Innovative mechanisms of biodiversity’s maintainance
Yakymchuk Alina Yiriivna
cand. of econ. sciences, assoc. prof.
National University of Water Management and Nature Resources Usage
Keywords: sustainable development, public administration ecology politics, biodiversity, state.
Инновационные механизмы сохранения биоразнообразия
Якимчук Алина Юрьевна, кандидат экономических наук, доцент
Национальный университет водного хозяйства и природопользования
Рассмотрены основные подходы к оценке эффективности сохранения биоразнообразия на основе лучшего зарубежного опыта. Осуществленаэкономическая оценка ресурсов биоразнообразия Украины и доказана необходимость увеличения объемов ежегодного госбюджетного финансирования сохранения биоразнообразия.
Предложена методика оценки эффективности сохранения биоразнообразия на следующих трех уровнях: общегосударственном, региональном и местном , что позволяет лучше анализировать как фактическое состояние природных экосистем, исследовать динамику расходов на содержание биоразнообразия по источникам (средствами государственного бюджета Украины, расходами областных государственных администраций и органов местного самоуправления). Изучен опыт международного финансирования сохранения биоразнообразия за счет экологических фондов, средств общественных организаций и грантовых проектов. Научный и практический интерес в работе составляет предложенный механизм финансирования сохранения биоразнообразия в современных экономических условиях развития Украины. Исследована организационнуая структура государственного управления сохранением биоразнообразия Украины. Проанализирована эффективность государственного управления сохранением биоразнообразия. Изучены и проанализированы функции Министерства экологии и природных ресурсов Украины (Минприроды Украины) как центральный орган исполнительной власти в области сохранения биоразнообразия. Исследованы штатное расписание Минприроды Украины, проанализирована система расстановки кадров и исследованы штатное расписание структурных подразделений министерства, что ответственные за сохранение биоразнообразия Украины. Рассмотрен лучший международный опыт государственного управления сохранением биоразнообразия и разработаны рекомендации по его имплементации в Украине.
Introduction. The maintenance of biodiversity is pre-condition of the biosphere’s sustainable state that forms the necessary terms of human physical existence on Earth and socio-economic system’s functioning. Maintenance of biodiversity is a result from the action of economic mechanism that provides functioning of the socio-economic system. A biodiversity determines quantitative and quality composition of ecosystems, predetermines pre-conditions of biosphere’s firmness. For example, a bogs clear water, the forests product oxygen for maintenance of vital human functions, plants used as medications.
In Poland, for example, forest area of 9 million hectares and forest cover was 28.8% of the total area of the country. For one person has an average of 0.24 ha of forest. State Forestry «Forests Panstvove» includes 428 nadlisnytstv, which are subdivided into 5680 forest. Headed «Forests Panstvove» by general director, which is subject to the general direction of the Bureau State Forest, and 17 regional directorates. In Ukraine, as forest conservation care of the State Agency of Forest Resources. Forest management at the local level state enterprise that are managed by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine and coordinated by its appropriate regional authority (Reskomlis Crimea, 24 regional departments of forestry and hunting).
The economic evaluation of Ukraine forest and wetland ecosystems effectiveness was carried out in this research due to the fact that forested and open wetlands cover about 20 % of Ukraine (Table 1).
The research showed that in the modern practice of biodiversity cost-effectiveness evaluation, there are not any elaborated methodological approaches, due to the following reasons:
2. The lack of legal framework in evaluation of this kind in general and biodiversity in particular;
3. The Departmental approach to the assessment, development methodology was done by organizations subordinate departments, engaged in the use and reproduction of this type of resource.
