Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex 3031279107, 9783031279102

Table of contents :
Preface
Sustainable and Digital Agriculture as a Basis for Developing the Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security: Introduction
Contents
Part 1: Economic, Legal, and Technological Support of Quality Management and Sustainable Development in the Digital Agro-Industrial Complex
Chapter 1: Sustainable Development of Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security Through Digital Agriculture: Contribution of Robots, Big Data, and AI
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Literature Review
1.3 Materials and Method
1.4 Results
1.5 Discussion
1.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 2: State and Development of Cotton Production in Kyrgyzstan
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Methodology
2.3 Results
2.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities in CIS Countries
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Materials and Method
3.3 Results
3.4 Discussion
3.5 Conclusions
References
Chapter 4: Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development of Agricultural Tourism Businesses
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Methods
4.3 Results
4.4 Discussion
4.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production and Living Standards of the Rural Population in Russia
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Materials and Methods
5.3 Results and Discussion
5.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North Kazakhstan Region
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Research Objects and Methods
6.3 Results and Discussion
6.4 Conclusions
References
Chapter 7: Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable Development of Social, Ecological, and Economic Systems
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Materials and Methods
7.3 Results
7.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 8: Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor Potential of Rural Areas
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Literature Review
8.3 Methodology
8.4 Results
8.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 9: Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products as an Important Aspect in the Development of the AIC
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Materials and Methods
9.3 Results
9.4 Discussion
9.5 Conclusion
References
Part 2: Russian and International Agricultural Policies for Food Security
Chapter 10: Assessment of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Materials and Methods
10.3 Results
10.4 Discussion
10.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Methodology
11.3 Results
11.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 12: Some Aspects of Food Security in the Kyrgyz Republic
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Methodology
12.3 Results
12.3.1 Physical Availability of Food
12.3.2 Economic Affordability of Food
12.4 Discussion
12.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 13: Monitoring in the Agricultural Sector, Economic Indicators of the Agricultural Sector in Cyprus
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Methodology
13.3 Results
13.3.1 Economic Indicators of Agricultural Holdings in Cyprus
13.3.2 Analysis of Production and Economic Indicators – Crop Level
13.3.3 Analysis According to the Cypriot Districts
13.4 Conclusions
References
Chapter 14: Foreign Economic Relations of the European Union Countries and Their Assessment in the Context of Implementing the New Common Agricultural Policy
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Materials and Methods
14.3 Results
14.4 Discussion
14.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 15: Development of Agricultural Cooperation as the Basis for Digitalization of the Agricultural Sector of the Kyrgyz Republic
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Materials and Methods
15.3 Results
15.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 16: The Role and Place of Russia in the World Market of Meat and Meat Products
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Materials and Methods
16.3 Results
16.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 17: Changes in Global Production and Trade of Major Tropical Fruits
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Materials and Methods
17.3 Results and Discussion
17.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 18: Factors and Trends in the Development of International Trade in Fruit and Berry Products
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Materials and Methods
18.3 Results and Discussion
18.4 Conclusion
References
Digital Agriculture as a Tool for Managing Food Crisis in the Decade of Action: Conclusion
Index

Citation preview

Elena G. Popkova Bruno S. Sergi Aleksei V. Bogoviz Elena I. Semenova   Editors

Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex

Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex

Elena G. Popkova  •  Bruno S. Sergi Aleksei V. Bogoviz  •  Elena I. Semenova Editors

Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex

Editors Elena G. Popkova Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) Moscow, Russia Aleksei V. Bogoviz Independent Researcher Moscow, Russia

Bruno S. Sergi University of Messina Messina, Italy Elena I. Semenova Federal Research Center of Agrarian Economy and Social Development of Rural Areas – All Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics Moscow, Russia

ISBN 978-3-031-27910-2    ISBN 978-3-031-27911-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The creative intent of this book is the scientific search for a promising toolkit that will make it possible to fully ensure food security. This toolkit is found in the field of digital agriculture. In organizing this book, the editorial team sought to cover international experience as fully as possible and offer comprehensive recommendations for improving food security in the Decade of Action. The book conceives to support all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), placing a special focus on SDG 2 “Zero hunger.” Thanks to the coherent efforts of the authors, this book formed a systemic approach to the sustainable development of agriculture, which includes a wide range of recommendations for state and corporate management of the development of digital agriculture. The editorial team logically comprehended and systematized the materials received from the authors. The first part of the book carefully selects studies on the organizational and technological aspects of digital agriculture. The second part of the book combines studies devoted to the organization of the marketing of food products, including in world markets. The editorial team thanks all authors who contributed chapters to this book. Special contribution was made by the members of the Consortium for Sustainable Development and Technology Leadership (Russia): Rostov State University of Economics (RSUE, Rostov-on-Don), Ufa State Petroleum Technological University (USPTU, UFA), Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University (KnASU, Komsomolskon-Amur), Minin Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University (Minin University, Nizhny Novgorod), and Institute of Scientific Communications (ISC, Volgograd). The editorial team also thanks Springer Publishing for many years of fruitful cooperation and consistently high level of organizational and technical support for the publication of scientific materials. We hope that the numerous examples of international practices disclosed in the book, in particular revealing the empirical experience of Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and other countries of the Commonwealth

v

vi

Preface

of Independent States (CIS) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), as well as the author’s scientific, methodological, and applied recommendations in the field of digital agriculture and food security, will be useful to a wide global readership and will make a practical contribution to the sustainable development of the AIC. Moscow, RussiaElena G. Popkova Messina, ItalyBruno S. Sergi Moscow, RussiaAleksei V. Bogoviz Moscow, RussiaElena I. Semenova

Sustainable and Digital Agriculture as a Basis for Developing the Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security: Introduction

Food security is a reliable pillar of the high quality of life throughout the world in developed and developing countries. In recent decades, the approach to food security has assumed a reliance on the food industry. This allowed a large amount of food to be produced, regardless of the environmental state. This fact contributed significantly to the global fight against hunger and Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2). The problem is that synthetic food created in the food industry cannot fully ensure food security because its health benefits are incomparable to organic food. Additionally, synthetic food that satisfies hunger is characterized by high caloric value. Thus, the consumption of synthetic food increases the risk of gaining excess weight. Thus, the implementation of the described approach to food security has exacerbated the situation of obesity in many countries. The popularization of a healthy lifestyle has led to the most progressive healthy living communities opting for natural and farm-grown food. It is advisable to extend their experience to societies as a whole to guarantee the best health for current and future generations. In this regard, a new approach to food security is needed, in which agriculture will play a key role. In developing a new approach, it is necessary to use contemporary organizational and management models and advanced technologies to minimize the risks of the agricultural economy. These risks include climate change, which makes large areas of agricultural land unsuitable for farming due to soil exhaustion, waterlogging, or drought. Abrupt weather changes, including unpredictable frosts, require crops to be resistant to different environmental conditions. This is achieved in digital agriculture, which relies on advanced crop and livestock technologies. Smart tools for monitoring in agriculture provide systemic coverage and continuity of control on farms, as well as intelligent decision support. Recent advances in sustainable and digital agriculture offer great promise for a new approach to food security. However, several barriers must be overcome to ensure food security. The first barrier is fragmented economic, legal, and technological support. Digital agriculture needs new models for organizing and managing the business of vii

viii

Sustainable and Digital Agriculture as a Basis for Developing…

farms. It is also necessary to fill the gaps in the legal field of digital agriculture. Government support for farms should stimulate their digital modernization through the introduction of advanced technologies. From a technical point of view, there is a shortage of ready-to-implement applications for digital agriculture. Despite the multiplicity of theoretical developments, not all of them are available and can be immediately implemented by farms; that is, their commercialization is difficult. The second barrier is the insufficient elaboration of quality management issues. In the Decade of Action, product quality can no longer be limited to standard technical characteristics that meet the interests of predominantly consumers, that is, only one stakeholder. The interests of other stakeholders, particularly society, must also be considered and satisfied. In this regard, corporate social and environmental responsibility and the implementation of sustainable development goals (SDGs) play an important role in managing product quality. First, this means that farms must strive to create comfortable working conditions and favorable conditions for the realization of the human potential of their employees. Second, it is necessary to support sustainable development and improve the quality of life in rural areas where farms operate. When managing quality, it is advisable to use digital technologies for corporate accounting and reporting. The third barrier is the incomplete integration of food security interests into the business management of farms. Belonging to private business, farms are motivated by the market to maximize profits, while food security is a non-profit-social good. A flexible and thoughtful agricultural policy is required to integrate food security interests into farm business management strategies. An important step toward the development and implementation of such a policy could be the improvement of the monitoring and management of farm performance. Criteria for evaluating performance should include food security. The fourth barrier is limited opportunities to unlock export potential and integrate farms into global value chains. On the one hand, in most cases, digital agriculture needs imported technology, equipment, and materials. On the other hand, farms must have access to global food markets to diversify markets and load their food production capacity most fully and efficiently. Economies of scale are one of those features that distinguish digital agriculture from pre-digital agriculture. Traditionally, the production capacity of organic agriculture has been considered limited (due to the link to soil fertility) and unpredictable (due to high natural and climatic risks). Digital agriculture overcomes these disadvantages. Nevertheless, it requires favorable conditions, one of which is the freedom of international trade. This book seeks to comprehensively overcome the described barriers to provide a solution to the set problem. This book seeks to study the best international practices, form systemic scientific and methodological support, and develop integrated applied solutions to unlock the potential of sustainable and digital agriculture to serve as the basis for the development of the agro-industrial complex and food security.

Sustainable and Digital Agriculture as a Basis for Developing…

ix

The novelty of this research lies in the fact that it summarizes the best international practices in the development of digital agriculture and comprehensively works on the management of the farms that represent it at the level of government and corporate governance. The book is unique in that it systemically reveals the economic, legal, and technological issues of the development of digital agriculture, providing a sound basis for integrating the interests of food security into the practices of the farms that represent it. The book has two parts. The first part is devoted to economic, legal, and technological support of quality management and sustainable development in the digital agro-industrial complex based on the best international practices. The second part explores and discusses Russian and international agricultural policies for food security. This section covers issues of monitoring and performance management, agricultural policy and food security, international trade, and industrial cooperation in the agro-industrial complex. The primary target audience for this book is scholars involved in studying problems of the agricultural economy and food security. In this book, they will find promising solutions to these problems through the development of digital agriculture. The secondary target audience for the book is farmers who represent or are transitioning to digital agriculture. For this group, the book reveals the best international practices and offers applied recommendations for managing the quality and efficiency of digital agriculture. The book will also be of interest to government regulators of the agricultural economy, who will find practical recommendations for improving food security management through the development of digital agriculture. Moscow, Russia Messina, Italy Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia

Elena G. Popkova Bruno S. Sergi Aleksei V. Bogoviz Elena I. Semenova

Contents

Part 1 Economic, Legal, and Technological Support of Quality Management and Sustainable Development in the Digital Agro-Industrial Complex 1

Sustainable Development of Agro-­industrial Complex and Food Security Through Digital Agriculture: Contribution of Robots, Big Data, and AI��������������������������������������������������������������������    3 Elena G. Popkova

2

 State and Development of Cotton Production in Kyrgyzstan��������������   11 Murat Zh. Abdiev, Kubanych K. Toktorov, Omurbek R. Imaraliev, Akimzhan K. Ismailov, and Aida Zh. Bekboeva

3

Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities in CIS Countries ��������������������������������������������   17 Nikolay G. Romanenko, Tatiana V. Shatkovskaya, Tatiana V. Epifanova, and Galina B. Vlasova

4

 Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development of Agricultural Tourism Businesses��������������������������������   27 Elena I. Makrinova, Elena V. Matuzenko, Alina P. Sotnik, and Andrey I. Kostennikov

5

Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production and Living Standards of the Rural Population in Russia����������������������������������������������������������   37 Arif G. Ibragimov, Rafail R. Mukhametzyanov, Vyacheslav G. Borulko, Gulnara K. Dzhancharova, and Yuliya A. Bovina

xi

xii

Contents

6

Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North Kazakhstan Region ����������������������������������������   45 Bakytkan D. Dauletbakov, Galym B. Dauletbakov, Altynay B. Assanova, Laura E. Massanova, and Zhanna A. Makisheva

7

Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable Development of Social, Ecological, and Economic Systems����������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 Valentina A. Kundius and Oksana V. Sergienko

8

Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor Potential of Rural Areas ��������������������   61 Gulmira I. Nurzhanova, Aitolkyn T. Tleubayeva, Shakizada U. Niyazbekova, Akylbek A. Ilyas, and Leila А. Maisigova

9

Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products as an Important Aspect in the Development of the AIC����������������������������������������������������������������   69 Tatiana V. Biryukova, Tatyana I. Ashmarina, Natalya A. Yagudaeva, Andrey N. Romanov, and Ekaterina F. Malykha

Part 2 Russian and International Agricultural Policies for Food Security 10 Assessment  of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming ������������������������������   79 Yulia V. Reshetkina, Lyubov B. Vinnichek, and Olga A. Stolyarova 11 The  Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 Tatiana V. Kolesnikova 12 Some  Aspects of Food Security in the Kyrgyz Republic����������������������   97 Torogul N. Bekov, Natalia A. Borisenko, Sofia Zh. Kozubekova, Natalia V. Murzalieva, and Saltanat S. Derkenbaeva 13 Monitoring  in the Agricultural Sector, Economic Indicators of the Agricultural Sector in Cyprus������������������������������������������������������  105 Aleksandra Figurek, Panayiota Markou, and Marinos Markou 14 Foreign  Economic Relations of the European Union Countries and Their Assessment in the Context of Implementing the New Common Agricultural Policy ��������������������������������������������������  123 Tatiana S. Malakhova, Diana M. Madiyarova, Dina B. Kanagatova, and Penka Shishmanova

Contents

xiii

15 Development  of Agricultural Cooperation as the Basis for Digitalization of the Agricultural Sector of the Kyrgyz Republic����������������������������������������������������������������������������  133 Dinar N. Kozhomkulova, Gulnara O. Oganova, Nurzat O. Adylbekova, Taalaigyl B. Ashymbaeva, and Altynai A. Shergazieva 16 The  Role and Place of Russia in the World Market of Meat and Meat Products ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 Vera A. Tikhomirova 17 Changes  in Global Production and Trade of Major Tropical Fruits������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  147 Rafail R. Mukhametzyanov, Tatiana V. Ostapchuk, Turmushbek M. Dzhancharov, Natalya N. Ivantsova, and Elena N. Vasileva 18 Factors  and Trends in the Development of International Trade in Fruit and Berry Products��������������������������������������������������������  155 Rafail R. Mukhametzyanov, Turmushbek M. Dzhancharov, Akhmed M. Khezhev, Lyudmila A. Sviridova, and Dmitry V. Snegirev Digital Agriculture as a Tool for Managing Food Crisis in the Decade of Action: Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������  163 Digital Agriculture as a Tool for Managing Food Crisis in the Decade of Action: Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������  163 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  165

Part 1

Economic, Legal, and Technological Support of Quality Management and Sustainable Development in the Digital Agro-Industrial Complex

Chapter 1

Sustainable Development of Agro-­industrial Complex and Food Security Through Digital Agriculture: Contribution of Robots, Big Data, and AI Elena G. Popkova

1.1 Introduction Food security achieved through the sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex (AIC) is important for the stability of socio-economic systems. For many countries, the sustainable development of the AIC means the full satisfaction of domestic demand for food and the realization of the AIC’s export potential. In the Decade of Action, the problem of sustainable development of the AIC and food security has become acute for two main reasons. First, world economic relations have been changing since 2020 under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, as well as the general global transformation of value chains. On the one hand, this complicates access to food for countries that depend on imports, which can lead to shortages and higher prices. On the other hand, it limits the marketing possibilities of the food produced for countries specializing in its export. Second, the manifestations of global climate change have become even more serious. They largely determine productivity, production capacity, and entrepreneurial risks in the AIC and agriculture. The established approach to managing the agricultural economy assumes a separate fight against these manifestations of the problem. Foreign trade is regulated to develop world economic relations in the field of the agricultural economy. For climate risk management in agriculture, agricultural technologies are adapted to climatic conditions, and inorganic (climate-independent) agriculture is developed. The established approach only reduces the acuteness of the problem posed. However, it does not provide a full-scale solution, the uncertainty of which is a gap E. G. Popkova (*) Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_1

3

4

E. G. Popkova

in the literature. The research aims to explore the prospects for sustainable development of the AIC and food security based on digital agriculture.

1.2 Literature Review The theoretical basis of this research is the concept of the agricultural economy. The issues of sustainable development of the AIC and food security are studied and disclosed in detail in numerous published works of Shevyakova and Petrenko [12], Stepnov et al. [13], and Troyanskaya et al. [15]. Fundamental and applied issues of digital agriculture are reflected in the works of Garnov et  al. [2], Popkova [7], Popkova [9], and Popkova and Sergi [10]. Nevertheless, there remains uncertainty about the prospects for sustainable AIC and food security based on digital agriculture, which is a gap in the literature. This raises the following research questions (RQs): How does digital agriculture based on advanced technology contribute to the sustainable AIC? Can the development of digital agriculture ensure food security in a Decade of Action? Based on the available literature, which noted the benefits of advanced technologies (robots [5], big data, and artificial intelligence (AI) [1, 4]) in the development of the agricultural economy, the author hypothesizes that these advanced technologies contribute to the sustainable development of agriculture and food security. To fill the identified research gap, find answers to the RQs, and test the hypothesis, the author assesses the contribution of robots, big data, and AI to the sustainable development of the AIC and food security using econometric modeling.

1.3 Materials and Method The research relies on a mathematical apparatus to obtain the most accurate and reliable results. Using regression analysis, the author models the contribution of robots, big data, and AI to sustainable AIC and food security. Authoritative and reliable statistical reports in the public domain served as the information and empirical base of this research. The resulting variables are as follows: 1. Global Food Security Index 2022 (y1) from the materials of The Economist Intelligent Unit [14]; 2. SDG 2 Score (y2) by the end of 2022 from the materials of UNDP [11]. The factor variables are as follows: 1. Industrial robots per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry (x1) from the materials of the International Federation of Robotics [6]; 2. Use of big data and analytics 2022 (x2) form the materials of IMD [3].

1  Sustainable Development of Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security…

E. Europe & C. Asia, 2

Sub-Saharan Africa, 1

5

OECD, Asia, 2 OECD, Oceania, 2

OECD, South America, 1 OECD, Africa, 1

East & South Asia, 7

OECD, Europe, 18

OECD, North America, 2 Fig. 1.1  Economic and geographic structure of the research sample. (Source: Calculated and compiled by the author)

The criterion for selecting statistics was the absence of gaps in the data, resulting in a coherent dataset published in the public domain in Mendeley Data [8]. The sample included 38 countries. The representativeness of the data is evidenced by the sample’s diversified economic and geographic structure (Fig. 1.1). As shown in Fig. 1.1, the sample includes countries from different geographic regions, as well as countries with different income levels and different rates of economic growth and socio-economic development. The sample mainly includes OECD countries located in Europe (47.37%). The share of East and South Asia is also high (18.42%). The study is conducted for the year 2022. The reliability of econometric models is evaluated using Fisher’s F-test.

1.4 Results As a result of regression analysis of data from the dataset [8], the author obtained the following econometric model:



y1  68.1082  0.4661 x1  0.0179 x 2   y 2  63.4322  0.0302 x 2

(1.1)

According to the resulting model (1), when industrial robots per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry increase by 1, the Global Food Security Index increases by 0.0179 points, and the SDG 2 Score increases by 0.0302 points. When

6

E. G. Popkova

Table 1.1  Regression analysis of the dependence of the food security index on robots, big data, and AI in 2022 Regression statistics Multiple R 0.3715 Standard error 6.3900 Observations 38 Variance analysis df Regression 2 Residual 35 Total 37 Parameters of the regression model Coefficients Constant x1 x2

68.1082 0.4661 0.0179

SS

MS

F

228.7829 1429.1279 1657.9108

114.3915 40.8322

2.8015

Standard error 6.3054 1.1921 0.0078

t-statistics P-value 10.8015 0.3910 2.2820

1.1*10−12 0.6982 0.0287

Significance F 0.0744

Lower 95% 55.3075 −1.9541 0.0020

Upper 95% 80.9089 2.8862 0.0337

Source: Calculated and compiled by the author

Table 1.2  Regression analysis of the dependence of the sustainable development of the AIC on robots in 2022 Regression statistics Multiple R 0.5699 Standard error 5.9525 Observations 38 Variance analysis df SS Regression 1 613.4841 Residual 36 1275.5517 Total 37 1889.0358 Parameters of the regression model Coefficients Standard error Constant 63.4322 1.2910 x2 0.0302 0.0073

MS 613.4841 35.4320

F Significance F 17.3144 0.0002

t-statistics P-value Lower 95% 49.1349 0.0000 60.8140 4.1611 0.0002 0.0155

Upper 95% 66.0504 0.0449

Source: Calculated and compiled by the author

the use of big data and analytics increases by one point, the Global Food Security Index increases by 0.4661 points. Detailed characteristics of the regression analysis are shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2.

7

1  Sustainable Development of Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security…

Table 1.1 shows that the 37.15% change in the food security index is due to the change in the level of development of robots, big data, and AI in 2022. The significance of F was 0.0744. Consequently, the first equation in the regression model corresponds to a significance level of 0.1. At a given level of significance, the tabular F is 2.4609. The observed F is 2.8015, exceeding the tabular F.  Therefore, Fisher’s F-test is passed; the equation is reliable at the 0.1 significance level. Table 1.2 shows that the 56.99% change in the SDG 2 Score is due to the change in robot development in 2022. The significance of F was 0.0002. Consequently, the first equation in the regression model corresponds to a significance level of 0.01. At a given level of significance, the tabular F is 12.8318. The observed F is 17.3144, exceeding the tabular F. Therefore, Fisher’s F-test is passed; the equation is reliable at the 0.01 significance level.

1.5 Discussion The contribution of the research to the literature consists in the development of scientific provisions of the concept of the agricultural economy through clarification of cause-effect relationships of sustainable development of the AIC and ensuring food security based on digital agriculture. The author uses the econometric model (1) to define prospects and recommendations for sustainable development of agriculture and food security based on robots, big data, and AI in the Decade of Action (Fig. 1.2). To maximize the Global Food Security Index (an increase of 1.38 times from 2022) and SDG 2 Score (an increase of 1.49 times) in the Decade of Action, the following is recommended: 1400.00 1200.00 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00

12.00

1212 10.26

8.00

4.20

5.24

21.99

10.00

1.38 118

72.66

100.00

1.49 67.00 100.00

6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00

Use of big data and Industrial robots analytics 2022 per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry 2016

Global Food Security Index 2022

SDG Goal 2 Score

Value in 2022 Recommended value Recommended increase in value, times compared to 2022

Fig. 1.2  Prospects and recommendations for sustainable development of the AIC and food security based on robots, big data, and AI in the Decade of Action. Source Calculated and compiled by the author

8

E. G. Popkova

• To increase the use of big data and analytics by 4.20 times (from 5.24 points in 2022 to 21.99 points); • To increase the number of industrial robots per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry by 10.26 times (from 118 in 2022 to 1212).

1.6 Conclusion The research has answered the posed research question and demonstrated that digital agriculture based on advanced technologies (robots, big data, and AI) significantly contributes to the sustainable development of the AIC (determines it by 37.15%) and food security (determines it by 56.99%). Therefore, the research hypothesis is proven. The development of digital agriculture can fully ensure the sustainable development of agriculture and food security in the Decade of Action, for which the author’s recommendations for developing robots, big data, and AI are offered. The theoretical significance of the research lies in the fact that it proposes a new approach to managing the agricultural economy based on digital agriculture. The advantage of the new approach compared to the existing one is that it allows us to systemically address the causes of aggravation of the problem of sustainable development of agriculture and food security in the Decade of Action. Climate-smart technologies for digital agriculture (i.e., robots, big data, and AI) guarantee high productivity, reduce the climate risks of agricultural entrepreneurship, and promote organic agriculture. Advanced digital technologies also enable the optimization of value chains with the participation of the agricultural enterprises themselves. The practical and social significance of the research is due to the fact that it supports the practical implementation of SDG 2. Acknowledgments  All of the materials cited in this article are developments of the Consortium for Sustainable Development and Technological Leadership (Russia), which includes: • • • •

Rostov State University of Economics (RSUE, RINH, Rostov-on-Don); Ufa State Petroleum Technological University (USPTU, Ufa); Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University (KNASTU, Komsomolsk-na-Amure); Minin Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University (Minin University, Nizhny Novgorod); • Institute of Scientific Communications (ISC, Volgograd).References to the Consortium for Sustainable Development and Technological Leadership are required when using these materials: https://iscvolga.ru/проекты.

1  Sustainable Development of Agro-industrial Complex and Food Security…

9

References 1. Bhat, S.  A., & Huang, N.-F. (2021). Big data and AI revolution in precision agriculture: Survey and challenges. IEEE Access, 9, 110209–110222. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2021.3102227 2. Garnov, A. P., Garnova, V. Y., Shabaltina, L. V., Begishev, I. R., & Panferova, L. V. (2020). New opportunities for the digital economy: The implementation of an effective state innovation policy. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(4), 1321–1325. https://doi. org/10.47277/JETT/8(4)1325 3. IMD. (2022). World Competitiveness online. Retrieved from https://worldcompetitiveness. imd.org/customsearchresults/criteriaresult. Accessed 2 Dec 2022. 4. Jain, N., & Awasthi, Y. (2019). WSN-AI based cloud computing architectures for energy efficient climate smart agriculture with big data analysis. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 8(1–2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.30534/ ijatcse/2019/1581.22019 5. Moysiadis, V., Katikaridis, D., Benos, L., Busato, P., Anagnostis, A., Kateris, D., et al. (2022). An integrated real-time hand gesture recognition framework for human–robot interaction in agriculture. Applied Sciences, 12(16), 8160. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168160 6. Nafría, I. (2018, May 2). Ranking of countries according to the density of industrial robots. Retrieved from https://www.thenewbarcelonapost.com/en/ranking-­of-­countries-­according-­to-­ the-­density-­of-­industrial-­robots/. Accessed 2 Dec 2022. 7. Popkova, E.  G. (2022a). Case study of smart innovation in agriculture on the example of a vertical farm. In E.  G. Popkova & B.  S. Sergi (Eds.), Smart innovation in agriculture (pp. 303–309). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­16-­7633-­8_34 8. Popkova, E.  G. (2022b). Agro-industrial complex (AIC) sustainable development and food security powered by robots, Big Data, and AI in digital agriculture. Mendeley Data, V1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17632/xrt2zj6bkz.1. 9. Popkova, E. G. (2022c). Vertical farms based on hydroponics, deep learning, and AI as smart innovation in agriculture. In E. G. Popkova & B. S. Sergi (Eds.), Smart innovation in agriculture (pp. 257–262). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­16-­7633-­8_28 10. Popkova, E. G., & Sergi, B. S. (2022). High-tech economic growth from the standpoint of the theory of economic time: Modelling and reducing space-time inequality. In E. I. Inshakova & A. O. Inshakova (Eds.), New technology for inclusive and sustainable growth (pp. 15–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­16-­9804-­0_2 11. Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable development report 2022: From crisis to sustainable development: The SDGs as roadmap to 2030 and beyond. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/downloads. Accessed 2 Dec 2022 12. Shevyakova, A., & Petrenko, E. (2018). Threats to the security of a country: Revealing negative trends in the development of human capital. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 8(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.9770/JSSI.2018.8.2(14) 13. Stepnov, I. M., Kovalchuk, J. A., Melnik, M. V., & Petrovic, T. (2022). Public goals and government expenditures: Are the solutions of the “modern monetary theory” realistic? Finance: Theory and Practice, 26(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2022-26-3-6-18 14. The Economist Intelligent Unit. (2022). Global Food Security Index 2022. Retrieved from https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-­security-­index/download-­the-­index. Accessed 2 Dec 2022. 15. Troyanskaya, M.  A., Ostrovskiy, V.  I., Litvinova, T.  N., Matkovskaya, Y.  S., & Bogoviz, A. V. (2017). Possibilities and perspectives for activation of sales in the agricultural machinery market within sectorial development of Russian and European economies. In E. G. Popkova (Ed.), Overcoming uncertainty of institutional environment as a tool of global crisis management (pp. 473–480). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­60696-­5_60

Chapter 2

State and Development of Cotton Production in Kyrgyzstan Murat Zh. Abdiev , Kubanych K. Toktorov , Omurbek R. Imaraliev Akimzhan K. Ismailov , and Aida Zh. Bekboeva

,

2.1 Introduction Currently, cotton production is considered a key sector of agricultural production in the world economy due to its importance in the processing and food industries as a raw material base for the clothing industry and in ensuring the country’s food security. Cotton production in the Kyrgyz Republic is the basis of the agricultural economy in the southern part of the country (the Jalal-Abad, Osh, and Batken Regions). During the Soviet period, cotton production in the Kyrgyz Republic developed in a science-based way on collective and state farms with a high level of mechanization of production processes. At that time, a well-developed system of seed growing and experimental research farms in cotton production was organized. Cotton production was one of the main parts of the country’s agro-industrial complex; the production of cotton fiber and other products for the country’s economy was a priority. Before Kyrgyzstan’s independence, the country produced 3.4% of the cotton fiber in the Soviet Union [5, 8]. The southern part of the country is traditionally considered an agricultural zone. Nowadays, this part of the country has its own specialization in crop production. M. Zh. Abdiev (*) Osh Technological University named after A. Adyshev, Osh, Kyrgyzstan K. K. Toktorov · O. R. Imaraliev Osh State University, Osh, Kyrgyzstan A. K. Ismailov Kyrgyz-Uzbek International University named after B. Sydykov, Osh, Kyrgyzstan A. Zh. Bekboeva Zh. Alyshbayev Institute of Economics of the National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_2

11

12

M. Zh. Abdiev et al.

Raw cotton is the main technical crop in the agriculture of the Kyrgyz Republic. Currently, the share of raw cotton under crops is 35.9% of the total sown area of industrial crops [7]. Since 1996, there has been a growth of sown areas of raw cotton in the country. However, in 2009, sown areas of raw cotton reduced to 16.9 thousand hectares, which was affected by the global financial crisis and the fall in raw cotton prices. In 2011, this indicator reached 37.4 thousand hectares, which is 4.6 thousand hectares less compared to 2001–2005. The share of cotton production in the structure of gross agricultural output is 2.7%; in the cotton-growing zone in the southern part of the country, the share is about 6.0%. The problems of improving the competitiveness of the agro-industrial complex of the Kyrgyz Republic, including cotton production in different periods, are deeply covered in the works of Kyrgyz scientists: T. K. Koichuev, Sh. M. Musakozhoev, T. K. Kamchybekov, Zh. S. Dzhailov, K. A. Abdymalikov, Zh. Zh. Zhumabayev, K. A. Atyshov, K. Sh. Toktomamatov, M. Zh. Abdiev, and others [1–4, 6, 9, 11– 16, 18–19].

2.2 Methodology Based on the research, we can determine that the cotton production in the Kyrgyz Republic has not adapted to the current favorable conditions of the world cotton market, which leads to a decrease in competitiveness. The reasons for this situation are the small peasant structure of raw cotton production, the underdevelopment of the cotton processing industry, and the lack of deep processing of raw cotton. To overcome these factors, it is necessary to stimulate the development of cooperation and integration on a cluster basis. In the literature, there are many methods for assessing the condition and level of development of cotton production, most of which are based on the method of comparison and economic-statistical analysis. Using the method of comparison and economic-statistical analysis, the authors determined the level of condition and development of cotton growing in the Kyrgyz Republic and the comparative efficiency of raw cotton production in the south of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2020.

