Environmental water security policy in the EU, Ukraine and other developing countries

User Rating:  / 1


O.P.Mitryasova1, orcid.org/0000-0002-9107-4448, Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V.D.Pohrebennyk, orcid.org/0000-0002-1491-2356, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

O.S.Petrov, orcid.org/0000-0001-9453-0755, University of Science and Technology, Krakw, the Republic of Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Ye.M.Bezsonov, orcid.org/0000-0001-5745-3121, Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V.M.Smyrnov, orcid.org/0000-0003-3809-6098, Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2021, (2): 125 - 130



To determine the key principles of environmental security of aquatic ecosystems in the context of sustainable use of natural resources and socio-economic development.

Comparative analysis and systematic approach.

Principal aspects of water resources management in the states of the world are analyzed in the context of the provisions of the sustainable development concept. Comparison of countries with different levels of development has allowed identifying key methodological provisions that are implemented in the environmental policy ofwater. An approach to determination of the limiting indices of the impact on the environment is proposed. It was revealed that most post-Soviet countries do not use the concept of ecological system and ecosystem services in their legislative framework, which today are an integral part of the environmental policy and legislation of developed countries. The basic principles of the ecological safety of aquatic ecosystems are as follows: a water body (surface or underground ones) is a complex, functionally integrated and self-regulating ecological system. It cannot be considered as a volume with a resource for biological and amenity needs; priority in the water use should be given to the living components that exist in it and ensure its functional integrity. Any aquatic ecosystem should be economically assessed not only in terms of available water resources, but also considering other ecosystem services, particularly, the diversity of its biotic components. All these principles and the approach presented, if introduced into domestic legislation, will allow achieving progress in the field of ecological safety of aquatic ecosystems and sustainable social economic development.

An approach has been improved which determines the efficiency of environmental policy in the field of water resources safety through a correlation analysis of water consumption and population size.

Practical value.
The research results allow for quantitative assessment of water resource management. The results of the study on the influence of the factor of freshwater resources on the socio-economic development of countries and regions of the world suggest that there is a strong statistically significant correlation in this system of connections.

water ecosystem, water resources, water security, environmental policy, sustainable development


1. G20 Leaders Communique Hangzhou Summit, 45 September 2016 (2016). Retrieved from http://europa.eu.rapid/press-releases_SIATEMENT-16-2967_en.htm.

2. Karpinski, M., Pohrebennyk, V., Bernatska, N., Ganczarczyk, J., & Shevchenko, O. (2018). Simulation of artificial neural networks for assessing the ecological state of surface water. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, 18(2.1), 693-700. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2018/2.1/S07.088.

3 Liu, J., Yang, H., Gosling, S.N., Kummu, M., Flrke, M., Pfister, S., , & Oki, T. (2017). Water scarcity assessments in the past, present and future. Earths Future, 5(6), 545-559.

4. Nechifor, V. (2018). Modelling freshwater resources use and the economic impacts of demand-driven water scarcity. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327040227_Modelling_freshwater_resources_use_and_the_economic_impacts_of_demand-driven_water_scarcity.

5. Mitryasova, O., & Pohrebennyk, V. (2020). Hydrochemical Indicators of Water System Analysis as Factors of the Environmental Quality State. In G., Krlczyk, M., Wzorek, A., Krl,O., Kochan, J., Su, & J., Kacprzyk (Eds.). Sustainable Production: Novel Trends in Energy, Environment and Material Systems. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 198, 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11274-5_7.

6. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019 (2019). Leaving No One Behind. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367306.

7. EPI Results (2018). Retrieved from https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/epi-topline?country=&order=field_epi_rank_new&sort=asc.

8. The Global Risks Report 2017 (2017). Retrieved from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf.

9. Glinskiy, V., Serga, L., & Khvan, M. (2015). Environmental safety of the region: New approach to assessment. Procedia CIRP, 26, 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.08.017.

10. GNI (current US$). All Countries and Economies. USA (2019). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gnp.mktp.cd?most_recent_value_desc=true.

11. Population, total. All Countries and Economies. USA (2019). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.

12. The World Factbook: Drinking Water Source (2017). Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/361.html.

13. Human Development Index 2019 (2019). Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf.

14. Jepson, W., Budds, J., Eichelberger, L., Harris, L., Norman, E., OReilly, K., & Young, S. (2017). Advancing human capabilities for water security: A relational approach. Water Security, 1, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.07.001.

15. Mitryasova, O., & Pohrebennyk, V. (2017). Integrated Environmental Assessment of the Surface Waters Pollution: Regional Aspect. 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017, 17, (pp. 235-242). https://doi.org/10.5593/SGEM2017H/33/S12.029.

16. Mitryasova, O., Pohrebennyk, V., Kochanek, A., & Stepanova, O. (2017). Environmental Footprint Enterprise as Indicator of Balance its Activity. 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM 2017, 17, (pp. 371-378). https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/51.

17. USFWS (2016). National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf.

18. Bezsonov, Ye., Mitryasova, O., Smyrnov, V., & Smyrnova,S. (2017). Influence of the South-Ukraine electric power producing complex on the ecological condition of the Southern Bug River. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4/10(88), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2017.108322.

19. Water drives job creation and economic growth, says new UN report (2016). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243938.

20. Thomas, W. Hertel, & Jing Liu (2016). Implications of water scarcity for economic growth. Environment working paper, France, 109, Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jlssl611r32-en.pdf?expires=1588082362&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D1F550D30D6FAB2FF0088AC9D65A265D.


Newer news items:

Older news items: