facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Wiki
Global international scientific
analytical project
GISAP
GISAP logotip
Перевод страницы
 

RESOURCE FLOW ANALYSIS OF ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA

RESOURCE FLOW ANALYSIS OF ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA
Toivo Tanning, преподаватель

Tallinn School of Economics, Эстония

Участник первенства: Национальное первенство по научной аналитике - "Эстония";

Открытое Европейско-Азиатское первенство по научной аналитике;

Resources underpin the functioning of global economy and our quality of life. Demand for raising the living standard of people is growing, but by 2050th the planet's population is projected to increase by more than 2.5 billion people.

Areraw materialsresourceswill continue?The European Union (EU)and including the Baltic countries are poor of material and energy region. Energy security is always one of the most important problems in the EU. With regard to acute political and economic situation in Eastern Europe is very topical, what is the position of resource in the Baltic countries.

Here comes scientificnoveltythe formulation of the problem and scientific innovation in the search for solutions, an analysis the erection this research-intensive problemof resourceflow of Baltic countries,resolution and conclusions.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the resourceflow of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Baltic countries; and to compare them on the EU level. There is little analysis of the availability of resources and it the problems of small countries. What are the prospects for a partial boycott of resources?How far is the use of these lands resource, including the 2009th economic crisis?

Keywords: resourceflow, fossil energy materials, imports, exports, Baltic countries.

 

A resource-efficient Europe is one ofthe main objectives of the Europe 2020Strategy[1], which aims at guiding the effective use of resources to achieve sustainable economic growth. All economic systems utilize a variety of resources. The scarcity of resources forces countries, companies and people make a variety of choices. That's what we look at on the basis of the Baltic countries.  

The indicator domestic material consumption (DMC) is defined as the total amount of material directly used in an economy. DMC equals Direct Material Input (DMI) minus exports. DMI measures the direct input of materials for the use in the economy. DMI equals Domestic Extraction (DE) plus imports. [2]

Economy-wide material flow accounts(EW-MFA) are used to derive various material flow indicators such as: Domestic extraction(DEU); Imports(IMP); Direct material input(DMI); Exports (EXP); Domestic material consumption(DMC). [3]

The history and economic background of his countries is more detail in previous earlier publications of authors [4 - 6]. Theoretical foundations andmethodology are given in more detail the works of other authors [9 - 13], and in earlier publications of authors [4 – 8, 14 - 16].

Table 1.

Consumption of total domestic material(DMC). Thousands tonnes [17]

 

2000

2002

2004

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Estonia

19,616

22,779

29,363

38,915

35,415

33,040

33,416

35,509

37,975

40,112

Latvia

34,666

35,789

38,301

49,252

41,469

32,074

37,029

40,932

37,452

41,994

Lithuania

29,173

31,553

39,520

48,735

51,779

34,905

38,462

41,721

38,283

38,868

 

 

Before theeconomic crisis, GDP growth rose by analogy with DMC. The peak was reached in 2007 - 2008. In 2009th followed the decline, especially large in Lithuania. In the following years the economy grew, and with it DMC or vice versa the better DMC used to cause growth. For more of the answer gives the material flow components detailed analysis. In period from 2000 to 2003 rose Estonian DMC two, Latvian 1.2, and Lithuanian 1.3 times. All three Baltic countries are almost equal to the DMC, but they GDP and population varies considerably.

 

Table 2.

Components of DMC. Total imports resource, thousands tonnes [17]

 

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Estonia

5,591

7,549

9,416

11,991

12,140

9,837

8,979

9,550

10,767

9,108

9,054

Latvia

5,771

7,592

11,406

12,225

13,541

12,508

8,719

9,697

11,142

12,861

12,673

Lithuania

12,766

18,273

23,719

24,095

23,352

26,076

21,125

24,427

26,305

26,486

28,096

 

Resourcesimport growthby 13 years in Estonia 1.6, in Latvia 2.2 and in Lithuania 2.2 times. This shows that the dependence on resources is growing, especially in Latvia and Lithuania. Of the Baltic countries are more dependent of the imported resources Lithuania.