2.3 Results Until 2005, cotton production was considered a steadily growing sub-sector of agriculture of the Kyrgyz Republic. Thus, the average annual growth rate of raw cotton production in 2001–2005 was 8.0%, which was significantly higher than the industry average growth rate (3.5%–4.0%). In 2006, the highest volume of raw cotton production was 117.5 thousand tons. However, the volume of raw cotton production fell sharply in the following years, and the sub-industry developed at an

2  State and Development of Cotton Production in Kyrgyzstan

13

unsustainable rate. In 2020, the production of raw cotton in the Kyrgyz Republic amounted to 72.8 thousand tons and decreased by 34.2% compared to the same period in 2005 [17]. The share of sown area of cotton in the Jalal-Abad Region is 55.7%, in the Osh Region  – 43.7%, and in the Batken Region  – 0.5%. Accordingly, the Jalal-Abad Region produces 61.9%, the Osh Region produces 37.6%, and the Batken Region produces 0.6% of total cotton production. The low level of cotton yields is due to the low level of agricultural technology and the use of substandard seeds. The reason for the low yield of raw cotton is the small size of land areas and small contour production. These factors negatively affect the use of innovative cultivation technologies and regionalized high-yield varieties of raw cotton. According to the experience of developed countries that grow cotton, it is evidenced that adhering to the appropriate agricultural techniques of its cultivation can significantly increase its yields. For example, in the PRC, yields averaged 37.4 metric centners per ha, and in Brazil  – 40.0 metric centners per ha. Despite the volatility of raw cotton yields, there are reserves to increase in the future. The economic conditions of agricultural producers in the southern region, particularly in the Jalal-Abad and the Osh Regions, allow using innovative production technologies to increase cotton yield significantly. At an average cotton yield of 25.2 metric centners per ha, advanced farms have yields as high as 35–38 metric centners per ha. Despite the favorable market conditions for cotton products in the country, there is a tendency to reduce the cultivated areas of raw cotton. According to the analysis, over the past decade, the size of the sown area under cotton has decreased by 4.6 thousand hectares. In terms of share, this indicator equaled 3.8% in 2000 and decreased to 3.2% in 2020. Smallholder farming structure combined with small land holdings limits the possibility of improving the efficiency of the sub-sector and will lead to changes in the organization of land use [10]. In the cotton-growing zone in the southern part of the Kyrgyz Republic, the number of peasant (farm) enterprises is increasing, but the area of land used in them is decreasing [17]. The slow pace of development of cotton production is also characterized by the shallow marketability of farm production. The negative impact on the development of cotton production is caused by the prevalence of extensive forms of farming, non-compliance with the agricultural technology of its cultivation and science-based crop rotations, and the use of substandard seeds. Currently, cotton-growing farms are only 50.0% supplied with conditioned seeds. Varieties of Chinese selection, local varieties “Kyrgyzstan-3” and “Kyrgyzstan-5,” and varieties of Uzbek selection are mostly used for sowing. To meet the needs of cotton-growing farms for seeds, it is necessary to develop their own seed base. To encourage cotton-growing farms to use conditioned seed

14

M. Zh. Abdiev et al.

varieties, it is necessary to introduce the practice of subsidizing a certain portion of seed costs. Non-compliance with agricultural practices in cotton cultivation is mainly due to a chronic shortage of machinery and technical means. There is a completely low level of mechanization of production processes, and de-mechanization of fieldwork occurs. Only 5%–7% of raw cotton is harvested using mechanization. Most of the cotton harvesting machines are worn out. There is an acute shortage of cotton harvesters. Due to the high cost of specialized equipment, it is virtually inaccessible to cotton producers. Simultaneously, the system providing the necessary equipment for leasing is poorly developed in the country’s south. At present, it is possible to increase raw cotton production by increasing yields. This requires the observance of crop rotation, the right approach to the cultivation of this crop, agricultural technology, and, accordingly, equipment. The above-­ mentioned measures for growing cotton are only possible through the integration and consolidation of farms. The research results show that it is necessary to create an appropriate infrastructure, which includes the provision of cotton farms with mineral fertilizers, considering the needs of cotton farms, as well as a comprehensive analysis of the fertility of agricultural lands. Simultaneously, the government focuses on the efforts to reduce the cost of fertilizers through government subsidies. An important measure is the formation of machine and technology stations of agro-service centers and advanced services to combat pests and diseases on a public-private basis with subsequent privatization. The conditions of the cotton market create certain favorable circumstances for increasing the competitiveness of raw cotton production, indicating a comparatively high economic efficiency of production compared to other crops in the country’s south (Table 2.1). Table 2.1 Comparative efficiency of raw cotton production in the south of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2020

Total costs, Regions KGS/ha Jalal-Abad region: Cotton 103,220 Wheat 30,420 Potato 119,940 Osh region: Cotton 109,860 Wheat 30,295 Potato 128,370

Yield, metric centners per ha

Cost price, 1 metric center/ KGS

Price realization, 1 metric center/ KGS

Revenue from sales, KGS/ metric center

Profit, KGS/ metric center

Profitability, %

28 23 140

2232 1420 860

60 1450 975

159,500 33,210 130,720

56,280 2790 10,780

54.5 9.2 8.9

27 23 152

4184 1323 845

61 1425 975

147,010 31,853 141,651

37,150 1558 13,281

33.8 5.1 10.3

Source: Developed by the authors based on the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic [17].

2  State and Development of Cotton Production in Kyrgyzstan

15

As can be seen from Table 2.1, the production of raw cotton, compared to other labor-intensive crops, is the most profitable and efficient. The level of profitability of raw cotton production is almost 6–7 times higher than the profitability of wheat and 5–6 times higher than the profitability of potato. The profit received from the sale of a unit of raw cotton is also several times higher compared to wheat and potato. The economic indicators of raw cotton production in the Jalal-Abad Region are much higher than in the Osh Region, which is explained by more favorable economic conditions for raw cotton production. Agricultural production cooperatives are larger in terms of land use. On average, the size of the cultivated land area in cooperatives is about 120–130 hectares. According to this indicator, cooperatives can be classified as medium-sized agricultural enterprises. The concentration of land allows agricultural producers to apply more advanced techniques of agricultural engineering, which affects the growth of cotton yields. Cotton yields in these farms exceed 35 metric centners per ha, which is significantly higher than regional rates (25.0–26.0 metric centners per ha). Naturally, a positive impact on the economic performance of these farms has their chosen form of economic management – agricultural production cooperative, which creates additional incentives for the rational use of their production potential. The advantage of this organizational-legal form of doing business in the agricultural sector is expressed in the personal labor participation of members of the cooperative, in the level of personal interest of members in the effectiveness of its activities, and in a fair distribution of income received from production activities. These features of cooperative production make it possible to most rationally combine the labor skills of cotton growers with the concentration of limited resources. It is now a more effective form of doing business in the agricultural sector than small peasant (farm) enterprises. Unlike peasant (farm) enterprises, the advantages of cooperative agricultural enterprises include the ability to accumulate existing potential in the course of agricultural work, as well as the use of advanced technology. Cooperatives can quickly respond to changes in the cotton market situation, which is associated with a higher level of marketability of production and sales of products without intermediaries.

2.4 Conclusion Thus, the size of the optimal land plot for cotton cultivation in the southern part of the Kyrgyz Republic for medium-sized cotton-growing farms is 50 hectares; for large farms, this indicator is more than 100 hectares. Given the fact that more than 10 thousand peasant farms in the southern part of the Kyrgyz Republic specialize in cotton growing, 80% of which have land plots of 1–3 hectares, it is difficult to assess the importance of developing agricultural cooperation in cotton production as the most significant factor in increasing the competitiveness of the industry. In this regard, to prospectively improve this sub-industry and increase its competitiveness,

16

M. Zh. Abdiev et al.

it is necessary to solve organizational and economic issues related to the concentration of cotton production based on cooperation, which will create prerequisites for modernization of the industry, transforming it into a highly efficient and competitive production based on mutually beneficial cooperation with the cotton processing industry.

References 1. Abdiev, M. Z. (2017). Main directions of agro-food policy of the Kyrgyz Republic in the context of the Eurasian economic union. Society and Economy, 3(4), 132–137. 2. Abdiev, M.  Z., & Esenbayev, N.  S. (2017). Competitiveness in export-oriented sectors of Kyrgyzstan’s agro-industrial complex. Bishkek. 3. Abdiev, M. Z., Bekboeva, A. Z., & Mamytov, B. M. (2019). Improvement of integration in the agro-industrial sector of the Kyrgyz Republic. Economy and Business: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.24411/2411-­0450-­2019-­10808 4. Abdiev, M. Z., Mametova, G. A., & Batyr uulu, A. (2021). Improvement of innovation and investment mechanism in agriculture of the Kyrgyz Republic. Innovative Development of Economy, 5(65), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.51832/2223-­7984202157 5. Abdymalikov, K. A., & Zhumabaev, Z. (2012). Agricultural Economics. Bijiktik. 6. Atyshov, K.  A. (2012). Agricultural development  – The basis for solving the food crisis. Bulletin of the Karaganda University. Economy Series, 3, 25–30. 7. Baimuratov, A. A., & Abdiev, M. Z. (2020). Problems of improving the efficiency of agricultural production in the Kyrgyz Republic. Alatoo Academic Studies, 3, 270–277. https://doi. org/10.17015/aas.2020.203.32 8. Dzhailov, D. S. (2016). Economic development and opportunities for economic integration in Central Asia. Reformation, 4, 8–14. 9. Dzhailov, D. S., Mardalieva, L. A., & Kojomkulova, A. K. (2017). Development and competitiveness of the agrarian sector of the Kyrgyz Republic in conditions of economic integration. Vestnik of the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University K.I. Scriabin, 4(45), 24–32. 10. Kaliev, G.  A. (2013). Relevant problems of development of the agro-industrial complex of Kazakhstan. Kazakh Research Institute of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development. 11. Kamchybekov, T. K., & Azhekbarov, A. K. (2017). Main directions of the Eurasian integration. Entrepreneur’s Guide, 35, 165–172. 12. Kamchybekov, T. K., & Mustafakulova, B. R. (2016). Role of the state in ensuring favorable investment climate. Vestnik of the M. Ryskulbekov Kyrgyz Economic University, 4(38), 68–173. 13. Koichuev, T.  K. (2012). On the path of the innovative development model. Reformation, 7, 67–71. 14. Musakozhoev, S. M. (2017). Strategy of innovative development of the Kyrgyz Republic until 2040. Economic Bulletin, 3, 9–58. 15. Musakozhoev, S. M. (2018). Accelerating regional development through the creation of economic regions. Economic Bulletin, 3, 5–14. 16. Musakozhoev, S. M., Kamchybekov, T. K., & Zhaparov, A. U. (2016). Kyrgyzstan’s economy in 25 years (problems and development prospects). Turar. 17. National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021). Agriculture of the Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek. Retrieved from http://www.stat.kg/en/statistics/selskoe-­hozyajstvo/. Accessed 20 Oct 2021 18. Toktomamatov, K. S., Abdiev, M. Z., & Toktorov, K. K. (2017). Foreign practice of increasing agrarian sector competitiveness. Economy and Business: Theory and Practice, 4-1, 169–171. 19. Zhumabayev, Z. (2012). Prospective areas of integration in agriculture. Vestnik of the Kyrgyz-­ Russian Slavic University, 12(4), 35–37.

Chapter 3

Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities in CIS Countries Nikolay G. Romanenko, Tatiana V. Shatkovskaya and Galina B. Vlasova

, Tatiana V. Epifanova

,

3.1 Introduction The sustainability of the ecosystem on our planet is impossible without the stable development of beekeeping. Bees provide a high level of natural diversity on the planet. Biodiversity is the main parameter characterizing the state of the ecosystem and the biosphere. Therefore, this parameter serves as a qualitative criterion of the effectiveness of the environmental policy of any country that seeks to ensure the conservation of its biological resources, thereby guaranteeing sustainable economic development [1]. Paragraph 1 of the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action (November 13, 1996) [2] stresses the need for urgent action to combat the erosion of biodiversity. In 2000, the United Nations Environment Program approved an international initiative for the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators, the most important of which are bees. Similar initiatives have been approved for Europe, North America, Africa, Oceania, and Brazil; international scientific committees on pollinators have been established. At the 75th UN General Assembly Summit on Biodiversity, held in New York on December 21, 2020, world leaders acknowledged that none of the strategic conservation goals had been fully achieved in ten years [3]. Therefore, it is urgent to take real and effective measures to prevent the destruction of existing ecosystems N. G. Romanenko · T. V. Shatkovskaya (*) · G. B. Vlasova Rostov State University of Economics, Rostov-on-Don, Russia South-Russian Institute of Management – Branch of RANEPA, Rostov-on-Don, Russia T. V. Epifanova Rostov State University of Economics, Rostov-on-Don, Russia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_3

17

18

N. G. Romanenko et al.

and, above all, to ensure the conservation of pollinators, including honeybees, which perform the key ecosystem function of pollination. Currently, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and partners in the International Pollinator Conservation and Sustainable Use Initiative have developed tools and guidelines for conducting rapid pollinator assessment, economic evaluation of pollinator value, pesticide risk assessment, pollinator deficiency assessment, evaluation of pollinator conserving practices, and policy actualization [4]. The negative state of regulated pollinators and the entire field of beekeeping worldwide has required changes in management approaches and legal regulations. Thus, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, EU countries [5], Japan, the USA, the UK [6], Brazil, Argentina, and India [7] took emergency management measures and introduced rather strict legal regulation to protect pollinators and develop beekeeping. The above-mentioned allows the authors to formulate the purpose of this research, which is to identify the potential of model lawmaking as a way of legal provision of stable development of beekeeping activities at the regional level on the example of member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The research proves the hypothesis that harmonization of beekeeping protection at the international level is necessary under conditions of transnational development of civil turnover. This is achieved by increasing the legal significance of the acts of international unions, including the CIS, and implementing their main provisions in the legislation of member countries.

3.2 Materials and Method The authors applied the methodology of studying the legislation of the CIS countries, law-application practice, and norms of international law in the field of beekeeping. To implement the purpose of this research, the authors carried out a scientific study of the current legislation of the CIS countries. As part of this study, performed using the methods of critical analysis, synthesis, comparative-legal, system-­ structural, and functional methods, the authors studied the national legislation of 11 CIS countries.

3.3 Results The research analyzed the legal regulation of beekeeping in CIS countries. The results of the analysis are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Table 3.1  Comparative legal analysis of beekeeping regulation in the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and the Republic of Moldova Level of legal regulation Republic of Azerbaijan Order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On stimulation of beekeeping development in the Republic of Azerbaijan” (March 5, 2018) [8] Republic of Armenia Law of the Republic of Armenia “On beekeeping” (March 19, 2009) [9]

Republic of Belarus It is regulated by the Veterinary and sanitary rules for veterinary disinfection, which were approved by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus in 2013 [10]. It is also regulated by the Veterinary and sanitary rules for keeping bees [11] and GOSTs Republic of Kazakhstan Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “About beekeeping” (March 12, 2002 No. 303-II) [12]

Kyrgyz Republic Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic “On measures to develop beekeeping in the Kyrgyz Republic” (June 16, 1997 No. 355) [13] Republic of Moldova Law of Moldova “About beekeeping” (March 30, 2006 No. 70-XVI) [15]

Source: Developed by the authors

Identified legal problems Individuals and legal entities involved in beekeeping are entitled to receive a 10-manat subsidy (one manat equals 45.77 rubles) annually for each bee family. It is necessary to adopt a law “On beekeeping.” The law contains norms on ecological beekeeping. It is necessary to include in the law norms about the right of ownership of descended or hatching families and develop a mechanism to protect beekeepers’ rights in case of property damage. It is necessary to include norms about the free movement of beekeeping products within the CIS and other countries. There is no law on beekeeping. It is necessary to adopt a law “On beekeeping.”

It regulates the protection of bees in their natural habitat and enshrines the protection of bees in the application of plant protection products, mineral fertilizers, and other preparations. It is necessary to implement the provisions of the model law “On beekeeping” in the field of the legal protection of beekeeping resources to fix the basis for the protection of beekeepers’ rights, consumers of bee products, and forms of association of beekeepers. The draft law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On beekeeping” was developed and approved [14]. It is necessary to adopt a law “On beekeeping.”

Recent laws on the development of beekeeping; all conditions have been created to increase the quantity, improve the quality of bee products, and sell bee products within the CIS and international markets. National program for the development of apiculture in the Republic of Moldova for 2021–2025 and Action Plan for 2021–2022 for its implementation (October 21, 2020 No. 768) [16].

20

N. G. Romanenko et al.

Table 3.2  Comparative legal analysis of the regulation of beekeeping in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Turkmenistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, and Ukraine Level of legal regulation Russian Federation Federal law “About beekeeping in the Russian Federation” (December 30, 2020 490-FZ) entered into force on June 29, 2021 [17] Republic of Tajikistan Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On beekeeping” (April 16, 2012 No. 820) [18]

Republic of Turkmenistan Law of the Republic of Turkmenistan “About beekeeping” (August 18, 2015 No. 266-V) [19]

Republic of Uzbekistan Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On measures for the further development of the beekeeping industry in the Republic” (October 16, 2017 No. PP-3327) [21]

Identified legal problems The law defines the main tasks and directions of the development of beekeeping, the basics of management in this area, the procedure for implementing beekeeping activities, and the regulation of relations to the conservation of bees. It is necessary to develop a legal mechanism to protect bees and the rights of beekeepers. It regulates relations on the protection of honey bees in conditions of their natural habitat, establishes a prohibition on destroying places of settlement of bee families, and defines relations on the relocation of bee families if they complicate human life activity. The law defines the composition of participants in beekeeping relations and enshrines the rights (Article 2, Chapter 3) and responsibilities of beekeepers (Articles 2 and 3, Chapter 3). The current normative act enshrines the status of public associations of beekeepers (Article 13) and their rights (Article 4, Chapter 3). It indicates that objects of property rights in the field of beekeeping are bee families and other property necessary for implementing activities in this field. An extremely significant norm is the one enshrined in Article 27, which regulates relations related to the processing of beekeeping products. This norm enshrines the requirements to preserve the natural quality and properties of bee products during processing. Fixing such a requirement in the disposition of this norm seems reasonable and correct, although it contradicts European standards [20]. It is necessary to adopt a law “On beekeeping.” The development of annual programs to further develop the beekeeping industry has been underway since 2018. The program of measures “On complex development for 2017– 2021” provides for the creation of a specialized laboratory to determine the quality of honey products in accordance with international standards, its provision and equipping with high-tech and energy-efficient equipment, and staffing with highly qualified personnel. (continued)

3  Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities…

21

Table 3.2 (continued) Level of legal regulation Ukraine Law of Ukraine “About beekeeping” (February 22, 2000 No. 1492-III) [22]

Identified legal problems The law establishes the basic concepts and sources of legal regulation, state administration, and regulation in the field of beekeeping, including state support of breeding. It also defines guarantees of the rights and interests of beekeepers, international cooperation in the field of beekeeping, and responsibility for violation of legislation in the field of beekeeping. In contrast to the laws of other CIS countries, beekeeping objects are fixed, including worker bees, queens, drones, and bee families. The law provides rather detailed regulation of the protection of bees, including the protection of bee settlements (Articles 30 and 33). Chapter 7 of the law establishes liability for violation of the legislation in the field of beekeeping, specifying an open list of violations for which legal liability can be applied.

Source: Developed by the authors

3.4 Discussion A comparative legal analysis shows that the contradictions in the legal regulation of beekeeping relations in the CIS countries are apparent due to the following reasons: 1. The level of legal regulation in the CIS countries is different. In some CIS countries, the laws “On beekeeping” are adopted and considerably unified with the legislation of other countries, including European countries. Nevertheless, in some CIS countries, there are no such normative acts [23]; 2. In CIS countries that adopted the laws “On beekeeping,” the spheres of relations that are subject to legal regulation at the level of the law do not coincide or have unreasonable differences in legal regulation; 3. There is no attempt to unify regulatory requirements to ensure the free movement of goods, works, services, capital, and labor within the CIS. Law-making and law-enforcement practice reflect a set of problems that have developed in the area of beekeeping in the CIS countries. These problems include the following: 1. No effective legal mechanism for the protection of honey stocks has been developed. Although not in all CIS countries, the current regulations and acts of regulatory nature provide for the protection of honey plants. However, there is no legal regulation of the protection of pollen plants and propolis donors, although such activities are extremely relevant in the present period; 2. There are no regulations establishing a “mechanism for monitoring residues” of antibiotics, sulfamides, pesticides, and heavy metals in accordance with the Council of Europe Directive “On measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products” (April 29, 1996 No. 96/23/ EC) [24];

22

N. G. Romanenko et al.

3. No effective legal mechanism has been formed to provide pollination services to increase the yield of entomophilous crops and increase the income of beekeepers. Such a legal mechanism should ensure the regulation of relations between applicants for pollination services and entities engaged in beekeeping activities; 4. No legal mechanism has been developed to ensure the production of high-yield biological bee material; 5. There is no legal regulation of relations on the creation of interactive maps, honey sources, pollen sources, and propolis donors to optimize the placement of bee families for nomadic beekeeping and the implementation of opportunities to ensure effective nomadic beekeeping. The development of such maps will automate the processes of placing beehives in nomad camps, increase the transparency of the placement procedure, make them accessible, and eliminate the risks of corruption. Special legal regulation should be given to the pollination of crops by bees in various ecosystems, especially those under the intensive anthropogenic impact, which can affect the economic efficiency and sustainable development of beekeeping; 6. There is no targeted legal regulation of relations on the formation of regional centers (clusters) as central structural elements of management in the field of beekeeping; 7. Some CIS countries consider bee poisoning as a result of the cultivation of agricultural plantations, vineyards, and orchards as an unavoidable phenomenon. Despite the existence of legal regulation and the use of phytosanitary products and legal mechanisms to warn beekeepers about the treatment of crops with chemicals [25], there is no effective mechanism of supervision and collection of evidence to bring to civil, administrative, and in some cases, criminal liability of entities of agricultural production, causing damage to beekeepers; 8. There is no mechanism of unified requirements for environmentally friendly beekeeping products, the creation of which will ensure their free movement in the CIS countries. Analysis of lawmaking and law enforcement practice allows us to conclude that only the creation of an effective interstate legal mechanism to regulate beekeeping activities will ensure the preservation of biodiversity in the CIS countries, ensure the stable development of beekeeping, increase the volume of bee products, and optimize freedom of movement of goods, works, services, and capital in the field of beekeeping. The model law promotes the creation of a unified and consistent mechanism of legal regulation in the field of beekeeping and bee protection in the CIS and optimizes the relations in agriculture in creating a quality food base for animals. The implementation of the norms of the law will prevent the spread of pathogens of the bee family in the CIS, reorienting entities engaged in agricultural production to the use of environmentally safe technologies.

3  Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities…

23

The model law is aimed at creating a legal mechanism in the CIS for the effective development of beekeeping, ensuring freedom of movement of the labor force, goods, works, services, and capital, and creating conditions for a coordinated, harmonized, and if necessary, unified policy in the field of beekeeping to ensure biological diversity in the CIS territory. The goal can be achieved by solving the following tasks: • • • • • •

Increasing the number of bee families; Increasing the productivity of entomophilic crops; Obtaining valuable seed material; Improving the fodder base of livestock; Meeting the needs of industry and population in high-quality bee products; Improving the technological base for assessing the quality of beekeeping products.

The subject of legal regulation of this law is a complex of social relations associated with the preservation of bees and their habitat, the provision of pollination of entomophilous plants and wild flora, the creation of conditions for the rational use of quality characteristics of bee products, and the realization of legitimate interests of the subjects of beekeeping activities. The developed model law establishes the following: • Legal regulation of social relations related to the conservation of bees and their habitat; • Ensuring pollination of entomophilic agricultural plants and the provision of other civil legal services; • Ensuring pollination of wild flora; • Creating conditions for obtaining quality and safe products of beekeeping and their implementation; • Protection of legal interests of the subjects of relations in the field of beekeeping. Based on the identified goals and objectives, the authors developed the structure of the model law, including ten chapters and 35 articles. The expected consequences of the model law are as follows: • An increase in the number of bee families to ensure pollination of food crops; • Increasing the profitability of beekeeping and its attractiveness as an economic activity; • Reducing the outflow of specialists from this activity; • Increasing the competitiveness of beekeeping farms. The consequences of adopting the model law “On beekeeping” are shown in Fig. 3.1.

24

N. G. Romanenko et al.

The model law of CIS countries “On beekeeping”

Legislation on beekeeping of CIS countries result

- Stable development of beekeeping activities - Provision of biodiversity on the CIS territory - High-quality forage base for cattle breeding - Stable production of quality beekeeping products for the population and industry of the CIS countries effect - Optimization and unification of the legal framework on beekeeping in CIS countries - Formation of a legal mechanism for monitoring and warning beekeepers about the treatment of crops with chemical substances - Creation of an effective legal mechanism for the protection of property interests of entities engaged in beekeeping activities - Free movement of beekeeping products within the CIS.

Fig. 3.1  Consequences of the adoption of the model law “On beekeeping” for the CIS countries. (Source: Developed by the authors)

3.5 Conclusions The adoption of the model law and the implementation of its norms in the legislation of the CIS member states will allow the following: • To ensure legal regulation of the production of high-yield biological bee material; • To create an effective legal mechanism to provide crop pollination services by bees in different anthropogenic ecosystems; • To develop target legal regulation of the formation of regional centers (clusters) as central structural elements of management in the field of beekeeping; • To ensure legal protection of plants (honey plants, pollen plants, and propolis donors) and create interactive maps of honey and pollen sources; • To form and legislate effective mechanisms to warn beekeepers about treating agricultural crops with chemical substances. Additionally, implementing the model law in the national legislation of the CIS countries will make it possible to form legal mechanisms to ensure the preservation of bees and legislate a unified system of requirements for environmentally friendly beekeeping products, which will ensure their free movement in the CIS countries. Stable development of beekeeping activities will be facilitated by the following positive consequences of the adoption of the model law: • Increasing the number of bee families and bringing it to an optimal level in accordance with the requirements and capabilities of territories; • Improving the technological base for assessing the quality of beekeeping products;

3  Model Lawmaking as a Condition for Stable Development of Beekeeping Activities…

25

• Creating an effective legal mechanism to protect the rights and legitimate interests of beekeepers. The model law will be the basis for the creation of economic and legal mechanisms of organic farming in the regions of the CIS countries, where the observance of technology of organic agriculture is possible due to natural-climatic, economic, and social factors, as well as the development of industrial beekeeping, the opportunities of which have not been fully realized in the CIS countries.

References 1. Lebedeva, N.  V., Drozdov, N.  N., & Krivolutskiy, D.  A. (2004). Biological diversity: Textbook. Vlados. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1996). Rome declaration on world food security and world food summit plan of action (accepted on November 13, 1996). FAO. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 3. UN General Assembly. (2020). Resolution A/RES/75/219 “Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its contribution to sustainable development” (accepted on December 21, 2020 No. A/75/457/Add.6 at the 75th Session General Assembly of the United Nations). UN.  Retrieved from https://documents-­dds-­ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N20/337/90/PDF/N2033790.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 4. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2016). Decision XIII/15: Implications of the IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production for the work of the convention (accepted on December 9, 2016, in accordance with the decision III/11, annex III, decision V/5, annex I, and decision VI/5, annex II). Retrieved from https://www.cbd. int/doc/decisions/cop-­13/cop-­13-­dec-­15-­en.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 5. European Commission. (2021). National apiculture programmes in the EU by country. Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/animal-­products/honey/national-­ apiculture-­programmes_en. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 6. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). The national pollinator strategy: For bees and other pollinators in England. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794706/national-­pollinator-­ strategy.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 7. Office of Former US President Barack Obama. (2014, June 20). Presidential memorandum – Creating a federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. White House. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-­press-­office/2014/06/20/ presidential-­memorandum-­creating-­federal-­strategy-­promote-­health-­honey-­b. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 8. President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2018). Order “On stimulation of beekeeping development in the Republic of Azerbaijan” (March 5, 2018). Retrieved from https://president.az/ ru/articles/view/27262/print. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 9. Republic of Armenia. (2009). Law of Republic of Armenia “About beekeeping” (March 19, 2009). Retrieved from http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=3565&lang= arm. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 10. Government of the Republic of Belarus. (2013). Veterinary and sanitary rules for veterinary disinfection (approved by the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus on August 29, 2013 No. 758). Retrieved from https://www.vsavm.by/wp-­content/ uploads/2013/10/6Veterinarno-­sanitarnye-­pravila-­provedeniya-­veterinarnoi-­dezinfekcii.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2022.

26

N. G. Romanenko et al.

11. Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Belarus. (2012). Decree “On approval of the Veterinary and Sanitary Rules for Keeping Bees.” (August 16, 2012 No. 55). Retrieved from http://gvet.by/index.php/veterinarnoe-­zakonodatelstvo/veterinarno-­sanitarnye-­pravila-­ rb/58-­vsp-­55-­pchely. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 12. Republic of Kazakhstan. (2002). Law of Republic of Kazakhstan “About beekeeping” (March 12, 2002 No. 303-II, as amended on December 28, 2018). Retrieved from https://cis-­legislation. com/document.fwx?rgn=1275. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 13. Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. (1997). Decree “On measures to develop beekeeping in the Kyrgyz Republic” (June 16, 1997 No. 355). Retrieved from https://online.zakon.kz/ Document/?doc_id=30216874&doc_id2=35840922#pos=5;-­106&pos2=3;-­98. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 14. Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2009). Decree “On the draft law of the Kyrgyz Republic ‘On beekeeping.’” (November 13, 2009 No. 704). Retrieved from http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/ act/view/ky-­kg/90342?cl=ru-­ru. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 15. Republic of Moldova. (2006). Law of Republic of Moldova “About beekeeping” (March 30, 2006 No. 70-XVI, as amended on June 9, 2022). Retrieved from https://cis-­legislation.com/ document.fwx?rgn=14081. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 16. Government of the Republic of Moldova. (2020). Decree “On approval of the National program for the development of apiculture in the Republic of Moldova for 2021–2025 and the Action Plan for 2021–2022 for its implementation” (October 21, 2020 No. 768). Retrieved from http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/mol204810.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 17. Russian Federation. (2020). Federal law “About beekeeping in the Russian Federation” (December 30, 2020 No. 490-FZ, as amended on June 6, 2021 No. 179-FZ). Retrieved from https://cis-­legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=129806. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 18. Republic of Tajikistan. (2012). Law of Tajikistan “On beekeeping” (April 16, 2012 No. 820). Retrieved from https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31189029. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 19. Turkmenistan. (2015). Law of Turkmenistan “About beekeeping” (August 18, 2015 No. 266-­ V, as amended on January 5, 2018 No. 685-V). Retrieved from https://cis-­legislation.com/ document.fwx?rgn=78385. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 20. Romanenko, N. G., & Epifanova, T. V. (2017). Convergence of food standards in the beekeeping industry: Legal aspect. Forest Engineering Journal, 7(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.12737/ article_5967ea119610c7.87163497 21. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2017). Decree “On measures for the further development of the beekeeping industry in the Republic” (October 16, 2017 No. PP-3327). Retrieved from https://lex.uz/docs/3380812. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 22. Ukraine. (2000). Law of Ukraine “About beekeeping” (February 22, 2000 No. 1492-III, as amended on September 5, 2013). Retrieved from https://cis-­legislation.com/document. fwx?rgn=18061. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 23. Shatkovskaya, T., Epifanova, T., Romanenko, N., & Bulgakov, V. (2020). Innovative approach to legal regulation for using beekeeping data in forest areas. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 595, 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-­1315/595/1/012005 24. Council of Europe. (1996). Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC.  Retrieved from https://eur-­l ex.europa.eu/legal-­c ontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996L0023&from =EN. Accessed 31 Oct 2022. 25. Carrington, D. (2018, April 27). EU agrees total ban on bee-harming pesticides. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/eu-­agrees-­total-­ban-­ on-­bee-­harming-­pesticides. Accessed 31 Oct 2022.

Chapter 4

Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development of Agricultural Tourism Businesses Elena I. Makrinova , Elena V. Matuzenko and Andrey I. Kostennikov

, Alina P. Sotnik

,

4.1 Introduction According to the strategy for developing tourism in the Russian Federation until 2035, the primary efforts should be aimed at stimulating the development of domestic tourism, part of which is agricultural tourism. It should be noted that agricultural tourism is a type of rural tourism involving not just temporary trips to rural areas but also visits to domestic agricultural producers engaged in tourism activities. Agricultural tourism currently gains popularity, which is primarily due to the problems faced by the tourism industry as a whole: the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of some countries for entry, exchange rate fluctuations, etc. Moreover, the pace of life is constantly accelerating, and, as a result, residents of megacities increasingly seek solitude and peace in rural areas. To promote any business (including tourism), it is vital to ensure its marketing support, including in the digital environment, which was the subject of this research. The research aims to conduct a comprehensive study of the features and problems of the development of agricultural tourism and develop an algorithm for its marketing support using digital tools based on the data obtained.

E. I. Makrinova (*) · E. V. Matuzenko · A. P. Sotnik Belgorod University of Cooperation, Economy and Law, Belgorod, Russia A. I. Kostennikov Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod, Russia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_4

27

28

E. I. Makrinova et al.

4.2 Methods The research was conducted based on domestic and foreign theoretical and methodological developments in the study of instruments of marketing support for the agricultural tourism business. The theoretical basis of the research includes the works of classical economic theory, the works of Russian and foreign scholars on the problems of the digitalization of services, and the materials of scientific publications on various aspects related to the discussed issues. The basis for the analytical work was the data of analytical agencies and publications, observations, and conclusions of the authors received during the study of the experience of regions of the Russian Federation and foreign countries in the promotion and popularization of agricultural tourism. The methodological basis of the research is a systemic approach to the study of problems associated with the analysis of the problems of marketing support for agricultural tourism business, as well as the effectiveness of the tools used to promote it in the digital environment. Moreover, the authors apply general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, dialectical method, abstract-logical method, and system analysis) and the methods of economic analysis (analogy, grouping, comparison, and generalization).

