TAX INCENTIVES TO MANAGE LAND AS A NATURAL ASSET


Keywords: natural asset, ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, soil fertility, carbon crop rotations

Abstract

Topicality. Successful economic development of agriculture is one of the components of Ukraine's sustainable development. But this development very often leads to changes in natural and climatic conditions and to increased risks for doing business. Agricultural land is a natural asset and it should be taken into account that the change oflandscapes from natural vegetation to any other use can lead to loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the environment, all of which can have devastating consequences for biodiversity as a source of ecosystem services. Therefore, it is important to find ways to rationally manage the land.
Aim and tasks. The purpose of our study was to substantiate the relevance of taxes for the management and rational use of land as a natural asset. As a tool, we consider a tax on crop rotation, which leads to a decrease in soil fertility and the release of carbon from dying plant residues. Crop rotation planning will help reprioritize crop selection, increase fertility and reduce carbon emissions.
Research results. The main component of the sustainable development of the agricultural sector is soil fertility. At the same time, land use and agriculture are the main natural agents for reducing air pollution. Today, agriculture accounts for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, and humus losses range from 19% to 22% in different natural areas. Considering agricultural land as a natural asset, it should be taken into account that their irrational use leads to a change in natural and climatic conditions and an increase in risks for doing business. We have proposed to introduce carbon crop rotations as a tool for soil quality management. In our opinion, this should contribute to a change in priorities in the choice of agricultural crops, and as a result, an increase in fertility and an increase in carbon sequestration. To stimulate agricultural enterprises, we consider it expedient to introduce a tax on crop rotation. To substantiate this idea, we have created a model for the dependence of CO2 absorption/emission on the yield of various crops and a decision-making model for planning the costs of an agricultural enterprise.
Conclusion. We have conducted a study of the relationship between the yield of various crops and the absorption/release of carbon dioxide. We put forward a hypothesis: there is a certain relationship between the yield of different crops and the balance of absorption/release of CO2. We have studied this connection. The model of dependence of CO2 uptake/emission on the yield of different crops shows that the ability to release carbon by plant residues of different agricultural crops has both a direct and inverse relationship with the yield of various crops. We have developed a decision-making model for planning the costs of an enterprise, subject to planning for environmental risks or paying a tax on carbon crop rotations. Thus, the problems of land use as a natural asset in agriculture can be solved by: the introduction of carbon crop rotations, which should help change priorities in the choice of agricultural crops, and the introduction of a balanced and evidence-based approach to the development and implementation of environmental taxes.

Author Biography

L.A. NEKRASENKO

PhD, Docent
Poltava State Agrarian Academy, Ukraine
1/3 Scovorody str., Poltava 36003

References

1. Laux, P. (2016). How many RCM ensemble members provide confidence in the impact of land-use land cover change? International Journal of Climatology. 37 (4): 2080–2100. doi: 10.1002 / joc.4836.
2. Ukraine. 2021 National Inventory Report (NIR) (2021). URL: https://unfccc.int/documents/273676.
3. Ukraine. 2021 Common Reporting Format (CRF) Table. (2021). URL: https://unfccc.int/documents/273456.
4. Kosolap, N.P. & Krotinov, A.P. (2011) Systemy zemlerobstva No-till [No-till farming systems]. Tutorial. K. ―Logos‖, 2011. 352 p. [in Ukrainian].
5. Yefimova, N. (2014). Ekolohichne obhruntuvannya udoskonalennya system obrobitku hruntu ta sivozmin v konteksti Kiot·sʹkoho protokolu [Environmental rationale for improving tillage and crop rotation systems in the context of the Kyoto Protocol]. Technical and technological aspects of development and testing of new equipment and technologies for agriculture of Ukraine http://ndipvt.com.ua/konf7/2/efimova.htm [in Ukrainian].
6. Shevchenko, H., Petrushenko, M., Burkynskyi, B., Khumarova, N., & Kodzhebash, A. (2021). Input-output analysis of recreational assets within the inclusive sustainable development in Ukraine. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(3), 90-109. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.8.3(5)
7. Petrushenko M., Burkynskyi B., Shevchenko H., Baranchenko Y. (2021). Towards sustainable development in a transition economy: The case of eco-industrial parks in Ukraine. Environmental Economics. 2021. 12(1). P. 149-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.12(1).2021.13
8. Hawken, Paul, Hunter Lovins and Amory Lovins. (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. New York: Little, Brown & Company.
9. SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (2021). URL: https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting.
10. UNSD (2021) System of Environmental-Economic Accounting— Ecosystem Accounting Final Draft. URL: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/52nd-session/documents/decisions/Draft-Decisions-Final-5March2021.pdf.
11. Hoerner, J.A. & Bosquet, B. (2001). Environmental tax reform: the European experience. Washington, DC: Center for a Sustainable Economy, 2001. 94 p.
12. Sterner, T. & Kohlin, G. (2003). Environmental Taxes in Europe. Public Finance and Management, 1, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=461537.
13. Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817434.
14. Tindale, S. (2010). Carbon and energy taxes in Europe URL: http://climateanswers.info/.
15. Tax Code of Ukraine, 2021. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2755-17 [in Ukrainian].
16. Fullerton, D. & Metcalf, G. E. (1997). Environmental Taxes and the Double-Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing? (Working Paper No 6199). Cambridge, MA 02138: National Bureau of Economic Research. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6199.pdf.
17. Boychenko, S. (2008) Suchasni hlobalʹni zminy klimatu ta proyavy yikh na terytoriyi Ukrayiny [Modern global climate change and their manifestations in Ukraine]. Svitohlyad. 1. 15-25. [in Ukrainian].
18. Skrypnyk, E. (2013). Efektyvnistʹ vykorystannya pislyazhnyvnykh reshtok. [Efficiency of post-harvest residues]. Propozytsiya. № 7. P. 62-65. [in Ukrainian].
19. Triberti, L. & Nastri, A. & Baldoni, G. (2016). Long-term effects of crop rotation, manure and mineral fertilization on carbon sequestration and soil fertility. European Journal of Agronomy. 74, 47-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.11.024.
Published
2022-03-20
How to Cite
NEKRASENKO, L. (2022). TAX INCENTIVES TO MANAGE LAND AS A NATURAL ASSET. Economic Innovations, 24(1(82), 122-129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31520/ei.2022.24.1(82).122-129