Total exports resource of Baltic countries growth, in Lithuania and in Latvia over two times, but in Estonia 42%. Resource export shows that the EU and the Baltic countries are not very poor in terms of material or natural resources.

Estoniaand Latviawas resource exports an even greater than imports.Domestic Extraction Used (DEU) of Baltic countries in tones growth, in Estonia 1.8, in Latvia 1.4 and in Lithuania 1.4 times. [17]

Table 3.

Total resource of Estonia, thousands tonnes [17]

Est

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

DMC

19,616

30,416

28,850

32,050

38,915

35,415

33,040

33,416

35,509

37,975

40,112

Exp

9,091

9,604

10,481

12,386

11,573

11,734

10,150

12,379

14,267

12,930

12,513

Imp

5,591

7,549

9,416

11,991

12,140

9,837

8,979

9,550

10,767

9,108

9,054

DEU

23,116

32,471

29,915

32,445

38,349

37,313

34,211

36,245

39,009

41,796

43,571

 

DMC of Estoniaincreased with the high growth GDP until 2007 80%, or 15,799 thousand tones and subsequent decreased a little. The 2012 level was nearly the same as in 2007, butalready in2013higher. The increase occurred mainly at the expense of imports, 3463 thousand tones. From 2000 to 2013, imports increased by 62% and 88% DEU.

Table 4.

Total resource of Latvia, thousands tonnes [17]

Lat

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

DMC

34,666

36,097

42,742

45,747

49,252

41,469

32,074

37,029

40,932

37,452

41,994

Exp

9,255

11,056

13,112

13,585

13,595

14,103

13,569

17,478

18,298

19,610

18,077

Imp

5,771

7,592

11,406

12,225

13,541

12,508

8,719

  9,697

 11,142

 12,861

 12,673

DEU

38,149

39,561

44,448

47,108

49,306

43,065

36,924

44,810

48,087

44,201

47,398

 

Economic (GDP) growthuntil 2007 of Latvia was the EU's biggest. Her DMC grew in the same period 42% or 14,586 thousand tonnes and declined in subsequent years to levels of 2004. The increase occurred mainly at the expense of imports, 7,770 thousand tonnes. From 2000 to 2012 exports grew steadily, a total of 111% and imports of 123%. That all, increase was of 29% until 2007. Total growth ofDEUwasuntil 2013by 24%.

 

Table 5.

Total resource of Lithuania, thousands tonnes [17]

Lit

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

DMC

29,173

36,990

40,899

41,184

48,735

51,779

34,905

38,462

41,721

38,283

38,868

Exp

9,569

14,514

18,943

18,425

18,198

21,376

19,251

21,135

23,540

25,055

26,614

Imp

12,766

18,273

23,719

24,095

23,352

26,076

21,125

24,427

26,305

26,486

28,096

DEU

25,976

33,231

36,123

35,515

43,580

47,079

33,031

35,171

38,956

36,851

37,386

 

Also economic(GDP) growth of Lithuaniawas very high until 2008. Her DMC grew in the same period 77% or 22,606 thousand tonnes and declined in subsequent years to levels of 2004. Growth has occurred both imports and exports at the expense of continuously, in period 2000 to 2013 by 120% and 178%. In summary, total DMC and DEU of Estonia growth. Lithuania and Latvia were large abruptchanges, peak was before the crisis, and the biggest drop one year after the crisis.

Table 6.

DMC by material, 1 000 tonnes. Biomass (MF1) [2]

 

2000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Estonia

2,869

3,291

4,396

3,986

4,045

5,768

4,973

5,035

5,167

5,160

5,743 

Latvia

26,540

22,372

22,667

23,986

23,461

23,326

16,360

18,905

20,027

21,319

18,332

Lithuania

14,772

16,953

16,941

15,697

13,991

16,833

15,824

16,196

14,820

16,085

17,313

 

Biomass (MF1) of the EU27 and Latvia declined slightly over the analyzed period. Biomass of the EU 27 in 2012 was 1.693 million tonnes, over the 12 years it decreased by 3.7%. Lithuania had a small and Estonia double biomass consumption growth. However, Estonia consumed of biomass three times less than Latvia and Lithuania.[2]

Table 7.