4.3 Results In Russia, there is some disagreement in the interpretation of the term agricultural tourism. Most authors identify it with the concept of rural tourism. However, in our opinion, there is a difference. Rural tourism is the travel of citizens to visit rural areas, rest, receive recreation, and immerse themselves in the traditions and history of rural places. In turn, agricultural tourism is an alternative type of tourism that benefits agricultural enterprises and local communities in economic, social, and environmental terms. Thus, we should consider agricultural tourism as a type of rural tourism. Increasing the flow of tourists visiting rural areas is a key strategy that accelerates the modernization of agriculture and promotes its sustainable development through the material resources involved. In this regard, there is a need to create conditions for integrating agricultural and tourism sectors through the diversification of farm services. The development of agricultural tourism is a driver for agricultural construction. It also makes it possible to improve the tourist infrastructure in the regions of Russia, create new jobs and competitive tourism products, stimulate business activity, and stop the degradation and abandonment of rural areas (Fig. 4.1). According to the Federal Agency for Tourism of Russia (Rostourism), organized agricultural tourism in Russia accounts for up to 2% of the total tourist flow against a share of 20%–30% in countries where this direction is most developed.

4  Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development…

29

MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL TOURISM

For rural residents

- Creation of new jobs; - Reduction of the outflow of the population to cities; - Infrastructure development; - Popularization of the rural way of life; - Increasing the investment attractiveness; - Creation of new competitive tourist products.

For city residents

- An opportunity to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, get some rest, and receive recreation; - Shopping for natural products; - Preservation of traditions and historical and cultural heritage; - Immersion in the rural way of life.

For the environment

- Restoration and protection of natural and cultural monuments; - Creation of national parks and reserves; - Cleaning water reservoirs, preservation of forest lands.

For farmers

- Increase in the volume of products sold; - Promotion of goods and services of the agricultural enterprise; - Updating the equipment necessary for the operation of the enterprise; - Attraction of additional sources of financing - Diversification of services.

Fig. 4.1  A systemic representation of the multiplier effect of agricultural tourism. (Source: Developed by the authors)

Additionally, agricultural tourism affects the formation of a positive image of the regions and their investment attractiveness, contributes to an increase in tax deductions, and develops the overall regional tourism structure. Despite the noted multiplier effect of agricultural tourism, its development is slow under the influence of several constraining factors (Fig. 4.2). Nowadays, the income of Russian farmers in the field of agricultural tourism does not exceed 1%. In connection with the current situation, grant support measures were developed to stimulate entrepreneurs engaged in agricultural tourism. Grant funds can get those producers of agricultural products that want to develop tourism in rural areas. It is assumed that state support should help production to increase sales of goods by attracting tourists. In 2022, the Belgorod Region was the leader in the number of projects that won the selection for grants in the field of agricultural tourism.

Factors constraining the development of agricultural tourism business in the Russian Federation

30

E. I. Makrinova et al.

Insufficient level of technical equipment of agricultural enterprises:

Lack of developed infrastructure: poor quality of road pavement, complete or partial lack of gas supply, etc.

Poor information accessibility, digital inequality of the population, lack of a unified database

Mismatch of price and quality of the tourist product, a low level of service

Lack of a necessary legal framework in the field of agricultural tourism

Lack of well-established communication between market participants: agricultural enterprises, tour operators, and travel agents

Insufficient understanding of the prospects of entrepreneurs in this area, the need for marketing activities

Fig. 4.2  Systematization of factors constraining the development of agricultural tourism in the Russian Federation. (Source: Developed by the authors)

Portal to support medium and small businesses “My Business,” in conjunction with the social network “Vkontakte,” has developed a program to support and promote entrepreneurs. Program participants had the opportunity to study the tools offered by the social network “Vkontakte,” necessary for the successful conduct and promotion of business, as well as to receive bonuses in the form of additional budget for the promotion of their products and services. Rosselkhozbank has been organizing the retraining program “Farmer’s School” for several years, which unites 85 regions of the Russian Federation; classes are held in person and remotely. The educational program pays special attention to studying mechanisms of development and promotion of agricultural tourism. At the end of the training, farmers receive diplomas of professional retraining. Currently, the lack of proper attention to the problem of marketing support for agricultural tourism is due to many reasons, the main of which are related to the specifics of the industry and the lack of understanding of its necessity by farmers. Digitalization of agricultural tourism makes it possible to attract a new generation of tourists to the business – Millennials. They cannot imagine their lives without digital technology, demanding comfort. These groups of tourists pay special attention to environmental issues, looking for comfortable conditions for travel. Additionally, the emotional

4  Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development…

31

aspect of consumption will play a decisive role in this case; the commercialization of the experience will become decisive in the market. At a time of universal digitalization of the economy, the most effective marketing tools are Internet technologies that enable a significant restructuring of the business model and make it more efficient. This technology includes big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and machine tools, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), computer vision, blockchain, geoinformation and navigation systems, automated enterprise management systems (AMS), etc. (Fig. 4.3).

Big data

Collection and analysis of big data by banks and mobile operators

Educational online courses

“Farmer’s School” by Rosselkhozbank

Artificial intelligence

Chatbots integrated into websites, messengers, and social networks of agricultural enterprises

VR and AR

The use of these technologies to create virtual tours

Internet of Things (IoT)

Implementation of the “Smart House” system in tourist accommodation facilities

Websites, social networks, messengers, and mobile applications

- Creation of websites by agricultural enterprises; - Maintaining social networks and channels in messengers; - Development of mobile applications (2GIS, My Land, etc.).

Fig. 4.3  Digital marketing tools to support the development of agricultural tourism. (Source: Developed by the authors)

32

E. I. Makrinova et al.

Let us consider the proposed digital marketing tools for agricultural tourism. The success of an agricultural tourist enterprise directly depends on its financial and technological capabilities and on an understanding of the need to promote its services using advanced marketing tools. In the process of planning travel, tourists tend to collect information from many sources: websites, mobile applications, advertising, travel agencies, etc., which is quite a time-consuming process. Therefore, there is a need to synthesize the diversity of communication channels into a single digital ecosystem, which will create a continuous and unimpeded exchange of information between all market participants. A single tourist information space is a set of communication channels where content is created and consumed by all participants (tour operators, travel agents, farmers, and tourists) to interact, form the tourist product, and ensure its subsequent promotion and realization. One of the main platforms for communicating with consumers is the company website, which is a recent one-page landing that is informative and intuitive to navigate. In the early 2000s, the term big data became widely used. Big data is structured or unstructured datasets of large volumes that users leave on the Internet; these datasets are collected, processed, and analyzed using automated tools. Big data is successfully applied in many sectors of the economy, including the tourism industry. Regarding agricultural tourism, the following types of big data are the most relevant: • GPS location data from smartphones; • Data for digital management of tourist flows; • Data on reservations and accommodation in various means of accommodation. Russian banks “Sberbank” and “Tinkoff” have developed the “SBER Index” and “Tinkoff Index” services, where they publish data on tourist flows based on the analysis of customer spending. This data allows representatives of agricultural tourism to track the dynamics of demand for certain services, analyze seasonal fluctuations in the volume of tourist flows, and create new competitive products considering consumer preferences. Chatbots and the AI that forms them aim to increase the speed and availability of information. They allow users to continuously sort data and respond quickly to consumer requests without human intervention, which saves time and labor resources. In the current environment, the creation of chatbots is available to any Internet user based on Russian digital platforms “Vkontakte” and “Telegram.” The trend toward combining real experiences with digital ones is gaining momentum, with consumers becoming part of something that is interesting to them. VR makes it possible for tourists, without leaving home, to visit almost any point on the planet: hotels, museums, nature reserves, concerts of favorite performers, or tourist destinations. The mass use of cell phones and tablets with constant access to the Internet space opens up limitless opportunities for farmers, tourism businesses, and marketers. It makes it possible to introduce various tools to promote their products and services.

4  Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development…

33

Despite the availability of many digital tools to promote agricultural tourism, they do not currently bring effective results because farmers often do not consider it necessary to apply them in their activities or do it haphazardly. In this regard, the authors attempted to develop an algorithm of marketing support for agricultural tourism in the digital environment, consisting of a sequence of the following stages: • Setting goals and objectives; • Implementing the tourism development strategy in the Russian Federation until 2035; • Forming and implementing programs to encourage entrepreneurs; • Creating a digital ecosystem of agricultural tourism and definition of digital tools for its development (Fig. 4.4). A systemic approach to the marketing support of agricultural tourism will contribute to the more rapid and effective development of this type of tourism, create a comfortable environment for business activities, and make services competitive in the market and convenient, affordable, and attractive to the mass consumer.

4.4 Discussion The need for importance and consideration of issues of marketing support of agricultural tourism is steadily growing primarily due to the ever-changing market conditions, the development of digital technology, and the constantly changing preferences of consumers [12]. During this research, the authors relied on the developments of Russian (I.  V. Mukhomorova [10]; Y.  O. Romanenko, V.  O. Boiko, S.  M. Shevchuk, V.  V. Barabanova, and N.  V. Karpinska [13]; M.  Sheresheva, M.  Efremova, L.  Valitova, A.  Polukhina, and G.  Laptev [14]; S.  Yekimov, B.  Sobirov, K.  Turdibekov, M.  Aimova, and M.  Goncharenko [16]) and foreign scholars (É. Happ and Z.  Ivancsó-Horváth [1]; A.  Hassan and R.  Rahimi [2]; K.  O. Kayumovich, F.  S. Annamuradovna, and S.  F. Kamalovna [4]; A.  Lubis, N.  W. Lubis, I.  Apriliya, and J.  Wardhani [5]; J.  Magano and M.  N. Cunha [6]; A. A. Merojovich [9]; T. Pencarelli [11]; T. I. Suyunovich and G. Erkin [15]) related to the effectiveness of the implementation of marketing support for tourism business, revealing the use of digitalization as a universal tool for promotion and communication with the target audience. It should be emphasized that the study of this issue has become relevant only in the last decade due to the growing number of Internet users and the popularity of this channel of communication with consumers of goods and services. Certain provisions of earlier scientific research of the authors in the development of analytical and marketing support for the development of service activities in the hospitality industry, published in co-authorship with E.  V. Isaenko and

34

E. I. Makrinova et al. PARTICIPANTS Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation Regional and municipal offices for tourism Medium and small businesses engaged in tourism and agriculture: travel agents, tour operators, farmers, etc. SETTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1

Goal: To form competitive tourist products, considering consumer preferences Tasks: - To create favorable conditions for the development of agricultural tourism; - To construct and reconstruct objects of tourist interest based on agricultural enterprises; - To develop infrastructure in rural settlements: construction of highways, the connection of highquality mobile communications and high-speed Internet; - Modernization of agricultural equipment.

2

3

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNTIL 2035 FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS TO STIMULATE ENTREPRENEURS Grant support program from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation “AGROTURISM” Educational program “Farmer’s School” by Rosselkhozbank Program to support and promote entrepreneurs in the social network Vkontakte

4

CREATION OF A DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM OF AGRICULTURAL TOURISM; DETERMINATION OF DIGITAL TOOLS FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT

Creating a digital tourism ecosystem: a unified online space and marketplace Promotion of agricultural tourism through the development of mobile applications, websites, social media, and messengers, as well as filling them with relevant information Development and implementation of chatbots Application of AR/VR and IoT technologies in the activities of enterprises engaged in agricultural tourism Application of big data

Fig. 4.4  Algorithm of marketing support for agricultural tourism using digital tools. (Source: Developed by the authors)

4  Algorithms and Tools of Digital Marketing for the Sustainable Development…

35

I.  V. Rozdolskaya [3], I.  S. Khaydarov [7], and E.  A. Zaitseva [8], are further developed in this research in terms of justifying the prospects of agricultural tourism and the need for its marketing support in the digital environment.

4.5 Conclusion The results of this research confirm the importance and necessity of implementing digital marketing tools for agricultural tourism. Currently, the market for agricultural tourism is not fully formed and is at an early stage of its development, which requires special attention to the study of mechanisms of its functioning and marketing support. Agricultural tourism affects the formation of a positive image of the regions and investment attractiveness, increasing tax deductions and contributing to the development of the overall regional tourism structure. Under the influence of political, sanitary-epidemiological, economic, and other factors, there is a permanent transformation of consumer behavior. The authors systematized the multiplicative effect of agricultural tourism on rural and urban residents, ecology, and farmers, which proves its prospects and the need for marketing support, including in the digital environment. Despite the noted multiplier effect of agricultural tourism, its development is slow under the influence of several constraining factors, including the insufficient level of technical equipment of agricultural enterprises, abandonment of areas, lack of developed infrastructure, imperfect legislative framework, lack of well-­ established communication between market participants, poor information accessibility, etc. To retain existing customers and attract as many new customers as possible, it is necessary to constantly improve the business processes of management of agricultural and tourist enterprises and apply innovative methods of promotion and implementation of services in their activities. The authors developed an algorithm for marketing support for agricultural tourism in the digital environment, consisting of the following successive stages: • Setting goals and objectives; • Implementing the strategy for tourism development in the Russian Federation until 2035; • Forming and implementing programs to stimulate entrepreneurs; • Creating a digital ecosystem for agricultural tourism and identifying digital tools for its development. A systemic approach to the marketing support of agricultural tourism will contribute to the faster and more effective development of this type of tourism, create a comfortable environment for business activities, and make services competitive in the market and affordable and attractive to the mass consumer.

36

E. I. Makrinova et al.

References 1. Happ, É., & Ivancsó-Horváth, Z. (2018). Digital tourism is the challenge of future – A new approach to tourism. Knowledge Horizons. Economics, 10(2), 9–16. 2. Hassan, A., & Rahimi, R. (2016). Consuming “innovation” in tourism: Augmented reality as an innovation tool in digital tourism marketing. In N.  Pappas & I.  Bregoli (Eds.), Global dynamics in travel, tourism, and hospitality (pp.  130–147). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-­1-­5225-­0201-­2.ch008 3. Isaenko, E., Makrinova, E., Rozdolskaya, I., Matuzenko, E., & Bozhuk, S. (2021). Research of social media channels as a digital analytical and planning technology of advertising campaigns. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 986, 012014. https://doi. org/10.1088/1757-­899X/986/1/012014 4. Kayumovich, K. O., Annamuradovna, F. S., & Kamalovna, S. F. (2019). Features of electronic online market in tourism. Bulletin of Science and Education, 24-3(78), 18–20. 5. Lubis, A., Lubis, N. W., Apriliya, I., & Wardhani, J. (2022). The effectiveness of digital marketing as a promotional media paddy agro-tourism in the village of market transfer. Enrichment. Journal of Management, 12(2), 2079–2084. 6. Magano, J., & Cunha, M. N. (2020). Digital marketing impact on tourism in Portugal: A quantitative study. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9(1), 1–19. 7. Makrinova, E. I., Sotnik, A. P., & Khaydarov, I. S. (2020). Models and technologies of tourism development in the mainstream of digital economy. Fundamental Research, 3, 72–77. https:// doi.org/10.17513/fr.42702 8. Makrinova, E. I., Matuzenko, E. V., Zaitseva, N. A., Larionova, A. A., Eliseeva, O. V., Mysova, O. S., et al. (2020). Assessing methodology development for the service organizations advertising campaign effectiveness in audio blogs (Podcasts). EurAsian Journal of BioSciences, 14(2), 3625–3632. 9. Merojovich, A. A. (2022). Assessment of the state of the agro-tourism market. Central Asian Journal of Theoretical and Applied Science, 3(8), 149–158. Retrieved from https://cajotas. centralasianstudies.org/index.php/CAJOTAS/article/view/909. Accessed 10 Nov 2022. 10. Mukhomorova, I. V. (2022). Digitalization and management of business processes in the field of tourism and hospitality. Modern Economy Success, 3, 136–138. 11. Pencarelli, T. (2020). The digital revolution in the travel and tourism industry. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-­019-­00160-­3 12. Ponomareva, I. Y., Chernobrovkina, A. O., & Ponomareva, M. V. (2017). Forms and objects of agritourism in Tula Region. Services in Russia and Abroad, 11(8), 104–118. https://doi. org/10.22412/1995-­042X-­11-­8-­9 13. Romanenko, Y.  O., Boiko, V.  O., Shevchuk, S.  M., Barabanova, V.  V., & Karpinska, N. V. (2020). Rural development by stimulating agro-tourism activities. International Journal of Management, 11(4), 605–613. 14. Sheresheva, M., Efremova, M., Valitova, L., Polukhina, A., & Laptev, G. (2021). Russian tourism enterprises’ marketing innovations to meet the COVID-19 challenges. Sustainability, 13(7), 3756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073756 15. Suyunovich, T. I., & Erkin, G. (2022). Possibilities to increase the multiplicative efficiency of tourism through digital technologies in new Uzbekistan. Web of Scientist: International Scientific Research Journal, 3(8), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DVQM7 16. Yekimov, S., Sobirov, B., Turdibekov, K., Aimova, M., & Goncharenko, M. (2022). Using the digital ecosystem in tourism clusters in green tourism. In R. Polyakov (Ed.), Ecosystems without Borders. EcoSystConfKlgtu 2021. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­031-­05778-­6_11

Chapter 5

Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production and Living Standards of the Rural Population in Russia Arif G. Ibragimov , Rafail R. Mukhametzyanov , Vyacheslav G. Borulko , Gulnara K. Dzhancharova and Yuliya A. Bovina

,

5.1 Introduction Over the past two decades, one of the most pronounced trends in the development of the global economy has been its digitalization. Technologies associated with this process are becoming more and more deeply embedded in people’s daily lives in terms of creating tangible and intangible goods and their consumption [20]. There is a corresponding transformation of all production stages and the subsequent movement of products. This fully applies to the agro-industrial complex as a whole and agriculture in particular [18]. The COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on the movement of people have stimulated the development and accelerated the pace of adoption of digital solutions and methods in developed and developing countries [6]. Despite a significant decline in its share of the gross domestic product of the world, agriculture continues to be of paramount importance to many national economies [11]. In the current geo-economic and geopolitical conditions, the development of the agricultural sector is extremely important for some countries, especially those positioning themselves on the world stage as independent and one of the poles of global decision-making. This is objectively necessary for Russia to ensure food security and commercial supply of agricultural products on the world market, as well as to help the countries in need [17].