Today, Ukraine cannot stay away from the prevailing world market ecosystem services due to the threat of global ecological crisis. The national economy formation delay leads to the annual loses of foreign investment in the environmental performance development. The following areas of the market ecosystem services :
1. Genetic resources market of country-members of the Convention «On Biological Diversity» (Article 15). Access to genetic resources and equitable sharing of benefits from their use (strains of microorganisms, including industrial, pharmaceutical raw materials of plant and animal breeding resources, materials cryobanks);
2. Quotas market for carbon emissions and carbon sequestration by promoting forest regeneration (Kyoto, 1997). According to this Ukraine can receive $7.5 billion. every year;
3. «Debt for nature» market. (Poland, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Madagascar) The restructuring of external debt ($ 104 billion or 88,9 % of GDP). The ecotourism development investment, restructuring of enterprises which damage the unique natural objects (World Bank, World Resources Institute, the United Nations);
4. Ecosystem services market associated with the contribution of natural ecosystems to the global stability of the biosphere. The idea of international mutual payments for maintaining of global stability was signed by developed countries in Rio de Janeiro and leads to the payments of 0,7 % of GDP. In Ukraine such compensation may be between 2-6 % of GDP.
The generalization of domestic and international experience, presented in experts works [1-9] allowed to differentiate six approaches to economic evaluation of biodiversity functioning (economic assessment based on the final national economy results, socio-economic assessment, experts review, costly techniques, rental approach and the total economic value concept). The most promising is the total economic value concept, as it provides a comprehensive approach to assessing biodiversity [8, 9].
The calculation of economic efficiency of Ukraine forest and wetland ecosystems was carried out on the basis of the developed methods, which are based on the concept of total economic value. The results are shown in Table 3.
The share of natural capital in the structure of Ukraine state budget was calculated to about 5 % that’s 2 % – in the structure of GDP. The annual economic performance of the Ukraine forest and wetland ecosystems equals to 12 budgets of Rivne region. This indicator must be significant for preservation
One of the innovative tools to attract foreign investment in Ukraine is the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Economic grounding allows coming to the conclusion that Ukraine forest ecosystems efficiency occupies the second place after Russia. Ukraine forest ecosystems are able to provide livelihoods to population up to 63 million people and be the second after Poland. As carbon recipient countries, Moldova and Belarus should compensate Ukraine for these effects on forest preservation. This would allow Ukraine to restructure its external debt (Table 6).
This comparison showed that the forest and wetland ecosystems efficiency in more than 9 times higher (research – in 5572 times, nature reserves – in 226 times, in more than 1000 time in national ecological networks) than the total budgetary investment in environmental protection in 2009. This is a definite argument for fund increasing.
1) Biodiversity should receive adequate economic assessment to reflect the GDP as national wealth. According to calculations economic evaluation of Ukraine forests and wetlands functioning is more than 1.88 billion. United States (2 % of GDP and 5 % of the State Budget of Ukraine 2009 level; 3 % of the State Budget of Ukraine 2013 level). The economic account of these functions of biodiversity in GDP will allow to form in Ukraine the market of ecosystem services and to attract foreign investments for nature protection activity realization.
2) Display of biodiversity cost-effectiveness in the state national accounts and ecosystem services will allow restructuring Ukraine's foreign debt (104 billion dollars.) over 15-20 years.
3) It is necessary to support functioning of forest and swamp arrays of Ukraine in the natural state. Occupying only 19,1 % territories of the state one hectare of swamps brings profit for society in a size over 316 dollars, forest – 150 dollars (does not take into account collection of by-products and medical plants).
4) Analysis of the actual annual funding revealed the discrepancy between the real ecosystems value (value or productivity) and public investment for their maintenance. The economic impact of ecosystems at least 9.4 times greater than the total annual state budget investment in nature conservation. The costs of biodiversity should be allocated by a separate line in the state budget.
5) The total economic value concept in terms of the direct and indirect functions of the biodiversity components is the most appropriate for the economic evaluation. Methods of economic evaluation of biodiversity by law developed by this research should be introduced. This will take account of biodiversity functions such as: wetlands water purification functions, forests and swamps oxygen production, health effects of recreational activities. The economic record of biodiversity functions in GDP will generate ecosystem services market in Ukraine and attract foreign investment into the environmental activities implementation.
6) Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is a real opportunity for Ukraine to receive funding of $ 7.5 billion for internal environmental policy and the health of the population. Moldova and Belarus, as recipient countries emissions under the Kyoto Protocol should compensate Ukraine the forest ecosystems maintenance and invest into their development.
7) It is necessary to maintain swamps ecosystems in their natural state. It is an important function of wetland ecosystem to be a natural water filter. As society even doesn’t assume that due to swamps it annually saves $ 85 million on water treatment plants installation. Moreover, it is impossible to consider all environmental economic and social functions of forest and wetland ecosystems, especially in fish recreation, sport hunting, leisure, recreation, gathering medicinal plants and by-products, etc. This is a powerful argument in the reflection environmental and socio-economic value of forest and wetland ecosystems functioning in the national state accounts confirmed by the developed countries experience. 8) Operation of forest and wetland ecosystems annually provides livelihoods of such number of people that were three times greater than its own population of Ukraine (147 million people). It has great social value that cannot be expressed by any valuation and calculations.
9) Economic efficiency calculation of the biodiversity components is the basic tool of evidence necessary to increase in annual funding.
10) Biodiversity preservation in Ukraine has a complex hierarchical structure of government and is characterized by some non-systematic, unclear division of roles and responsibilities. Only 4% of the total number of regions of Ukraine the function of biodiversity preservation is reflected in the organizational structure of state environment authority. The largest share (56%) belongs to regions with combined functions of state administration in the field of biodiversity conservation. All this requires further scientific study and improvement of organizational management structure preserving biodiversity in Ukraine.
11) In order to improve management of biodiversity preservation we will use Poland experience, concerning the taxation of land preservation, involvement of local authorities (communes) to address issues of biodiversity preservation management at the community and state authorized territory.
1. Fabijanski P. Parki narodowe. Cuda Polski. Edukacja Powszechna. - Wydawnictwo Podsiedlic-Raniowski i Spolka, 2003. - 112 p.
2. Motkyn GA Insurance line violations Stability sredoobrazuyuschyh ecosystem functions / / Proceedings of the third mezhdunarodnoy nauchnopraktycheskoy conference " Ecological -economic mechanism for Saving Biodiversity Especially ohranyaemыh pryrodnыh territories ." - Kamenyuki , 2008. - S. 26-28 .
3. James, A.N., Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J. Financial indicators and targets for protected areas. In Background paper for GBF6: Dialogue on Biodiversity Indicators and Targets. Unpublished draft for discussion only. - 1997. - R. 55.
4. Dixon J., Pagiola S. Local Costs, Global Benefits: Valuing Biodiversity in Developing Countries. Environmental Department. - The World Bank, 2000. - R. 13.
5. Brink B.I.E. 2,000. Biodiversity Indicators for the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy: a feasibility study. RIVN report, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. - 52 p.
6. Andriyeko T., Balashov LS, Pryadko AI Unique marsh array Perebrody in Rovno region / / Ukr. botanical . Journal. - 1976 . - T. 33. - № 5. - S. 532-536 .
7. Voloshinova NA, Bachuk VA Gryschenko YM Reserve land of forests , wetlands and lakes. - Exactly , JSC " Rivne printing ", 2007 - 200 p.
8. Economy Saving Biodiversity / Ed. AA Tishkov . - Moscow: GEF Project " Saving Biodiversity Russian Federation " Institute of Economics of nature , 2002. - 604 p.
9. Yakymchuk AU Economics and Organization of Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine. Monograph. Exactly: NUWMNRU , 2007. - 208 p.
10. Tishkov , AA Theory and practice of biodiversity ( the methodology of wildlife in Russia ) - www.biodat.ru/doc/lib/tishkov2.htm.
11. The Convention on Biological Diversity - www.un.org/russian/convents/ biodiv.htm.