DMC by material, 1 000 tonnes. Metal ores [2]

 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Estonia

111

39

191

449

756

39

-39

152

-199

-283

-341

-203

-120

Latvia

-33

47

145

270

181

-32

145

351

87

-318

-123

-47

12

Lithuania

-48

-71

99

148

384

328

560

535

268

-197

-239

-92

-86

 

EU-27 metal ores consumption in 2012 was 237 million tonnes, over the 12 years it decreased by 15.7%. It consumption in the Baltic countries was very small and with large fluctuations.[2]

Table 8.

DMC by material, 1 000 tonnes. Non-metallic minerals [2]

 

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Estonia

4,902

12,040

11,027

14,053

16,671

15,398

14,069

12,325

13,864

16,033

Latvia

5,868

10,700

15,892

18,903

22,886

22,200

11,089

15,099

17,493

16,864

Lithuania

9,949

14,788

18,476

20,996

25,707

29,583

14,309

18,787

20,684

16,264

 

EU-27 non-metallic minerals consumption in 2012 was 3,189 million tonnes, over the 12 years it growth by 13.0%. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania it grow3.3, 2.9 and 1.6 times.[2]

Table 9.

DMC by material, 1 000 tonnes. Fossil energy materials/carriers [2]

 

2000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Estonia

11,841

14,722

14,035

13,960

14,130

16,297

15,406

14,285

16,357

16,852

16,465 

Latvia

2,197

2,677

2,552

2,946

3,312

2,709

2,972

2,584

2,316

2,612

2,409

Lithuania

4,269

4,910

4,737

6,190

5,477

5,879

6,256

4,705

5,330

5,528

5,462

 

Fossil energy materials (MF4) is: coal and other solid energy materials (MF41); liquid and gaseous energy materials (MF42): crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (MF421), natural gas (MF422), fuels bunkered (MF423); products mainly from fossil energy products (MF43).

EU-27 fossil energy materials/carriersconsumption in 2012 was 1,632 million tonnes, over the 12 years it decreased by 10.1%. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was growth it according to 39.0%, 9.6% and 27.9%.

Fig. 1. DMC by fossil energy                                  Fig. 2. DMC of Estonia by main

        materials, 1 000 tonnes. [2]                            material category, 1 000  tonnes [2]

 

Therefore, it isuseful to analyze components of the DMC only for biomass,non-metallic minerals and fossilenergy materials/carriers. In 2012, the total DMC of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was almost equal. Biomass consumed in Estonia was three times less than Latvia and Lithuania. Estonian biomass percentage was 15.1%, Latvia48.9%, Lithuania 45.2% and EU-27 for comparison 25.1%. Fossil energy materials/carrierstrends werereversed: Estoniapercentage was 43.4%, Latvia 6.4%, Lithuania 11.1% and for comparison EU 27 24.2%. Non-metallic mineralstrendswere the same: Estoniapercentage was 42.2%, Latvia 45.0%, Lithuania 42.5% and for comparison EU-27 47.2%. Components of DMC and DEU in Estoniaincreased.

Taking into account this paper and the previous work of the authors [4 – 8, 14 - 16] andother authors'works [9 - 13] have made ​​the following conclusions and suggestions.

Discussion & conclusions

v  Scientificnoveltyis the formulation of the problem and scientific innovation in the search for solutions, analysis this research-intensive problemof resourceflow of smallcountries,analysis ofthe availability of resources, resolution and conclusions.

v  Development ofthe Baltic economies was the EU's largest.

v  Before theeconomic crisis, GDP of Baltic countries growth rose by analogy with DMC. The peak was reached in 2007 - 2008. In the year2009followed by a decline, especially large in Lithuania. In the following years the economy grew, and with it DMC or vice versa the better DMC used to cause growth.

v  Volume growthof material resources does not always result in economic growth. This leads inevitably to increased costs, which could exceed the income.

v  Total exports resource of Baltic countries in tonnes growth, in Lithuania and in Latvia over two times, but in Estonia 42%.

v  Domestic Extraction Used (DEU) of Baltic countries in tonnes growth, in Estonia 1.8, in Latvia and in Lithuania 1.4 times.