A. G. Ibragimov (*) · R. R. Mukhametzyanov · V. G. Borulko · G. K. Dzhancharova Y. A. Bovina Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_5

37

38

A. G. Ibragimov et al.

Digitalization of operations in the agricultural sector plays a special role due to the technological diversity of areas in this industry, their close interconnection in a number of agricultural organizations, and the biological characteristics of different plants and animals used during the creation of products. That is, the effect of the introduction and application of digital solutions and methods, achieved, for example, in the cultivation of crops, can have a major impact on the cost of feed production and, consequently, on the situation in dairy [13] or beef cattle breeding [8]. Thanks to the precision of advanced technology, the timeliness and responsiveness of technological operations, the automation of these operations, and new management capabilities, the use of digital technology offers enormous potential to improve the efficiency of any production, including agricultural production [3]. This is relevant not only to Russia but also to developing countries in Africa and Asia, many of which have not yet solved their food problems [5]. For several decades, the world’s demand for food has increased quite rapidly due to the increase in the general population and the growth of urban dwellers. On the one hand, increasing urbanization leads to the fact that fewer people can produce agricultural products. On the other hand, it increases the number of subjects of demand in the food markets. New information technologies and digitalization promote permanent and temporary reverse migration from cities to the countryside. This trend is more characteristic of the USA and some European countries. Nevertheless, similar cases are observed in some regions of Russia [23]. Even today, many professional activities do not require a person to stay in the city office every day. In particular, employees employed by design and IT companies, online stores and training services, and marketing and advertising agencies can perform almost all of their work from home. The COVID-19 pandemic, despite its negative aspects, only contributed to this possibility. Therefore, some people become partially or fully rural, still performing their former jobs. Other people retrain as farmers engaged in agricultural production, agrarian and gastronomic tourism, and processing and delivery of natural foods to their customers, including city dwellers. New digital solutions and technologies also help them in this. In general, the digital transformation in different sectors of the agro-industrial complex of Russia, and, above all, in agriculture, creates an objective basis for sustainable development of rural areas of Russia, growth of labor productivity, and efficiency of the reproduction process, while improving the welfare of villagers. Simultaneously, based on obtaining, collecting, and processing of relevant information, it is also possible to optimize processes in the field of product processing, storage, and transportation, including to other countries. This research aims to understand digitalization as a major factor in improving the efficiency of agricultural production and living standards of the rural population in today’s Russia. To achieve this goal, the authors set the following tasks: • To study trends in the development of digitalization in Russia and the world-­ leading countries;

5  Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production…

39

• To identify the objective need for digitalization of agriculture and its impact on improving the efficiency of the industry and the standard of living of the rural population; • To substantiate the importance of accelerating the process of digitalization in the agricultural sector of Russia in the current geopolitical and geo-economic realities.

5.2 Materials and Methods The research was conducted based on analytical materials of the World Bank, a number of Russian ministries and departments on the development of digitalization in Russia, including in agriculture, and data from official statistical reports of the Russian Federation. We also considered scientific publications of Russian and foreign scholars.

5.3 Results and Discussion The World Bank’s Global Development Report 2020, which, among other things, reflects the degree of implementation and use of digital technology in the countries of the world, noted the relatively low level of Russia in this indicator. As leading academic economists and other specialists in the field of agriculture assure, the use of advanced digital technology increases the power of labor in the industry and, in turn, increases productivity. As a result, the unit cost of production is reduced, and the profitability of production and sales is increased. In particular, the development, implementation, and use of digital solutions and methods in the process of cultivation of cereal crops will enhance the production and export potential of the grain subcomplex of Russia [16]. Digitalization of the grain market infrastructure will positively affect the efficiency of its functioning [1]. The use of digital technologies in horticulture will reduce the current dependence of Russia on imports of fruits, berries, and processed products [15]. Simultaneously, digital solutions and methods can significantly improve the efficiency of the movement of fruit and berry products to Russia and from it [12]. The weak level of digitalization of technological processes in Russia determines the current relatively low energy intensity of labor in most agricultural organizations in Russia compared to developed countries. Thus, advanced countries are 3.7–6.0 times ahead of Russia on this indicator. In this regard, the efficiency of land use in agriculture is also lower than in advanced countries [7]. Summarizing the above, the development, implementation, and application of digital technology gives a considerable advantage to developed countries in increasing the competitiveness of created tangible and intangible goods. Almost all experts see digitalization as a driving force of the current post-industrial economy. Given

40

A. G. Ibragimov et al.

this trend, in the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century, the authorities of Russia began to pay increased attention to this issue and attach particular importance to the development of this process in all aspects of the activity. Realizing the lag of Russia in this area, the government has developed and launched the national project “Digital economy of the Russian Federation,” the implementation of which is designed for 2019–2024. The program outlines the main goals of digitalization, including those indirectly related to the agricultural sector and rural areas. As part of this project, Russia is planning to have Internet access to remote areas of the country, including rural areas, government documents will be placed in cloud storage facilities, and 80% of government services will be provided digitally by 2025. This is especially important for achieving sustainable development of the Arctic zone and Siberian and Far Eastern regions of the country [2]. Given the peculiarities of production processes in the agricultural sector, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation has developed a departmental project “Digital agriculture,” the implementation of which is designed for 2019–2024. According to experts of this ministry, the introduction and use of digital solutions and methods in the agricultural sector of Russia through the rationalization of appropriate technological processes and optimization of related costs will increase profitability in agricultural production by about 23%. The main arguments that experts cite in support of the objective need for digitalization of agricultural production in Russia are the need to solve several problems in which Russia is still behind the countries that lead in this process.

5.4 Conclusion The introduction and use of digital technology in rural areas are gradually blurring the line between living conditions in urban and rural areas. In this regard, despite increasing urbanization in the world, people move for permanent residence from the city to the countryside in some countries of Europe, including in some regions of Russia [22]. Nevertheless, in many areas of economic activity, including agriculture, Russia is still far behind in the introduction and use of digital technology compared to the leading countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and other continents, which have long been competing with each other in these processes. Also, Russia is not yet among the countries leading in developing relevant innovative methods and products. Digitalization of the agricultural sector will solve many pressing problems common to rural areas of the country [9]. The introduction and use of appropriate technologies in the process of agricultural production will contribute to the growth of its efficiency and increase the employment and income of rural residents [21]. The use of advanced technologies in the social sector will increase the availability of educational, medical, and other services [10]. In general, this will greatly contribute to the overall level of education of rural residents, including in the field of digital and information technology. Thus, the digitalization of the agricultural sector of Russia can become one of the most important drivers of increasing the production

5  Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production…

41

and export potential of many sectors of agriculture and improving the standard of living of the rural population of Russia [19]. Realizing the existing problems and the prospects offered by accelerated digitalization, authorized government agencies developed, adopted, and launched the national project “Digital economy of the Russian Federation” in 2018 and the program “Digital Agriculture” in 2019. These two documents planned a combined budget financing of 1934.9 billion rubles for the relevant purposes. It is planned that as a result of such financing, by 2025, the increase in agricultural production will amount to 16.3%, and its export will reach a volume of $45 billion, an increase of 20% compared to 2017. Within the framework of these programs, the investments in Russian agriculture are planned to grow by 22% by 2025 [4, 14]. Digitalization of the agricultural sector and rural areas of Russia has become especially relevant in today’s economic realities. Growing tensions in international relations, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased sanctions on Russia and their reverse negative effect, the complication of the geopolitical situation in the world, and the disruption of supply chains of energy resources, mineral fertilizers, agricultural raw materials, and food put the world at risk of increasing the number of hungry. This is especially relevant to develop countries of Africa and Asia. In this situation, Russia can obtain a significant geo-economic and geopolitical effect by increasing the production and exports of relevant products. The accelerated development, implementation, and use of digital technologies in the agro-industrial complex of Russia will only contribute to this. In general, the Government of the Russian Federation and the authorized ministries and departments have taken a timely and serious approach to digitalizing the country’s economy as a whole and the agricultural sector in particular. This fact raises hopes for future positive changes in the efficiency of agricultural production and the standard of living of the rural population in Russia.

References 1. Araslanov, R.  R., Korolkov, A.  F., & Mukhametzyanov, R.  R. (2022). Scientific foundations for the formation of the organizational structure of the grain market. In E. G. Popkova & B. S. Sergi (Eds.), Sustainable agriculture (pp. 3–11). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­16-­8731-­0_1 2. Buletova, N. E., Romanyuk, M. A., Mukhametzyanov, R. R., Zaretskaya, A. S., & Vasileva, E. N. (2022). Features of sustainable development of the Arctic zone of Russia. Proceedings of the ISPCR 2021: International scientific and practical conference strategy of development of regional ecosystems “Education-science-industry” (pp. 44–52). Atlantis Press. https://doi. org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220208.007 3. Dzhancharova, G. K., Arzamasceva, N. V., Besshaposhnyj, M. N., & Prohorova, N. V. (2021). Digital transformation of agriculture in Russia: Problems and prospects. Financial Business, 12(222), 316–319. 4. Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved from http://www.gks.ru/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

42

A. G. Ibragimov et al.

5. Gavrilova, N. G., & Mukhametzyanov, R. R. (2021). Digitalization of agriculture: A promising solution to Africa’s food problem. International Agricultural Journal, 64(5), 197–216. https:// doi.org/10.24412/2588-­0209-­2021-­10367 6. Gavrilova, N. G., & Mukhametzyanov, R. R. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on the use of digital technologies in agriculture in Africa. Stolypin Annals, 3(4), 22. 7. Ibragimov, A.  G., & Platonovsky, N.  G. (2021). Use of land resources in Russia: Status and problems. Journal of Economy and Entrepreneurship, 9(134), 165–168. https://doi. org/10.34925/EIP.2021.134.9.024 8. Ibragimov, A. G., Borulko, V. G., & Sergienkova, N. A. (2020). The effectiveness of beef cattle breeding in Russia. Journal of Economy and Entrepreneurship, 8(121), 233–236. https://doi. org/10.34925/EIP.2020.121.8.047 9. Ibragimov, A. G., Dzhancharova, G. K., & Leshcheva, M. G. (2020). Prospects and problems of digitalization of agriculture in Russia. Journal of Economy and Entrepreneurship, 9(122), 587–589. https://doi.org/10.34925/EIP.2020.122.9.114 10. Ibragimov, A.  G., Platonovsky, N.  G., & Mukhametzyanov, R.  R. (2022). Socio-economic situation of the Russian rural population: Status and problems. In E.  G. Popkova & B.  S. Sergi (Eds.), Geo-economy of the future (pp.  345–353). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­92303-­7_3 11. Kovalenko, N. Y. (Ed.). (2021). Economics of agriculture: Textbook for higher education institutions. Urait. 12. Leshcheva, M. G., Ibragimov, A. G., Yuldashbaev, Y. A., Demin, V. A., & Borulko, V. G. (2019). The modern institutional structure of agriculture on the example of the Stavropol Territory. Indo-American Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 6(5), 9499–9504. 13. Leshcheva, M. G., Steklova, T. N., Uryadova, T. N., Ibragimov, A. G., & Borulko, V. G. (2021). Demographic problems with human resources for agricultural production in the region. In A. V. Bogoviz (Ed.), The challenge of sustainability in agricultural systems (pp. 545–554). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­72110-­7_60 14. Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. (2019). Departmental project “Digital agriculture”: Official publication. Rosinformagrotech. Retrieved from https://mcx.gov.ru/ upload/iblock/900/900863fae06c026826a9ee43e124d058.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2022. 15. Mukhametzyanov, R. R., Agirbov, Y. I., Zaretskaya, A. S., Ibiev, G. Z., & Storozhev, D. V. (2021). Development trends of the Russian fruit and berry market. In Proceedings of the ISPCR 2020: International scientific and practical conference “Russia 2020 – A new reality: Economy and society” (pp. 287–292). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210222.056 16. Mukhametzyanov, R.  R., Zaretskaya, A.  S., Dzhancharova, G.  K., Platonovskiy, N.  G., & Arzamastseva, N. V. (2022). Production and export potential of the grain sub-complex of the EAEU countries. In Proceedings of the ISPCR 2021: International scientific and practical conference strategy of development of regional ecosystems “education-science-industry” (pp. 324–330). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220208.046 17. Mukhametzyanov, R., Romanyuk, M., Ostapchuk, T., & Ivantsova, N. (2021). The objective need and trend of ensuring the food security in Russia in conditions of import substitution. BIO Web of Conferences, 37, 00079. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20213700079 18. Musostova, D. S., Arzamasceva, N. V., & Dzhancharova, G. K. (2020). State and prospects for development of AIC of Russia in current conditions. Financial Business, 7(210), 220–222. 19. Platonovskiy, N. G., & Russkiy, V. G. (2019). Rural poverty in Russia. Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 11, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.31442/0235-­2494-­2019-­0-­11-­88-­92 20. Romanyuk, M., Sukharnikova, M., & Chekmareva, N. (2021). Trends of the digital economy development in Russia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 650, 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-­1315/650/1/012017 21. Takhumova, O.  V., & Ibragimov, A.  G. (2021). Cyclic-genetic approach to the formation of theories of sustainable balanced development of agricultural production. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 723, 032008. https://doi. org/10.1088/1755-­1315/723/3/032008

5  Digitalization as a Factor in Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Production…

43

22. Vorontsova, N. V., Merzlov, A. V., Mukhametzyanov, R. R., & Platonovskiy, N. G. (2021). Assessment of the attractiveness of rural areas in terms of internal migration in Russia and the EU countries. Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 6, 40–47. https://doi.org/1 0.31442/0235-­2494-­2021-­0-­6-­40-­47 23. Vorontsova, N. V., Merzlov, A. V., Mukhametzyanov, R. R., Ostapchuk, T. V., & Ivantsova, N. N. (2022). Impact of globalization on internal migration of population. In E. G. Popkova & B.  S. Sergi (Eds.), Geo-economy of the future (pp.  535–543). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­92303-­7_57

Chapter 6

Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North Kazakhstan Region Bakytkan D. Dauletbakov , Galym B. Dauletbakov Laura E. Massanova , and Zhanna A. Makisheva

, Altynay B. Assanova

,

6.1 Introduction It is currently relevant to study the nature of the relationship between various indicators of wheat quality, which significantly affect the consumption and nutritional characteristics of the final product. Many research institutes are developing mathematical models that show the quantitative dependence of the quality indicators achieved on the growing conditions. The mathematical expression can enable the use of statistical analysis methods and computer technology to estimate the optimum parameters of the patterns of change in the interdependent indicators of grain quality. In 2018, the third phase of industrialization began in Kazakhstan, which involves the development of an industry of the digital age, which means a greater degree of automatization of production processes and the development of new technologies that positively affect the efficiency of production processes. The lack of uniformity in the assessment of wheat grain characteristics creates certain difficulties in foreign trade. American and Canadian pasta production standards focus on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of strong and soft wheat. They have their differences. In Kazakhstan, such analyses are not carried out due to the lack of a tool and methodological base for the rapid determination of wheat grain hardness. Therefore, instead of such an indicator, it is replaced by a glassy index for grain classification. It is characterized by a high degree of liability: the same vitreous properties of different wheat varieties show significant differences in the properties of flour, pasta, and bakery products.

