Specific nature of proprietorship for environmental assets

M. N. Ignat'eva, V. G. Loginov, V. V. Balashenko, M. S. Kubarev

M. N. Ignat'eva et al. / News of the Ural State Mining University 3 (2018) 142-149

The effectiveness of state regulation of nature management largely depends on the clarity of the definition of proprietorship for environmental assets.
Purpose of the study is to determine the specific nature of proprietorship for environmental assets and the possibility of changes in the legal mechanism.
The specific nature of proprietorship in relation to natural resources is due to their duality. On the one hand, they are components of the environment, on the other hand, they are objects of management. There are some features that differentiate natural resources from those of the social sphere. Firstly, they are regarded as the national wealth of a country to which human labor is not applied, that is, as a public property. The multi-aspect of proprietorship of agricultural land are noted, as well as the features of public property for resources of traditional natural resource use. The second aspect concerns the economic valuation of natural resources and, accordingly, national wealth.
Methodological approaches to economic evaluation are numerous today in the absence of a generally recognized methodological basis. The specific nature of proprietorship also determines the property of the inseparability of natural resources from the natural environment and the sign of materialization, which excludes the right of ownership to the atmospheric air, climatic conditions, etc., although the task of establishing ownership of eco services has become more urgent in recent times. Particular attention is paid to restrictive conditions when using natural resources, which should
form and control their implementation as the owner of these resources. Recommendations are formulated regarding the establishment of ownership of ecosystem services, which can be used to solve this problem at the state level. Specification of legal relations in terms of natural resources and environmental services contributes to improving the efficiency of state regulation of nature management.

Keywords: law and types of property, institution, legal regime, state, natural resources, specific features, possession, use, disposal.

The publication was prepared with the financial support of the RAS Ural branch Program, project No. 18-6-7-42 “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Urals: potential opportunities, priorities and prospects for spatial development”.

REFERENCES

1. Dubovik O. L. 2001, Ekologicheskoye pravo v voprosakh i otvetakh [Environmental law in questions and answers]. Moscow, 304 p.
2. Petrov V. V. 1995, Ekologicheskoye pravo [Environmental law]. Moscow. 557 p.
3. Loginov V. G. 2013, Instituty traditsionnogo prirodopol’zovaniya. Etnokul’turnoye i sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoye razvitiye korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa [Institutes of traditional nature management. Ethnocultural and socio-economic development of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North]: proceedings of international scientific conference. Khanty-Mansiysk, pp. 64–82.
4. Eggertsson T. 2001, Economic Behavior and Institutions. Moscow, 408 p.
5. Buchanan J., Brennan G. 2005, The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy, Issue 9, Eticheskaya ekonomika: issledovaniya po etike, kul’ture i filosofii khozyaystva [Ethical economics: studies on ethics, culture and philosophy of economy]. Saint-Petersburg. 272 p.
6. Lindegren M., Holt B. G., MacKenzie B. R., Rahbek C. 2018, A global mismatch in the protection of multiple marine biodiversity components and ecosystem services. Scientific Reports, vol. 8, issue 1. Publ. online.
7. Sun G., Hallema D., Asbjornsen H. 2017, Ecohydrological processes and ecosystem services in the Anthropocene: a review. Ecological Processes, vol. 6, issue 1. Publ. online.
8. Litvinova A. A., Ignatyeva M. N., Koroteev G. D. 2016, Identifikatsiya uslug, predostavlyayemykh osobo okhranyayemymi prirodnymi territoriyami [Identification of services provided by specially protected natural territories]. Uspekhi sovremennogo yestestvoznaniya [Advances in current natural sciences], no. 6, pp. 164–168.
9. Bobylev S. N., Zakharov V. M. 2009, Ekosistemnyye uslugi i ekonomika [Ecosystem services and economics]. Moscow, 71 p.
10. Ascioti F. A., Crea V., Menguzzato G., Marcianò C. 2018, Economic value assessment of forest carbon sequestration and atmospheric temperature mitigation in the metropolitan city of Reggio Calabria (South Italy). New Metropolitan Perspectives: 3rd International Symposium (ISTH2020). Germany, vol. 101, pp. 637–644.
11. Fu B., Xu P., Wang Y., Yan K., Chaudhary S. 2018, Assessment of the ecosystem services provided by ponds in hilly areas. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 642, pp. 979–987.
12. Byakagaba P., Egeru A., Barasa B., Briske D.D. 2018, Uganda’s rangeland policy: intentions, consequences and opportunities. Pastoralism, vol. 8, issue 1. Publ. online.
13. Losev K. S. 2001, Ekologicheskiye problemy i perspektivy ustoychivogo razvitiya v Rossii v XXI veke [Ecological problems and perspectives of sustainable development in Russia in the 21st century]. Moscow, 400 p.
14. Pavlov D. S., Bukvareva E. N. 2007, Bioraznoobraziye, ekosistemnyye funktsii i zhizneobespecheniye chelovechestva [Biodiversity, ecosystem functions and life support for humanity]. Vestnik Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 974–986.
15. 2008, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): an interium Report. Bonn, 64 p.
16. Pagiola S., Ramirez E., Gobbi J., de Haan C., Ybrahim M., Murgueitio E., Ruiz Y. P. 2007, Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 2007, vol. 64, pp. 374–385.