v  Total DMC and DEU of Estonia growth. Lithuania and Latvia were great abrupt changes, in peak was before the crisis, and the largest decline year after the crisis.

v  Biomassdecreased in the period analyzed EU-27 and Latvia scarce. Lithuania had a small and Estonia double biomass consumption grew. However, Estonia biomass consumed was three times less than in Latvia and Lithuania.

v  EU-27 metal oresconsumption in 2012 was 237 million tonnes, of 12yearsit fell 15.7%. In the Baltic countries it was very small and with large fluctuations.

v  EU-27 non-metallic minerals consumption of 12yearsfell 13.0%; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but 3.3, 2.9 and 1.6 times.

v  EU-27 fossil energy materials/carriers consumption of 12yearsfell 10.1%; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania however,grew 39.0%, 9.6% and 27.9%.

v  EU-27 other products consumption grew in 12 years was 15.5%. Other products consumption of the Baltic countries was very small and with large fluctuations.

v  EU-27 waste for final treatment and disposal consumption in 12 years was 45.3%. In the Baltic countries was it very small and with large fluctuations.

v  The EUand including the Baltic countries are poor of material and energy region, it is unexpected decrease in mineral fuels (sanctions) is very sensitive.

v  So far themineral fuels imports from third countries progressed steadily.

v  Of the Balticcountries are more dependent of the imported resources Lithuania.

v  In summary, total DMC and DEU of Estonia growth. Lithuaniaand Latvia were largeabruptchanges, peak was before the crisis, and the biggest drop one year after the crisis.

v  Of the Balticcountries are more advanced DMC in Estonia.

v  The useof environmentally friendly materials has risen, and the use of sustainable materials is reduced.

v  Material flowis generally decreased less so EU whole, but also in the Baltic States.

v  Complete set ofanalysis these problems would need more detailed look at fossil fuels and resource productivity.

 

 

Reference:

1. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. 26.1.2011 COM (2011) 21.

2. Domestic material consumption by material. Code: tsdpc230.   Eurostat.   16.10.2014  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc230

3. Material flow accounts. Code: env_ac_mfa. Eurostat. 16.10.2014 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_ac_mfa&lang=en

4. Tanning, Toivo; Tanning, Lembo (2014). Labour Productivity Analyses of Gross Value Added and Turnover Per Person Employed of Transportation Companies of European Countries in 2005 – 2011. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application: American Association for Science and Technology, 1(1 March), 9 - 18.

5. Tanning, Toivo; Tanning, Lembo (2014). Labour productivity trends analyses in Baltic countries to 2014. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application. American Association for Science and Technology. USA, 1(3), 35 - 42.

6. Tanning, Lembo; Tanning, Toivo (2014). Gross Value Added per Person Analyses of Transportation Companies of new European Union countries in 2005 – 2011. SOP Transactions on Marketing Research, USA, 1(2), 1 - 15.

7. Tanning, Toivo; Tanning, Lembo (2014). Material flow analyses of Baltic countries. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application. American Association for Science and Technology, USA, 1(4), 43 - 55.

8. Tanning, Lembo; Tanning, Toivo (2014). Analysis of the Material Flow of New Members of the European Union. Journal of Behavioural Economics, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Accounting and Transport. Sciepub. USA, 2(5), 104 - 115.

9. Moll, Stephan; Popescu, Cristina (2012). In physical terms the EU-27 imports three times more than it exports - Statistics in Focus, Issue number 51/2012. Eurostat.

10. Moll, Stephan; Popescu, Cristina; Nickel, Ramona (2012). EU's Resource Productivity on the increase - Number 22/2012. Eurostat.

11. Hass, Julie; Popescu, Cristina (2011). Economy-wide material flows: European countries required more materials between 2000 and 2007 - Statistics in focus 9/2011. Eurostat.

12. Luksch, Ute; Steinbach, Nancy; Markosova, Katarina (2006). Economic activities and their pressure on the environment 1995-2001. Statistics in focus 2/2006. Eurostat.

13. Steinbach, Nancy; Luksch, Ute and Cabeça, Julio(2006).Manufacturing industry 1995-2003. Economic activities and their pressure on the environment. Statistics in focus 16/2006. Eurostat.

