HOME PAGE
|
|
|
Articles by : Yarovyi Victor № 1/2016Forecasting methods and models
BORODINA Olena Mykolaivna1, KYRYZIUK S. 2, YAROVYI Victor 3, ERMOLIEV Yuri 4, ERMOLIEVA Tatiana 5 1Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine 2Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine 3Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine 4International Institute for Applied System Analysis 5International Institute for Applied System Analysis Modeling local land uses under the global climate change
ABSTRACT ▼ The interdependencies among land use systems at national and international levels motivate the development of global land use models facilitating the analysis of the trends of plausible future land use under the conditions of increasing population and climate change for environmental and food security purposes. Computational complexity of such models limits the land use projections to aggregate levels which give no clue regarding the potentially critical local heterogeneities. Improving these projections at fine resolutions requires new methods of systems analysis for integrating land use models at different scales. For that purpose, we have proposed a dynamic cross-entropy based probabilistic downscaling model which facilitates to obtain future aggregate land use projections from global models (e.g. GLOBIOM) to finer resolutions. The proposed procedure allows incorporating data received from different sources, such as satellite images, statistics, and expert opinions, as well as data from global land use models.
Using downscaling procedure, we estimate future impacts of global climate changes on the land use in Ukraine (on the rayon level) in accordance with the aggregated results of GLOBIOM modeling. They indicate some growth of pressure on land resources in Ukraine associated with the satisfaction of the increasing global demands for foods and biofuels. On the one side, the model forecasts a small growth of demand (0.2%) for arable land by the middle of the XXI century. At the national level, it doesn't pose any serious threats, but, on the case regional level, it can lead to certain ecological risks (in the oblasts with an extremely high share of arable land). On the other side, the model also predicts some growth of the demand for forests, including SRF, and pastures. These changes could have some positive effect by supporting safety and sustainable land use in Ukraine.
Further investigations will be oriented to comparing the results of modeling based on different available maps of land cover and land use (GLC2000, MODIS2000, GLOBCOVER2000) and to estimating the land demand under different scenarios of agriculture improvements (technology, management etc.). Keywords: land use, modeling, aggregated data, downscaling JEL: C18, Q15, Q54 Article in Ukrainian (pp. 117 - 128) | Download | Downloads :1116 |
REFERENCES ▼ 1. Agarwal, C., Green, G.M., Grove, J.M., Evans, T.P., Schweik, C.M. (2002). A Review and assessment of land-use change models: Dynamics of space, time, and human choice. General Technical Report NE-297. USDA Forest Service, 11 Campus B, Delaware, US. doi: doi.org/10.2737/ne-gtr-297
2. Britz, W., Verburg, P. H., Leip, A. (2011). Modelling of land cover and agricultural change in Europe: Combining the CLUE and CAPRI-Spat approaches. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ, 142, 40–50. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.03.008
3. Chomitz, K. M., Gray, D. A. (1996). Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize. World Bank Econ. Rev., 10, 487–512. doi: doi.org/10.1093/wber/10.3.487
4. Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Müller, C. (2014). Forecasting technological change in agriculture - An endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technol. Forecast. Soc., 81, 236–249. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.003
5. Heubes, J., Schmidt. M., Stuch. B., Márquez, J. R. G., Wittig, R., Zizka, G., Thiombiano, A., Sinsin, B., Schaldach, R., Hahn, K. (2013). The projected impact of climate and land use change on plant diversity: An example from West Africa. J. Arid Environ., 96, 48–54. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.04.008
6. Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 3465–3472. doi: doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108
7. Havlík, P., Schneider, U., Schmid, E., Bőttcher, H., Fritz, S., Skalsky, R., Aoki, K., De Cara, S., Kindermann, G, Kraxner, F., Leduc, S., McCallum, I., Mosnier, A., Sauer, T., Obersteiner, M. (2011). Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy policy, 39, 5690–5702. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.030
8. Zhang, X., Ermolieva, T., Balkovic, J., Mosnier, A., Kraxner, F., Liu, J. (2015) Recursive cross-entropy downscaling model for spatially explicit future land uses: A case study of the Heihe River Basin. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 89–90:56–64. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.05.007
9. Skalsky´, R., Tarasovicˇova´, Z., Balkovicˇ, J., Schmid, E., Fuchs, M., Moltchanova, E., Kindermann, G. and Scholtz, P. (2008). Geo-bene global database for bio-physical modeling v. 1.0. Concepts, methodologies and data. Technical Report, IIASA. Retrieved from www.geo-bene.eu/files/Deliverables/Geo-BeneGlbDb10(DataDescription).pdf
10. Chances for die-hard: energy future of lumber. Ukrainian arboriculturist. Retrieved from www.lesovod.org.ua/node/3014 [in Ukrainian].
11. Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food with World Bank develop the Strategy of irrigation revitalization in the South of Ukraine. Retrieved from www.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=248828800&cat_id=244277212 [in Ukrainian]. № 1/2017Economics of agriculture
YAROVYI Victor 1 1Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine Institutional environment for agricultural land use: towards adaptive and social efficiency
ABSTRACT ▼ This paper analyses the institutional framework to develop an effective agricultural land use system in Ukraine. The analysis aims to determine the efficiency of the national institutional system and justify the ways to improve it. The methodological approach is based on the principles of structural functionalism.
It is proved, that existing institutional system realizes its coordinating function in such a way that leads to institutional gaps between formal and informal property institutions, a backlog of the informal institutions and "shadow" land relations. As to the distributive function, it leads to structural imbalances, dominance of corporate over private interests, and dominance of agricultural production over rural development. This is an indicator of an institutional dysfunction, which means the failure to adapt, a mismatch between the formal and informal norms and nowadays challenges for sustainable agricultural and rural development. This is also an indicator that the institutional system of land relations is oriented to ensure the allocative efficiency while the adaptive efficiency remains at a low level. To enhance the adaptive efficiency, it is necessary to implement the following policy mechanisms:
- In order to overcome institutional gaps, it is necessary to introduce positive selective incentives for the development of informal institutions, and prioritize the development of inter-group social capital with confidence and social interactions between different social groups (officials, rural communities, land users);
- In order to overcome the institutional imbalances, it is necessary to prioritize both social and ecological components in the development of the national land use system, and the interests of small landowners and family farms.
To ensure that agricultural land use is socially oriented and provide the adaptive efficiency of the institutional environment, it is necessary to harmonize the formal, informal and control institutions. Keywords: institutional environment, agricultural land use, adaptive efficiency, social efficiency JEL: Q15 Article in Ukrainian (pp. 44 - 57) | Download | Downloads :773 |
REFERENCES ▼ 1. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. Insight Report. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/ TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf
2. Moldavan, L.V. Contradictions of the land reform in Ukraine's agrarian sector in the context of the world practice. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and Forecasting, 2, 148-159 [in Ukrainian].
3. Heyets, V.M., Borodina, O.M., Prokopa, I.V. (Eds). (2012). Ukrainian model of the agrarian development and its reorientation. Institute for Economics and Forecasting. Kyiv. Retrieved from www.dnsgb.com.ua/files/nauk_dop_2w.pdf [in Ukrainian].
4. Borodina, O.M., Prokopa, I.V. (2016). The village and peasantry at the juncture of opportunities and the crossroad of hope. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and Forecasting, 2, 132-147 [in Ukrainian].
5. North, D. and Thomas, R. (1997). The first economic revolution. Economic History Review, XXX, 2, 229-241.
6. Yurchyshyn, V.V. (2009). Agrarian revolutions in Ukraine in the context of epoch changes: origin and essence. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 3, 45-57 [in Ukrainian].
7. Merton, R.K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
8. North, D.C. (1997). The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics to an Understanding of the Transition Problem. WIDER Annual Lecture 001. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER. Retrieved from www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/AL01-1997.pdf
9. Yurchyshyn, V.V. (2009). Agrarian policy in Ukraine at the epochs' turning point: historical, social and economical essays. Kyiv: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].
10. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678 № 4/2017Economics of agriculture
BORODINA Olena Mykolaivna1, YAROVYI Victor 2, MYKHAILENKO Oksana Vitaliivna3 1Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine 2Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine 3Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine Agricultural land concentration and land grabbing in the EU: modern challenges
ABSTRACT ▼ This paper provides an analysis of the trends in agricultural land use and land concentration in the EU. Land grabbing, a new emerging trend in the EU, is in the focus. The authors argue there is an exclusion of agricultural lands from local and rural development, and from agriculture, while agrarian investments fail to meet the principles for responsible investments.
The paper aims to examine and summarize the factors that drive agricultural land concentration and grabbing in the EU, and define the extent of these processes and their consequences.
The authors show that the European and national legislations fail in preventing negative consequences of agricultural land concentration and grabbing, and in ensuring the priority of family farms as a basis of the EU agrarian system. The analysis focuses on such drivers of these processes as significant difference in land prices, speculations, emerging and strengthening corporate sector in the agriculture, imperfection of the EU sectoral policies and conflicts between them and between their instruments.
The analysis confirms that increasing number of large-scale land contracts, monopolizing control over agricultural lands, and structural changes in land use decrease the viability of both agricultural sector and rural areas. The land grabbing leads to replacing the family farming model with industrial farming and large corporate enterprises usually established with participation of international capital. The above mentioned phenomena threaten the European agrarian system, sustainable and multifunctional agriculture, food security, and environment.
The authors prove the necessity of an integrated and differentiated approach to deal with agricultural land concentration and grabbing due to the variable nature of the underlying factors. Keywords: agricultural land concentration, agricultural land grabbing, EU common agricultural policy, family farms, corporatization of agriculture JEL: Q 15 Article in Ukrainian (pp. 109 - 124) | Download | Downloads :665 |
REFERENCES ▼ 1. Deininger, K.; Byerlee, Derek; Lindsay, Jonathan; Norton, Andrew; Selod, Harris; Stickler, Mercedes. (2011). Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8591-3
2. Braun, J. von, and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009). Land Grabbing' by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/ifpri_land_grabbing_apr_09-2.pdf
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
4. Cotula, L. (2014). Addressing the Human Rights Impacts of ‘Land Grabbing': Study for the European Parliament (EXPO/B/DROI/2014/06, PE 534.984). Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/534984/EXPO_STU(2014)534984_EN.pdf
5. Friends of the Earth Europe (2012). Farming Money. How European banks and private finance profit from food speculation and land grabs. Brussels: Friends of the Earth Europe. Retrieved from www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/farming_money_foee_jan2012.pdf
6. Friends of the Earth Europe et al. (2013). Hidden Impacts: How Europe's resource overconsumption promotes global land conflicts. Vienna: Global 2000. Retrieved from www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_report_-_hidden_impacts_-_070313.pdf
7. Jennifer, F., and Borras, Saturnino, M. Borras Jr. (Eds.). (2013). Land concentration, land grabbing and people's struggles in Europe. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. Retrieved from www.fian.be/IMG/pdf/2013_06_Land_in_Europe-jun2013_final.pdf
8. Baker-Smith, K., and Szocs-Boruss, M.A. (2016). What is Land Grabbing? A critical review of existing definitions. Romania: Eco Ruralis. Retrieved from drive.google.com/file/d/0B_x-9XeYoYkWSDh3dGk3SVh2cDg/view
9. European Economic and Social Committee (2015). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Land Grabbing – a warning for Europe and a threat to family farming. Brussels: EESC. Retrieved from www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/land-grabbing-europefamily-farming
10. Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament (2016). Hearing of the Petition 0187/2015 Preserving and managing land as our common wealth. Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Petition_Hearing_Statement_Wartenaal_f2.pdf
11. Kay, S., Peuch, J., Franco, J. (2015). Extent of Farmland Grabbing in the EU: Study by the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540369/IPOL_STU(2015)540369_EN.pdf
12. European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (2017). Report on the state of play of farmland concentration in the EU: how to facilitate the access to land for farmers(2016/2141(INI)). Brussels: European Parliament. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2017-0119+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN#title4
13. Sikorska, A. (Ed.). (2016). Agricultural land market. State and prospects. Warsaw: IERiGŻ-PIB. Retrieved from www.ierigz.waw.pl/publikacje/analizy-rynkowe/rynek-ziemi-rolniczej/20595,2,3,0,nr-19-2016-rynek-ziemi-rolniczej.html [in Polish].
|