SOME ASPECTS OF STATE GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL ASSETS IN UKRAINE


Keywords: natural assets, natural resources, state governance, environmental conflict, environmental consensus.

Abstract

Topicality. The state of ecological-economic development in Ukraine demonstrates the exhausted disposition of  its natural-resource potential due to exorbitant and consumer use, as well as the unbalance of the government functions  of use and reproduction of natural capital.
Aim and tasks. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the state governance of natural assets, taking into  account the factor of environmental conflict in the framework of sustainable development.
Research results. Natural assets are considered as resources as a result of their involvement in economic activity a benefit is received due to increased net cash flows, both from their direct use and from the provision of  ecosystem services. Within a certain territory, the total volume of natural resources differs from the volume of natural  assets by the amount of the passive part of natural capital. State regulation of natural assets is defined as a type of state  activity on forming the policy of organizing the practical activity of state bodies, provision technological process of  preparation, adoption and execution of managerial decisions regarding economic entities - users of natural assets.
Conclusion. Asset management effectiveness depends on the type of the policy that is chosen – traditional,  integrated or transformational and, consequently, the level of application alongside regulatory instruments –  technological and social innovation and, above all, economic incentive instruments, in particular, the consideration of natural resources in price terms, the establishment of a time-differentiated system of penalties on what is directly harm the environment, new development strategies that ensure the relationship between the objectives of economy's social sphere and environmental security. In resolving environmental conflicts that arise in the field of natural assets management the method of ecological consensus was proposed that is inclusive in nature and is as close as possible to comply with the principle of Pareto optimality.

Author Biographies

B.V. BURKYNSKYI

Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Dr. Econ. Sciences, Professor
Director
Institute of Market Problems and Economic&Ecological Research of the
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Frantsuzskiy Boulevard, 29, Odesa, Ukraine, 65044

N.I. KHUMAROVA

Dr. Econ. Sciences, Principal Researcher
Institute of Market Problems and Economic&Ecological Research of the
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Frantsuzskiy Boulevard, 29, Odesa, Ukraine, 65044

H.M. SHEVCHENKO

Dr. Econ. Sciences, Associate Professor
Senior Researcher
Institute of Market Problems and Economic&Ecological Research of the
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Frantsuzskiy Boulevard, 29, Odesa, Ukraine, 65044