14. Tanning, Lembo (2010), Maailma energia ülevaade. I osa. Nafta ja gaas. (World Energy Outlook (WEO). Ipart. Oil andGas). TallinnUniversity of Technology. Tallinn, p. 240.

15. Tanning, Lembo (2010). Maailma energia ülevaade. II osa. Tuumaenergia. (WEO. IIpart. Nuclear energy). TallinnUniversity of Technology. Tallinn, p. 140.

16. Tanning, Lembo (2010). Maailma energia ülevaade. III osa. Alternatiivsed kütused. (WEO. IIIpart. Alternative fuels). TallinnUniversity of Technology. Tallinn, p. 252.

17. Components of domestic material consumption, Code: tsdpc220. Eurostat. 16.10.2014

0
Ваша оценка: Нет Средняя: 5.3 (13 голосов)
Комментарии: 11

Казбеков Бекет

Уважаемый Toivo Tanning! Для исследования resourceflow Эстонии, Латвии, Литве и сравнения их на уровне ЕС Вами построены ряды динамики и выполнен детальный анализ потока ресурсов [биомасса (MF1), руды металлов (MF2), нерудные полезные ископаемые (MF3), ископаемого топлива материалы (MF4) и другие] стран Балтии. При этом во всех трех странах в докризисный период в основном отмечена положительная динамика роста потребления ресурсов и производства и соответствующий их спад после 2009 года. В то же время не раскрыты внутренние причины такой разнонаправленной динамики. Работа выглядит незавершенной. Желаю успехов. beket

Ляпина Иннара Рафаильевна

Исследования автора интересны, системны, заслуживают высокой оценки. Успехов в дальнейшей работе!

Тойво Таннинг

Dear Innara Lyapina! Спасибо Вам за высокую оценку моей работы и позитивный комментарий к ней, С уважением и пожеланием творческих успехов, Toivo Tanning

Тойво Таннинг

Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues! Many thanks for the detailed evaluation questions, the desire to see my work perfectly. I wish you success and personal well-being. Sincerely, Toivo Tanning

Романович Людмила Геннадьевна

Тема работы актуальна и представляет интерес. Статья заслуживает положительной оценки.

Тойво Таннинг

Dear Lyudmila Romanovich! Thank you for your comment and high rating. Sincerely, Toivo Tanning

Кручинин Сергей

Добрый день Тойво! Было очень интересно посмотреть на проблему ограниченности ресурсов для малых стран иной точки зрения и другим углом. Удачи. С Ув.

Тойво Таннинг

Уважаемый Сергей Кручинин! Спасибо за проявленный интерес и высокую оценку работы. С уважением Тойво Taннинг

Малышкина Елена Анатольевна

Статья достойна внимания! Приведен очень интересный числовой анализ. Желаем Вам дальнейших успехов в работе!

Тойво Таннинг

Уважаемая Елена Малышкина Спасибо Вам за высокую оценку моей работы и позитивный комментарий к ней. С уважением и пожеланием творческих успехов. С уважением Тойво Taннинг

Тойво Таннинг

Резюме статьи „Анализ потока ресурсов Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы“ на русском. Ресурсы лежат в основе функционирования мировой экономики и качества жизни. Спрос на повышение уровня жизни людей растет, в 2050-ом населения планеты увеличится более чем в 2,5 миллиарда человек. Будет ли необходимое количество сырья? Европейский союз (ЕС) и в том числе Балтийские страны бедны от материальных и энергетических ресурсов. Энергетическая безопасность является одним из самых важных проблем в ЕС. В связи с острой политической и экономической ситуации в Восточной Европе весьма актуальна позиция ресурсов и в странах Балтии. Цель этой статьи заключается в анализе потока ресурсов [биомасса (MF1), руды металлов (MF2), нерудные полезные ископаемые (MF3), ископаемого топлива материалы (MF4) и другие] стран Балтии. Здесь краткий анализ наличия ресурсов и проблем малых стран. Как эти страны использовали ресурсы, в том числе во время 2009-ом экономического кризиса? Каковы были закономерности в использовании ресурсов, тенденций? Каковы перспективы либо частичного бойкота ресурсов? Научной новизной является: постановка задачи и научных инноваций в поиске решений, анализ возведения этих наукоемких проблем притока ресурсов малых стран, анализ наличие ресурсов, выводы и рекомендации. Методология и научные основы более подробно в предыдущих работах автора. С учетом этой статьи и предыдущих работ автора и других авторов были сделаны в резюме для обобщения 21 выводов и предложении. С уважением, ToivoTanning
Комментарии: 11