B. D. Dauletbakov (*) · A. B. Assanova · L. E. Massanova · Z. A. Makisheva Almaty Technological University, Almaty, Kazakhstan G. B. Dauletbakov BuhMaster, Almaty, Kazakhstan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_6

45

46

B. D. Dauletbakov et al.

The need to improve methodological approaches to evaluating and predicting the quality of raw materials, semi-finished products, bakery, and noodle products made from wheat flour is due to the digitalization of production and the necessity of managing the production cycle parameters to obtain the final product. The stable quality of grain with different technological characteristics determines the relevance of the research topic. First, it is necessary to choose interdependent indicators that determine grain quality. Second, it is necessary to assess whether they have a certain pattern. The first process identifies patterns of change in interdependent indicators. The second process makes it possible to consistently assess the degree of influence of the identified factors considering the physical-chemical and biological properties of wheat. When growing new varieties of wheat used for pasta products, it is important to know the nature and extent of the relationship between the different indicators of grain quality. This will help accurately predict the properties of new wheat varieties for use in pasta production and form a systematic study of grain quality. However, it is known that there is a different relationship between individual grain indicators, and these relations are usually contradictory [1]. Currently, due to the use of flour in the food industry in Kazakhstan [2, 3] and abroad [4–6], much attention is being paid to its quality from a scientific point of view. For example, in the UK, the Hagbergh-Perthen method includes loss of population, protein content, and identification of wheat varieties to assess the technological properties of wheat [7]. Recently, Kazakhstan has adopted a specific approach to controlling the bakery properties of wheat, covering mainly the final stages of grain processing. Meanwhile, it is known that the quality of finished products in the form of flour or pasta products is formed consecutively at all stages of the technological cycle of its production. This actualizes the task of searching and defining a set of indicators, which is an integrated “grain-flour index,” which allows organizing a consistent control of many qualitative characteristics of grain at all stages of the technological cycle and determining the impact of any changes in the initial parameters of grain processing on the quality of intermediate and final products [1].

6.2 Research Objects and Methods The introduction of comprehensive indicators accumulated within such a technological cycle has not yet been identified anywhere. In this regard, modeling the quality of new wheat varieties used in the production of pasta products is relevant. This problem can be solved using factor analysis. Factor analysis allows controlling and maximally reducing the number of hidden factors with known numerical values in modeling the quality of new wheat varieties [8, 9]. We have previously investigated the model of factor analysis to identify the main patterns of wheat grain quality:

6  Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North…

47

m

Z j  l jp f p  d jU j  j  1,2, ,n  p 1



(6.1)

where: Zj – normalized value of j-indicator; fp – general p-factor with a variance of one; Uj – characteristic factor considering the residual variance; ljp, dj – factor load j-indicator per general p-factor. Measurement errors act as specific factors (Uj) and are not specifically considered. The factor analysis is carried out using the application package “STATISTICA 12” using the main component method [10]. This model deals with a small number of factors (f1, f2, …, fm), linearly describing the normalized values of the considered indicators (1, 2, …, n), necessarily m  Ft = 2.69) and the regression equation should be considered adequate. The regression equation shows that increasing the nature increases the flour yield by 0.075%. Increasing the weight of 1000 grains increases flour yield by 0.218%. Increasing the protein also increases the yield of flour by 0.174%. Falling number values are inversely proportional to the yield of flour; that is, a decrease of −0.002 seconds in falling number decreases the yield of flour. We believe that the Falling Number determined in seconds on a Hagberg-Perten device is not inconsistent. The factor load matrix obtained by the main component method is presented in Table 6.2. The value of the factor loading (the value of the correlation coefficients of each variable with each identified factor) is greater than 0.7, indicating a close correlation of the indicator or variable with the considered factor. The closer this sign is to the considered factor, the higher the factor load. A positive sign of factor loading indicates a direct (and a negative sign of a negative) relationship of this trait with the factor. Therefore, four factors (f1, f2, f3, and f4) were identified based on the factor loadings table. The line Expl.Var (Fig. 6.1) gives the variance coming to a particular factor. The line Prp.Totl shows the proportion of the variance coming from factors f1, f2, f3, and f4. Consequently, f1 accounts for 23% of the total variance, f2 for 22%, f3 for 15%, and f4 for 10% of the total variance, with the rest coming from other unaccounted factors. The four factors explained 70% of the total variance. Figure 6.1 clearly shows the presence of four rays characterizing the dispersion of vectors (factors) relative to the center of the beam and describing, according to the theory of factor analysis, the probabilistic nature of the factors in question. These four rays are as follows: 1. Gluten content. 2. Nature (g/l) and yield of flour (%);

Source: Calculated and compiled by the authors

Correlations (Wheat variety) The correlations are significant at p ˂ 0.5000 N = 35 (Case-wise deletion of missing data) X3-Weight X1-Moisture X2-Natura, of 1000 X4-Glossiness, Variable content, % g/l grains % Х1 1.000000 0.006502 0.019710 0.062165 Х2 0.006502 1.000000 −0.039202 −0.181218 Х3 0.019710 −0.039202 1.000000 −0.672437 Х4 0.062165 −0.181218 −0.672437 1.000000 Х5 −0.010184 −0.093831 −0.032024 0.187782 Х6 −0.276027 −0.357480 0.287436 0.050770 Х7 −0.414254 0.040334 0.027749 −0.062826 Х8 0.499603 −0.090254 −0.114489 0.158130 Х9 0.086856 −0.394549 0.097033 0.113404 Х10 0.136748 0.116361 0.003697 −0.052920 Y 0.028552 0.897124 0.196063 −0.337367 X5-Grain hardness, IT −0.010184 −0.093831 −0.032024 0.187782 1.000000 −0.042510 0.036942 −0.127140 0.205766 −0.059596 −0.073877 X6-Ash content, % −0.276027 −0.357480 0.287436 0.050770 −0.042510 1.000000 0.294952 −0.244081 0.234340 −0.154176 −0.210577

X7-Gluten, % −0.414254 0.040334 0.027749 −0.062826 0.036942 0.294952 1.000000 −0.898651 0.093038 −0.324780 0.063960

Table 6.1  Correlation matrix between flour yield factors and quality indicators for wheat varieties

X8-Gluten, IDK 0.499603 −0.090254 −0.114489 0.158130 −0.127140 −0.244081 −0.898651 1.000000 −0.078194 0.385491 −0.142426

X9-Protein, % 0.086856 −0.394549 0.097033 0.113404 0.205766 0.234340 0.093038 −0.078194 1.000000 0.032934 −0.229172

X1-Falling number, s 0.136748 0.116361 0.003697 −0.052920 −0.059596 −0.154176 −0.324780 0.385491 0.032934 1.000000 0.046101

Y-Yield of flour 0.028552 0.897124 0.196063 −0.337367 −0.073877 −0.210577 0.063960 −0.142426 −0.229172 0.046101 1.000000

6  Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North… 49

50

B. D. Dauletbakov et al.

Table 6.2  Matrix of coefficients of correlation of variables Xi and selected factors

Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 Y Expl. Var Prp. Totl

Factor Loadings (Unrotated) Extraction: Principal components (Made loadings are >700,000) Factor 1 Factor 2 0.623774 0.045762 0.123160 −0.879611 −0.243864 −0.286723 0.172705 0.568210 −0.102817 0.229772 −0.531817 0.336338 −0.869099 −0.097295 0.905918 0.181363 −0.172798 0.485416 0.491818 −0.081616 0.011907 −0.891204 2.634866 2.425695 0.239533 0.220518

Factor 3 0.179483 −0.320753 0.846087 −0.655133 −0.180004 0.346514 −0.219871 0.189037 0.284908 0.204644 −0.080829 1.646296 0.149663

Factor 4 −0.294426 −0.134126 −0.122349 −0.025850 −0.784248 0.192975 −0.040923 0.116720 −0.522203 −0.064848 −0.239495 1.122157 0.102014

Source: Calculated and compiled by the authors

Fig. 6.1  Graph of factor loadings. (Source: Calculated and built by the authors)

6  Improvement of the Grain Quality Assessment System in Context of the North…

51

3 . Weight of 1000 grains (%); 4. Grain hardness (IT). Thus, the application of factor analysis has made it possible to distinguish from the total group of indicators that consistently characterize the level of grain quality. As a result of the conducted analysis, an integrated coefficient – “grain-flour index” – has been proposed to assess grain quality at all intermediate and final stages of its processing. Not all of the indicators considered participate in formulating the proposed outcome criterion; their impact is different. Particularly, such indicators of grain quality as gluten content, weight of 1000 grains, and hardness can be attributed to the group of factors that form the value of the coefficient of the grain index; a natura and yield of flour measure the ratio of the flour index. Simultaneously, such grain indicators as moisture and ash content, protein, and falling number are not directly related to the quality of grain and do not directly impact the quality of pasta. The integrated coefficient of grain quality assessment “grain-flour index” allows the following: • Typologizing parameters that reflect quality characteristics of grain at all stages of processing; • Ranking grain quality indicators according to the degree of importance, considering the identified factors; • Effectively controlling the quality of the final product from the primary production stages; • Predicting how the change in grain quality during the production cycle will affect the quality of the pasta products.

6.4 Conclusions Thus, among the multitude of grain quality indicators, various correlations make it possible to evaluate the biochemical mechanisms of high-quality grain formation, greatly simplify the analysis of technological properties, and create an impact system for product quality management. The possibility of a comprehensive evaluation of important quality indicators of individual characteristics can be a fairly effective and promising tool for quality control and management of pasta products. The factor analysis method makes it possible to early detect workflow irregularities in various facilities, which often cannot be observed by direct observation of the parameters. The advantage of the method is the possibility of determining the relationship between the unobservable quality indicators of the studied grain by means of correlation analysis and regression equations. The technological characteristics of the wheat grain are uniformly described in factor space and form a system of four factors: “grain index – flour.”

52

B. D. Dauletbakov et al.

Ash content is not expressed in coefficients as it characterizes only one aspect of flour production (flour yield) and is not directly related to the pasta quality of the grain and flour.

References 1. Dauletbakov, B., Iztaev, A. I., Aryngazin, K. S., Omarov, T. E., & Syrlybayeva, L. M. (2007). Grain quality modeling using factor analysis. Journal of Food Technology and Service, 2(2), 3–7. 2. Dauletbakov, B., Sultangaliyeva, L. S., & Dnimova, Z. (2018). Forecasting methods of agrometeorological conditions in the northern zone of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Agricultural Sciences, 9(9), 1205–1214. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.99084 3. Dauletbakov, B., Sultangaliyeva, L.  S., Abitova, A., & Primzharova, K.  K. (2016). Improvement of the methodology for grain quality assessment. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 92(1), 144–153. Retrieved from https://jatit.org/volumes/ Vol92No1/17Vol92No1.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2022. 4. Rosstandart. (2004). GOST R 52189-2003. Wheat flour. General technical conditions (introduced December 29, 2003). Standartinform. 5. Butkovsky, V.  A., & Kasatov, D.  A. (2003). Flour milling industry of Great Britain. Khleboprodukty [Journal of Bakery Products], 12, 14–16. 6. Kazakova, I. E. (1975). Modeling of technological quality of grain by factor analysis. Journal of Izvestia Universities of the USSR, Food Technology, 3(88), 12–22. 7. Roy Chung, K. H. (2004). Weak flour for strong cookies. In Flour – Food for life: Proceedings of the 2nd international Muhlenchemie symposium (17–18 June). 8. Harman, H.  H. (1972). Modern factor analysis (V.  Ya. Lumelsky, Trans. from English; E. M. Braverman Ed.). Statistics Publishing House. (Original work published 1961). 9. Lawley, D., & Maxwell, A. (1967). Factor analysis as a statistical method (Yu. N.  Blagoveshchensky, Trans. from English). MIR Publishing House. (Original work published 1963). 10. Dauletbakov, B., & Maukebayeva, R. M. (2015). Improvement of the methodology for grain quality assessment. International Research Journal, 5(36), 33–39. Retrieved from https:// research-­journal.org/economical/sovershenstvovanie-­metodologii-­ocenki-­kachestva-­zerna/. Accessed 8 Aug 2022. 11. Iskakova, G. K., & Zhilkaidarov, A. N. (2016). Study of new wheat sorts of Kazakhstan used in pasta production. Bulletin of Almaty Technological University, 3(112), 75–82. Retrieved from https://readera.org/issledovanie-­kachestva-­novyh-­sortov-­pshenicy-­kazahstana-­ispolzuemyh-­ dlja-­140204881. Accessed 8 Aug 2022. 12. Landi, A. (1987). Garatteristiche ottimali del grano duro e tenero per I produtti destinati aii’alimentazione umana. Informatore Agrario, 43(36), 29–31. 13. Tiefenbacher, K., & Dobrovics, M. (2000). Mehle tur die Waffeiherstellung. Ver-offentl. A rbeitsgemensch. Getreideferschung e.v., Bd. 285, 65–73.

Chapter 7

Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable Development of Social, Ecological, and Economic Systems Valentina A. Kundius

and Oksana V. Sergienko

7.1 Introduction The sustainability of the development of the globally competitive economy is determined by the transition to a new stage of socio-economic relations of reproduction. It is one of the main strategic aspects of public policy and the real economy. An important role in the new paradigm of economic relations is played by agriculture as a complex of industries that satisfy the paramount needs of the population. The agro-industrial complex (AIC) is currently characterized by a steady growth of domestic production and the implementation of a strategy of import substitution. The socio-economic importance of agriculture necessitates its sustainable and stable development. According to the contemporary approach, sustainable agriculture is the progressive development of the agricultural industry, including the transition from human-made industrial systems of farming and livestock to an environmentally sustainable system of ecological agriculture, as well as the creation of sustainable business models using digital technology to obtain viable solutions for the involvement of small and medium agricultural industry in the context of social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The priority directions for the development of the agricultural sector are as follows: • To improve the quality of food production and increase food security by providing the necessary access to food products that meet the needs of a healthy and active life of all social groups; • To develop the domestic agricultural products market; V. A. Kundius (*) Altai State Agrarian University, Barnaul, Russia O. V. Sergienko Omsk Humanitarian Academy, Omsk, Russia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_7

53

54

V. A. Kundius and O. V. Sergienko

• To reduce unemployment by creating new jobs in rural areas, improving living standards, and creating comfortable living and working conditions in these territories through the use of bio-intensive technologies in the production and management of natural resources, as well as in environmental protection.

7.2 Materials and Methods The research reflects the results of scientific studies based on the following: • Previous works of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of anti-crisis management of agricultural organizations [2, 3, 20] as the basis of the production segment of sustainable development of social, ecological, and economic systems; • The results of research on the development of organic agriculture from the perspective of a systemic approach [1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14–16, 19] as a strategic vector of food security in Russia and abroad; • Own works of previous periods [12, 13, 17, 18], the author’s vision of the problems and mechanisms of sustainable development of agricultural organizations as the basis of the production segment of social, environmental, and economic systems with the priority of organic agriculture. During the research, the authors applied abstract-logical, monographic, calculation and constructive, economic-statistical, and strategic management analysis, as well as expert assessments. The theoretical and methodological basis of this research includes scientific research and recommendations of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Russian Federation, laws, presidential decrees, and orders of the Government of the Russian Federation, and normative-legal acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this research defines its objectives and novelty: to identify negative and problem areas of the industry based on the systemic analysis and integrated approach, as well as to identify internal and external factors of sustainable development of agricultural enterprises in accordance with the strategic vector of increasing the volume of organic food products to ensure food security. The research substantiates the need to develop appropriate models and methods of decision-making in the management of economic parameters of production systems of AIC.  The criteria for the sustainable progressive development of the agricultural industry are determined by interrelated social, environmental, and economic components. At the macro level, the criteria include food security indicators, the harmlessness of food products for public health, the level of access to food for its various categories, and the degree of dependence of food supply on imports, purchasing power, and consumption culture of the population. Achieving a high level of these indicators of agricultural development also requires the creation of favorable conditions for the development of entrepreneurship, considering government regulation and the specifics of agricultural production as a social, environmental, and economic system.

