land degradation vulnerability: a case study of five counties in China. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, 6580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126580.
2. Demydenko, O. and Velychko, V. (2015), Humus state of chernozem at different ways of tillage in the agrosystems of the left-bank forest steppe of Ukraine. Agricultural Science and Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 61–77. https://doi.org/10.15407/agrisp2.03.061.
3. Meli, P., Rey-Benayas, J. M. and Brancalion, P. H. S. (2019), Balancing land sharing and sparing approaches to promote forest and landscape restoration in agricultural landscapes: Land approaches for forest landscape restoration. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.09.002.
4. Environment at a Glance 2020 (2020), OECD Publishing, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/4ea7d35f-en.
5. Tretiak, A., Tretiak, V., Sakal, O., Kovalenko, A., Tretiak, N. and Shtogryn, H. (2020), The value added chain in the mechanism of public-private partnership for the development of the land use economy of rural territories. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 112–134. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.03.07.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021), available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/languages-2/russian.
9. Kucher, A. V., Lialina, N. S. and Kucher, L. Yu. (2019), Investment attractive of land use of agricultural enterprises. International Journal of Ecological Economics & Statistics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 118–130.
10. Sadykov, M. A., Rodchenko, V. B. and Zavhorodnii, A. V. (2021), Methodological approaches for investment risk management: theory and practice. Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 75–84. https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2021-1-9.
11. Karpuk, A., Dzyubenko, O. and Kvatyrko, O. (2019), Formation of the institutional environment of investment and innovative development of the forest sector in the context of increasing its competitiveness: natural resources and ecological and economic prerequisites. Agrosvit, vol. 24, pp. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2019.24.9.
12. Sakhno, A., Hryvkivska, O., Salkova, I. and Kucher, L. (2019), Evaluation of the efficiency of enterprises by the method of analysis of functioning environment. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, vol. X, no. 3(35), pp. 499–507. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v10.3(35).04.
13. 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, no. 7, 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072998.
14. 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.
15. Kovalova, O., Yarova, I., Mishenina, H., Pizniak, T. and Dutchenko, O. (2021), Evolution of improving the normative monetary evaluation of agricultural lands. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 137–163. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.01.08.
16. 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.
17. Shevchenko, H., Petrushenko, M., Burkynskyi, B. and Khumarova, N. (2021), SDGs and the ability to manage change within the European green deal: the case of Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.05.
18. Gualotuña Parra, J. A., Tarquis, A. M., Grau Olivé, J. B., Colombo Speroni, F. and Saa-Requejo, A. (2021), An analytical approach to assess the influence of expert panel answer on decision making: the case of sustainable land use in Ribadavia Banda Norte, Salta (Argentina). Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, 6705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126705.
19. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, L., Hogarth, N., Zhou, W. et al. (2015), Socioeconomic and environmental effects of China’s conversion of cropland to forest program after 15 years: a systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence, vol. 4, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0033-8.
20. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, L., Hogarth, N. J., Zhou, W. et al. (2016), China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environmental Evidence, vol. 5, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0071-x.
21. Johansson, J. and Ranius, Th. (2019), Biomass outtake and bioenergy development in Sweden: the role of policy and economic presumptions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 771–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2019.1691645.
22. Kärenlampi, P. P. (2021), Capital return rate and carbon storage on forest estates of three boreal tree species. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126675.
23. Combes, J.-L., Combes Motel, P., Minea, A. and Villieu, P. (2015), Deforestation and seigniorage in developing countries: a tradeoff? Ecological Economics, vol. 116, pp. 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.029.
24. Bukvareva, E., Grunewald, K., Klimanova, O., Kolbovsky, E., Shcherbakov, A., Sviridova, T. and Zamolodchikov, D. (2021), TEEB-Russia: towards national ecosystem accounting. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, 6678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126678.
25. Global Forest Resources Assessments (2021), available at: http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/fra-2020/country-reports/ru.
26. Basic report on forestry in Germany with recommendations for Ukraine, available at: https://apd-ukraine.de/images/2018/APR/APD_APR_02_2018_ukr.pdf.
27. Land Relations Monitoring in Ukraine: 2016–2017. Statistical Yearbook, available at: http://www.kse.org.ua/uk/research-policy/land/governance-monitoring/yearbook-2016-2017.
28. Forest Stewardship Council® (2021), available at: https://ua.fsc.org/ua-ua/nasha-diyalnist/facts_and_figures.
29. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2011), Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «On approval of the Procedure for deduction to the state budget of part of the net profit (income) by state unitary enterprises and their associations», available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/138-2011-%D0%BF/ed20201127#Text.
30. Draft State Strategy for Forest Management of Ukraine until 2035 (2020), available at: https://tlu.kiev.ua/pro-nas/novini-zakhodi/novina/article/zaproshujemo-do-obgovorennja-projektu-derzhavnoji-strategiji-upravlinnja-lisami-ukrajini-do-2035-roku-zaprop.html.
31. Website of the State Agency of Forest Resources (2021), available at: http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/index.
Published
2021-12-20
How to Cite
Furdychko, O., Drebot, O., Palianychko, N., Dankevych, S., & Okabe, Y. (2021). On the way to balance of forestry land use of Ukraine: ecological-and-economic aspect. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, 7(4), 218-244. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.04.12
Section
Articles