Казбеков Бекет

Уважаемый Toivo Tanning! Для исследования resourceflow Эстонии, Латвии, Литве и сравнения их на уровне ЕС Вами построены ряды динамики и выполнен детальный анализ потока ресурсов [биомасса (MF1), руды металлов (MF2), нерудные полезные ископаемые (MF3), ископаемого топлива материалы (MF4) и другие] стран Балтии. При этом во всех трех странах в докризисный период в основном отмечена положительная динамика роста потребления ресурсов и производства и соответствующий их спад после 2009 года. В то же время не раскрыты внутренние причины такой разнонаправленной динамики. Работа выглядит незавершенной. Желаю успехов. beket

Ляпина Иннара Рафаильевна

Исследования автора интересны, системны, заслуживают высокой оценки. Успехов в дальнейшей работе!

Тойво Таннинг

Dear Innara Lyapina! Спасибо Вам за высокую оценку моей работы и позитивный комментарий к ней, С уважением и пожеланием творческих успехов, Toivo Tanning

Тойво Таннинг

Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues! Many thanks for the detailed evaluation questions, the desire to see my work perfectly. I wish you success and personal well-being. Sincerely, Toivo Tanning

Романович Людмила Геннадьевна

Тема работы актуальна и представляет интерес. Статья заслуживает положительной оценки.

Тойво Таннинг

Dear Lyudmila Romanovich! Thank you for your comment and high rating. Sincerely, Toivo Tanning

Кручинин Сергей

Добрый день Тойво! Было очень интересно посмотреть на проблему ограниченности ресурсов для малых стран иной точки зрения и другим углом. Удачи. С Ув.

Тойво Таннинг

Уважаемый Сергей Кручинин! Спасибо за проявленный интерес и высокую оценку работы. С уважением Тойво Taннинг

Малышкина Елена Анатольевна

Статья достойна внимания! Приведен очень интересный числовой анализ. Желаем Вам дальнейших успехов в работе!

Тойво Таннинг

Уважаемая Елена Малышкина Спасибо Вам за высокую оценку моей работы и позитивный комментарий к ней. С уважением и пожеланием творческих успехов. С уважением Тойво Taннинг

Тойво Таннинг

Резюме статьи „Анализ потока ресурсов Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы“ на русском. Ресурсы лежат в основе функционирования мировой экономики и качества жизни. Спрос на повышение уровня жизни людей растет, в 2050-ом населения планеты увеличится более чем в 2,5 миллиарда человек. Будет ли необходимое количество сырья? Европейский союз (ЕС) и в том числе Балтийские страны бедны от материальных и энергетических ресурсов. Энергетическая безопасность является одним из самых важных проблем в ЕС. В связи с острой политической и экономической ситуации в Восточной Европе весьма актуальна позиция ресурсов и в странах Балтии. Цель этой статьи заключается в анализе потока ресурсов [биомасса (MF1), руды металлов (MF2), нерудные полезные ископаемые (MF3), ископаемого топлива материалы (MF4) и другие] стран Балтии. Здесь краткий анализ наличия ресурсов и проблем малых стран. Как эти страны использовали ресурсы, в том числе во время 2009-ом экономического кризиса? Каковы были закономерности в использовании ресурсов, тенденций? Каковы перспективы либо частичного бойкота ресурсов? Научной новизной является: постановка задачи и научных инноваций в поиске решений, анализ возведения этих наукоемких проблем притока ресурсов малых стран, анализ наличие ресурсов, выводы и рекомендации. Методология и научные основы более подробно в предыдущих работах автора. С учетом этой статьи и предыдущих работ автора и других авторов были сделаны в резюме для обобщения 21 выводов и предложении. С уважением, ToivoTanning
Партнеры
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.