References

1. Brown, E. D., Williams, B. K. (2015). Resilience and resource management. Environmental Management, 56(6), 1416-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0582-1
2. Kuttumuri, R. (2018). Sustaining natural resources in a changing environment: evidence, policy and impact. Contemporary Social Science, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1418903
3. Ratner, B. D., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., Mapedza, E., Unruh, J., Veening, W., … Bruch, C. (2017). Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management. International Journal of the Commons, 11(2), 877-906. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.768
4. Mikati, M. (2018). For a dialectics of nature and need: unity, separation, and alienation. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 31(1), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1542537
5. Motesharrei, S, Rivas, J., Kalnay, E. (2014). Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies. Ecological Economics, 101, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.014
6. Petrushenko, M. M. (2011). Neobkhidnist i osoblyvosti zastosuvannya teorii ihor pry modelyuvanni pryrodno-resursnykh konfliktiv [Necessity and features of application of game theory in modeling of natural-resource conflicts]. Vistnyk SumDU. Serija “Ekonomika”, 3, 42-48 [in Ukrainian].
7. Petrushenko, M. M. (2013). Prognozuvannja ta reguljuvannja rozvytku nacional’noji ekonomiki: sociopryrodni jy ekonomichni protyrichchja: monografija [Forecasting and regulation of the national economy development: socionatural and economical contradictions]. Sumy : VTD «Universytetska knyha» [in Ukrainian].
8. Shevchenko H. M. (2017). Prognozuvannja rozvytku rekreacii v Ukraine: socioal’no-ekonomichnyjy ejkvilibrium: monografija [Forecasting of recreation development in Ukraine: socioeconomic equilibrium: monograph]. Sumy : VTD «Universytetska knyha» [in Ukrainian].
9. Petrushenko M. M., Shevchenko H. M. (2018). Regulation of ecologic-and-economical risks and the responsibility for human well-being: for example of waste management. Economic Innovations, 3(68). 165-175.
10. Petrushenko M., Shevchenko H., Burkynskyi B., Khumarova N. (2019). Game-theoretic model of investment in inclusive wellness and recreation by regions in Ukraine. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(4.). 382-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.16(4).2019.32
11. Prokopenko O. V., Kysly V. M., Shevchenko H. M. (2014). Peculiarities of the natural resources economic estimation under the transformational conditions. Economic Annals-XXI, 7–8 (1). 40–43.
12. Petrushenko, M. M. (2015). Environmental-economic conflict: conceptual complexity and management issues. Economic Processes Management: International Scientific E-Journal, 3. Available:
http://epm.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/download /2015_3/2015_3_13.pdf.
13. Global Wealth Databook 2018. (2018). Research Institute. Zurich: Credit Suisse AG. Retrieved from https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
14. United Nations News. (2018, November 6). Donbass – na poroge ekologicheskoy katastrofy [Donbass – on the verge of environmental disaster]. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/ru/story/2018/11/1342192
15. U Derzhheonadrakh otsinyly vartist lehalizatsiy vydobutku burshtynu [In the State Geogaders the cost of legalization of amber production was estimated]. (2019, August 14). ZN,UA. Retrieved from
https://dt.ua/UKRAINE/u-derzhgeonadrah-ocinili-vartist-legalizaciyi-vidobutku-burshtinu-320516_.html [in Ukrainian].
16. Zylman, B. (2017). Industry 4.0 and Beyond to 6.0. Retrieved from https://www.bzylman.com/single-post/2016/05/08/Your-daily-dose-of-design
17. The World Resources Institute. (2013). Aqueduct water risk atlas. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/resources/maps/aqueduct-water-risk-atlas
18. UN Climate Action Summit. (2019, September 21-23). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/index.shtml
19. Detter, D., Foelster, S. (2015). The public wealth of nations. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137519863
20. UNEP. (2019a). About green economy. Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/green-economy/about-green-economy
21. UNEP. (2019b). Global Environment Outlook GEO-6. Healthy planet, healthy peopleIn: P. Ekins, J. Gupta, P. Boileau (Eds.). Retrieved from
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27539/GEO6_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
22. Petrushenko, M. M. (2012). Orhanizatsiyno-ekonomichnyy mekhanizm ekolohichnoho konsensusu [Organizational and economic mechanism of ecological consensus]. Ekonomika Krymu, 3(40), 128-133 [in Ukrainian].
23. Stepin, V. S. (Ed.). (2001). Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopedia [New Philosophy Encyclopedia] (Vol. 2, p. 634). Moscow: Mysl’ [in Russian].
24. Hartnett, T. (2011). Consensus-Oriented Decision Making : the CODM model for facilitating groups to agreement. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
25. Sandelin, R. (n.d.) Consensus Basics, Ingredients of successful consensus process process. Northwest Intentional Communities Association guide to consensus. Retrieved from the archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080203051458/http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Consensusbasics.htm#Ingredients
26. Harvey, J.B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational dynamics, 3(1), 63–80.
27. PsychologyCampus. (n.d.). False Consensus & False Uniqueness. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from http://www.psychologycampus.com/social-psychology/false-consensus.html
28. Belzer, R. (2001). Using economic principles for ecological risk management. In: R. G. Stahl, R. Bachman, A. L. Barton, J. R. Clark, P. L. deFur, S. J. Ells, C. A. Pittinger, M. W. Slimak, R. S. Wentsel (Eds.), Risk management: ecological risk-based decision making (p 75–90). Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press.
29. Stahl, R. G., Kapustka, L. A., Munns Jr., W. R., Bruins, R. J. F. (2008). Valuation of ecological resources: Integration of ecology and socioeconomics in environmental decision making. London: Taylor&Francis.
30. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2018). The New Climate Economy: Report Summary. Retrieved from https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/executive-summary/
Published
2020-03-20
How to Cite
BURKYNSKYI, B., KHUMAROVA, N., & SHEVCHENKO, H. (2020). SOME ASPECTS OF STATE GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL ASSETS IN UKRAINE. Economic Innovations, 22(1(74), 8-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31520/ei.2020.22.1(74).8-19