Improving the ecological efficiency of the processing industry of agricultural security on the basis of economic instruments

The issues of ensuring the environmental safety of the functioning of the processing industry in the agro-industrial complex of Russia, on the basis of economic mechanisms, are considered. The high level of resource use in the processing of agricultural products contributes to environmental pollution, reduces the competitiveness of the industry, increases the level of costs. A rather large deterioration and obsolescence of the equipment of the processing enterprises of the agro-industrial complex does not allow for the environmentally safe processing of agricultural products. Of particular concern are enterprises of the meat processing industry, which produce waste, which creates an unfavorable sanitary and epidemiological situation in the regions. In this regard, it is necessary to develop such a system of economic incentives for the implementation of resource-saving projects of the processing industry enterprises in the agro-industrial complex, which would improve the environmental and economic efficiency of the studied industry. Given the high capital investment in modern resource-saving equipment, it is advisable to pay attention to the sources of funding for these projects on a preferential basis. Among the measures for the economic stimulation of projects for the processing of agricultural products by the industrial method, the article proposes both credit and financial instruments, including preferential loans and leasing, and preferential taxation, and an environmental fee. In order to stimulate projects for the acquisition of resource-saving equipment in the processing of agricultural products, it is proposed to use such an effective tool as accelerated depreciation, which allows manufacturers to reduce costs when replacing old equipment with more modern ones. In order to increase risk management efficiency, when implementing projects for industrial processing of agricultural products, it is proposed to use public-private partnership tools that minimize risks, including environmental ones, due to their redistribution between participants, based on such forms as delegation of management and concessions.

1. Golubev I.G., Shvanskaya I.A., Konovalenko L.Yu., Lopatnikov M.V. Retsikling otkhodov v APK: spravochnik [Waste recycling in agriculture]. Moscow: FGBNU «Rosinformagrotekh», 2011. 296 p. (In Russ.)

2. Gasho E.G., Stepanova M.V., Shchelchkov K.A. General priorities of the intersectoral «horizontal» handbook on the best available energy efficiency technologies in the Russian economy. Nailuchshie dostupnye tekhnologii. Primenenie v razlichnykh otraslyakh promyshlennosti = Best Available Technologies. Application in various industries. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo «Pero», 2017. Pp. 70–85. (In Russ.)

3. Myers M.L. Zhivotnovodstvo: ego masshtaby i vozmozhnoe vozdeistvie na zdorov’e cheloveka [Livestock: its scope and possible impact on human health]. Available at: http://base.safework.ru/iloenc?doc&nd=857200507& (accessed: 18.12.2018).

4. Pimentel D., Berger B., Filiberto D., Newton M., Wolfe B., Karabinakis E., Clark S., Poon E., Abbett E., Nandagopal S. Water resources: agricultural and environmental issues. BioScience. 2004. Vol. 54. No. 10. Pp. 909–918. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0909:WRAAEI]2.0.CO;2

5. Tilman D., Cassman K.G., Matson P.A., Naylor R., Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002. Vol. 418. Pp. 671– 677. DOI: 10.1038/nature01014

6. Tulupov A.S. The Economic Aspects of Voluntary and Obligatory Ecological Insurance. Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2013. Vol. 49. No. 2. Pp. 44–53. (In Russ.)

7. Tulupov A.S. Strakhovanie v prirodopol’zovanii [Insurance in environmental management]. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom GUU, 2017. 160 p. (In Russ.)

8. Vorotnikov I.L. Kolotyrin K.P., Malakhova T.N. Role of public policy in improving the investment attractiveness in industry. Russian Journal of Industrial Economics. 2016. No. 4. Pp. 329–334. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17073/2072-1633-2016-4-329-334

9. Bobylev S.N., Zakharov V.M. Ecosystem services and eco-economics. Available at: http://www.sustainabledevelopment.ru/upload/File/Books/Inst_book_7.pdf (accessed: 01.21.2019). (In Russ.)

10. Bobylev S.N. Ekonomika prirodopol’zovanya [Environmental Economics]. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2014. 400 p. (In Russ.)

11. Potravny I.M., Kolotyrin K.P., Gengut I.B. The use of environmental insurance in the management of projects to eliminate accumulated environmental damage. Economics of Contemporary Russia. 2017. No. 2(77). Pp. 78–89. (In Russ.)

12. Melnik L.G. Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskii potentsial ustoichivogo razvitiya [Socio-economic potential of sustainable development]. Sumy: Universitetskaya kniga, 2007. 1120 p. (In Russ.)

13. Rehbock E. Auch beim neuesten Stand der Technik ist Handarbeit notwendig. Die Bauwirtschaft. 1993. No. 4. P. 47–49. (In German)

14. Vorotnikov I.L., Kolotyrin K.P., Vlasova O.V. The system of the biological waste management improvement on the basis of state-private partnership and ecological insurance mechanisms. Economic AnnalsXXI. 2014. No. 9-10(1). Pp. 53–57.

15. Kolotyrin K.P. Organizatsionno-ekonomicheskie instrumenty v sfere obrashcheniya s otkhodami potrebleniya [Organizational and economic instruments in the field of consumption waste management]. Saratov: Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi tekhnicheskii universitet, 2010. 223 p.

16. Porfiryev B.N., Tulupov A.S. Environmental Hazard Assessment and Forecast of Economic Damage from Industrial Accidents. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2017. Vol. 28. No. 6. Pp. 600–607.

17. Johnson J. Hazardous waste incinerator rule delayed by EPA for more than a year. Environmental Science & Technology. 1997. Vol. 31. No. 2. Pp. 78A-79A. DOI: 10.1021/es9721226

18. The biological waste Management and Disposal. Environmental health & safety. Available at: http:// www.ehs.ufl.edu/programs/bio/waste/ (accessed: 21.01.2019).

19. Fumikazu Y. The political economy of waste management in Japan. People and Nature: Operationalising Ecological Economics. Canberra (Australia): The Australian National University, 2000. 453 p.

20. Ring I. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy. 2008. Vol. 25. No. 4. Pp. 485–497. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.001

21. Fershtman C., Kamien M.I. Cross licensing of complementary technologies. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 1992. Vol. 10. No. 3. Pp. 329–348. DOI: 10.1016/0167-7187(92)90001-F