7  Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable…

55

7.3 Results The research results confirm the hypotheses and scientific conclusions that agro-­ industrial production and its basis, agriculture, develop as a system due to internal potential and external factors, which, in today’s world, have a major impact on the industry’s stability and its progressive development even through transitional points of life cycle crisis. Current trends in the development of agriculture are a complex multifunctional social, ecological, and economic system, which is inherent in the principles of unity of its elements: integrity, sustainable development, economic priorities of economic entities, management systems, and the interests of the population and increasing its welfare, which determines the need for detailed research of each element in the system. The implementation of the strategy of advanced sustainable development of the agricultural sector of the economy as a multifunctional social, ecological, and economic system depends on the balance and efficiency of interaction between all elements in the system. The primary link in this system is agricultural organizations (enterprises), which are also complex systems, the functioning of which occurs according to the laws of dialectics, self-development, and cyclical development, that is, the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative through the successive alternation of stages of the stable and unstable state of the system. External factors greatly influence all elements of the system and contribute to the next transition to a new round of development, even if this development is carried out through the turning points of the crisis, to a new qualitative state due to the adaptation and use of new opportunities and tools in the economic activity of the organization. From the perspective of the internal environment and internal capabilities of a commercial agricultural organization, the concept of its sustainable development, all other things being equal, is determined by financial equilibrium, which is characterized by the sufficiency of financial resources for normal economic activity and ensuring all obligations to employees, organizations that supply resources, and the state. The methods of determining the level of financial stability use the main indicator  – the share of borrowed funds, the standard ratio of which is 0.5. It is believed that if the share of borrowed funds exceeds the set standard, then the company is under the threat of insolvency or bankruptcy. The approved methods of predicting bankruptcy also consider such indicators as the coefficient of autonomy, financial leverage, provision with own working capital, liquidity ratios reflecting the solvency of a commercial organization, and others. The result of the effectiveness of economic activity is the profit and profitability level. Thus, according to statistical data, in 2021, the profitability of agricultural organizations in the Russian Federation was 23.4% with subsidies and 20% without subsidies. In 2020, these indicators were 21% and 16.3%, respectively. The dynamics of the financial performance of agricultural organizations are presented in Table 7.1. According to Table 7.1, from 2017 to 2020, the number of agricultural organizations decreased by 19.2%, including 22.5% for profitable organizations and 8.3% for unprofitable organizations. The share of unprofitable organizations in the total

56

V. A. Kundius and O. V. Sergienko

Table 7.1  Dynamics of financial performance of agricultural organizations in Russia Indicators/years Number of organizations (for the reporting period), thousand, including: Profitable organizations Unprofitable organizations Share of profitable organizations in the total number of organizations, % Share of unprofitable organizations in the total number of organizations, % Amount of profit, million rubles Amount of loss, million rubles Balanced financial result (profit minus loss) of activity of organizations, million rubles Profitability of sold goods, products (works, services), %

2020 in % to 2017 80.8

2017 5.2

2018 5.2

2019 4.5

2020 4.2

4.0 1.2 75.6

3.8 1.4 73.8

3.3 1.2 72.8

3.1 1.1 73.6

77.5 91.7 97.4

24.4

26.2

27.2

26.4

108.2

245,822 299,732 302,606 492,175 196.2 74,333 96,435 180,821 92,725 124.8 171,489 206,171 118,911 399,450 233.0 13.6

15.4

14.0

20.3

130.2

Source: Compiled by the authors based on [4, 5]

number of organizations increased by 8.2%. The balanced financial result (profit minus loss) of organizations increased 2.33 times over the observed period. In the trend of reducing the total number of profitable organizations in 2020 compared to 2019, the number of profitable organizations decreased by 0.2 points, while the share of profitable organizations in 2020 that were able to adapt to the new economic conditions increased by 0.2%; the growth of profit amounted to 189,569 million rubles. In general, the agricultural sector demonstrates good growth potential, which indicates the realization of internal reserves of agricultural producers together with the correct vector of state programs to stimulate investment activity in the agricultural sector, preferential lending, and compensation for part of incurred costs. The specific nature of agricultural production determines the production of goods at a high cost. Raw materials account for more than 50% of the cost of production and sales of agricultural organizations. We also observe a small share of labor costs (13.4%), which indicates the low incomes of agricultural workers (Table 7.2). For four years (2017–2020), the share of costs for raw materials and depreciation has increased, which suggests the development of production and investment activity in agricultural organizations. Positive dynamics of profitability and investment activity of agricultural organizations are prerequisites for the transition to outpacing sustainable development. In addition to the positive trend in the financial results of agricultural producers, there are unfavorable factors that do not allow the agricultural industry to achieve global success and hinder its progressive development, including the pricing system of the agrifood market. Over the past five years (2016–2020), the price for agricultural products has increased by almost 10%, and in the food industry – by 13.5%, which corresponds to the average inflation rate. In turn, the consumer price index increased by 23.5%, while food prices increased by 21.5%. The share of agricultural

7  Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable…

57

Table 7.2  Structure of costs of production and sales of agricultural organizations (as a percentage of the total) Including

Years 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 in % to 2017

including costs Raw materials Total Material and Labor Insurance costs costs supplies Fuel Energy costs premiums 100 66.7 55.0 5.9 2.5 13.7 4.1 100 66.4 55.1 6.2 2.4 13.6 4.0 100 66.4 55.1 5.6 2.4 13.4 4.0 100 66.4 56.7 5.2 2.4 13.4 3.8 – 99.5 103.1 88.1 96.0 97.8 92.7

Depreciation of fixed assets Other 9.2 6.2 9.7 6.3 10.1 6.2 10.4 6.0 113.0 96.8

Source: Compiled by the authors based on [5, p. 29]

producers in the structure of retail prices is less than 40%. Production costs are high due to the dependence on the price of resources. Another negative factor is the disparity in prices for material resources, as well as their outstripping growth rate. For example, the price of diesel fuel in the analyzed period increased by 21%, and the price of electricity increased by 33.2% [5]. These factors do not fully contribute to attracting investors in agriculture, which causes the flow of profits from agricultural production to other areas of the economy. During the analysis of basic economic indicators of agriculture, we noted negative and problem areas of the industry. This includes a high degree of depreciation of fixed assets (50.1% of the economy as a whole), the slow growth of investment and its reduction in 2020 by 6.6 billion rubles, a low rate of equipment updates (3%–5%), relatively low incomes of agricultural workers (60% in dynamics for four years to the average Russian level), and the reduction of the real disposable income (by 3.5% in 2020), which consequently slows down solvent demand and restrains the ability to increase production volumes [8, 9]. It was revealed that the conditions of the progressive development of economic entities of the agricultural sector depend on stimulating or restraining applied instruments of state socio-economic, foreign, and agricultural policy. Started in 2000, the systemic state policy to restore and develop the agricultural sector allowed agricultural producers to become competitive and financially stable enterprises. In 2014, the course aimed at import substitution initiated agricultural producers to take technological decisions aimed at the modernization of the production, processing, and storage of agricultural products, renovation of fixed assets, and development of related areas in the agricultural sector, which significantly reduced the market share covered by imported agricultural products [8]. Competitive advantage and strategic direction of development is also a sustainable socio-economic development of agricultural production, considering the economic interests of economic entities in conjunction with environmental safety and

58

V. A. Kundius and O. V. Sergienko

social orientation. In the future, sustainable development of agriculture is possible only when maintaining the integrity, consistency, and equitable development of economic, social, and environmental components. Disturbance of this balance or uneven development of these components will not allow achieving the goals set – food security, improved quality of life, and economic efficiency. The creation of institutions of the new world economic order based on a new convergent system of management of socio-economic development allows the agricultural sector to develop exports. The transition to exports is an incentive for agricultural producers to improve the quality of their products and develop organic production. On the one hand, the lengthening of supply chains from suppliers, the transition to domestic plant protection agents, difficulties with the import of export revenue, and the search for new export niches are the restraining factors in the short term. On the other hand, sanctions allow us to look for new effective solutions, which, in the long term, will ensure the stable growth and sustainable development of commercial agricultural organizations and their transition to an innovative development model. Criteria for the sustainable progressive development of the agricultural sector are defined in the dynamics of growth of production of safe organic food, quality of life, increasing the efficiency of agricultural production with the possibility of enhanced reproduction and increased soil fertility while maintaining a stable environment, that is, interrelated components: social, environmental, and economic.

7.4 Conclusion Thus, the sustainable development of agriculture is possible in the formation of social, ecological, and economic systems. It is determined by three closely interrelated groups of indicators. Social indicators are determined by sustainable employment growth and improving the rural population’s skills and living standards. Environmental components include the conservation and restoration of natural resources. Economic components reflect the positive dynamics of growth in production and improving the efficiency of agricultural production and the contribution of rural entrepreneurs. Factors and indicators of sustainable development are determined from the smallest unit of the sustainable system – a commercial agricultural organization with its development and use of internal reserves of sustainable development to the synergistic effect, which is formed by a favorable conjunctural climate created by the state instruments of the anti-crisis and strategic policy of economic development because only internal factors are not enough for the policy of advanced development. The systemic policy of accelerated economic growth of the agricultural sector is impossible without the interaction of internal and external factors in the development of commercial agricultural organizations, which, in complex, will lead to the synergistic effect and achievement of the set goals. As the basis of the economic link in the sustainable development of social, ecological, and economic systems, agricultural organizations play an important role in the development of the agricultural sector and the economy of the

7  Agricultural Organizations as the Basis of the Production Segment of Sustainable…

59

country. The achievement of pre-crisis indicators conventionally defines the stage of recovery from the crisis. The volume of agricultural production now exceeds the level of production in 1990. In crop production, the level of 1990 increased by more than 40%. In livestock, it is necessary to increase production by almost a quarter. Improvement of mechanisms of implementation of sustainable development strategy is aimed at a new socially-oriented paradigm, which determines the directions of agricultural policy of the country, the relationship of agricultural and macroeconomic policies, scientific and technological progress and digitalization in agriculture, and the efficient land use and ecology. Agricultural organizations choose their development trajectory by combining favorable factors of the external environment and the strengths and advantages of internal development factors. According to the authors, the implementation of the strategy of advanced sustainable development of agriculture acts as the only unconditional driver of the reorganization process of systemic transformation in the current economic conditions, aimed at creating a new social order of rural life, technological changes based on digitalization and robotization of production, environmental security, organic agriculture, and rational use of economic resources and advanced management tools.

References 1. Altukhov, A. I., Nechaev, V. I., Porfirev, B. N., Sokolova, Z. E., Mikhailushkin, P. V., & Taran, V. V. (2013). “Green” agroeconomics. RSAU-MTAA Publishing House. 2. Avdeeva, I. L., Andrunik, A. P., Astakhin, A. S., Babich, O. V., Bazarnova, O. A., Belolipetskaya, A. E., et al. (2019). Management of Economic Systems of various levels: Theory and practice. Middle Russian Institute of Management (Branch) of the RANEPA. 3. Denisov, E. Y., & Ivanov, I. O. (2015). Aspects of anti-recessionary management of agricultural industry. Aekonomika: Economics and Agriculture, 2(6). Retrieved from https://cyberleninka. ru/article/n/aspekty-­antikrizisnogo-­upravleniya-­selskohozyaystvennoy-­otraslyu. Accessed 13 Apr 2022. 4. Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regions of Russia. Socio-­ economic indicators, 2021: Statistical collection. : Rosstat. Retrieved from https://rosstat.gov. ru/storage/mediabank/Region_Pokaz_2021.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2022. 5. Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. (2021). Agriculture in Russia, 2021: Statistical collection. Rosstat. Retrieved from https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/S­X_2021.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2022. 6. FiBL and IFOAM. (2021). The world of organic agriculture 2021. Retrieved from https://www. ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/2022-­01/1150-­organic-­world-­2021.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2022 7. Gorlov, I., Shishkunov, V., & Mosolova, N. (2012). New approaches in providing the ecological safety of agricultural production. Journal of Dairy and Beef Cattle Breeding, 7, 21–24. 8. Gorshkova, N.  V., Shkarupa, E.  A., & Eltoncev, A.  V. (2021). Import substitution in the agro-industrial complex: Implementation mechanism and development prospects. Journal of Volgograd State University. Economics, 23(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.15688/ ek.jvolsu.2021.3.6 9. Gribova, E. V. (2013). Transformation of socio-economic development priorities: The process of transition from the “brown” to the “green” model of the economy. In N. S. Klunko (Ed.), Economics: World historical experience and contemporary issues (Book 2). Logos.

60

V. A. Kundius and O. V. Sergienko

10. Khanmagomedov, S. G., Ulchibekova, N. A., & Ashurbekova, T. N. (2019). Interrelation of the environmental and socio-economic processes in the agricultural sector. Development Problems of Regional Agro-Industrial Complex, 2(38), 170–176. 11. Korbut, L. O. (2009). On the production of organic products in farms of Belarus. Agrarian Economy, 6, 61–64. 12. Kundius, V. A. (2021). Justification of the concept of development of modern organic agriculture on the basis of biointensive technologies. SHS Web of Conferences, 101, 02031. https:// doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110102031 13. Kundius, V. A., Voronkova, O. Y., Streltsova, T. V., & Perova, T. N. (2018). Prospects of ecological agriculture in Altai. Economics of Agriculture of Russia, 1, 26–33. https://doi.org/1 0.32651/2070-­0288-­2018-­1-­26-­32 14. Lang, S. S. (2005, July 13). Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds. Cornell News Service. Retrieved from https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/organic-­farms-­produce-­same-­yields-­ conventional-­farms. Accessed 13 Apr 2022. 15. Nikitina, Z.  V., & Bannova, N.  S. (2005). Theoretical and organizational foundations of organic agriculture. 16. Sokolova, Z. E. (2012). Theory and practice of development of the world market of organic agriculture products. Publishing House of Individual Entrepreneur V. V. Nasirdinova. 17. Voronkova, O. Y., & Kundius, V. A. (2014). Organizational and economic substantiation of the prerequisites for the development of organic (organic) farming in the Altai region. Bulletin of Altai Science, 2–3, 138–140. 18. Voronkova, O.  Y., Kundius, V.  A., & Mikhailushkin, P.  V. (2015). Strategic priorities for the development of regional agro-food systems focused on organic production. Prosveshcheniye-Yug. 19. Zakrevsky, V.  V., & Repeshov, S.  M. (2011). Organic production and organic foodstuffs: History of development, principles and advantages, state of markets, legislation. Preventive and Clinical Medicine, 1(38), 26–33. 20. Zavyalov, D. V., Zavyalova, N. B., & Kiseleva, E. V. (2019). Digital platforms as a tool and condition of the country’s competitiveness in the world market of goods and services. Journal of International Economic Affairs, 9(2), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.18334/eo.9.2.40608

Chapter 8

Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor Potential of Rural Areas Gulmira I. Nurzhanova , Aitolkyn T. Tleubayeva , Shakizada U. Niyazbekova , Akylbek A. Ilyas , and Leila А. Maisigova

8.1 Introduction There is no general indicator determining the efficiency of labor potential and the conditions of its formation. However, in our opinion, the prerequisites for the efficiency of labor potential use include the following: • Ecological and geographical (natural and climatic conditions, the level of environmental pollution, location of the region, and natural resource potential); • Socio-demographic (natural population increase, decrease, growth rate, age and gender structure, level of health care organization); • Socio-economic (development of the industry structure in the region, labor market structure, employment by industry, socio-productive conditions, distribution of the population by the standard of living, and consumption patterns); • Technological development and digitalization (development of enterprises with innovation, training of employees related to the development and use of ICT, the number of fixed telephone lines in rural areas, and the share of Internet users).

G. I. Nurzhanova Astana International University, Astana, Kazakhstan A. T. Tleubayeva · A. A. Ilyas L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan S. U. Niyazbekova (*) Scientific and Educational Center “Sustainable Development” of the Moscow Witte University, Moscow, Russia Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia L. А. Maisigova Ingush State University, Magas, Russia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_8

61

62

G. I. Nurzhanova et al.

The number of labor resources varies from year to year and depends on the duration of working age, interregional migration, including labor migration, and many other variables. Employment efficiency is characterized by the high labor activity of a worker. In our opinion, structural reforms in the agricultural sector should be based on the following principles: 1. The formation of the agricultural market depends on biological factors. 2. Optimal employment in agricultural production can only be achieved under certain conditions; in particular, everyone must be an owner and be directly responsible for the results of their activities. 3. The agricultural labor market must have its own subsistence farming along with employment in public production. In our opinion, it is very important that the population is interested in working in agriculture. The processes of land labor must be efficient and attractive to the rural population. Thus, the efficiency of using labor potential in agricultural production depends on the freedom of economic management. The prestige of rural labor increases with the results of peasant labor. The importance of measures to regulate the labor market in rural areas is apparent. Three categories of people work in agriculture: people employed in agricultural enterprises, owners of peasant (farm) holdings, and people employed on their own farms. We believe that optimal employment in rural areas will only be possible with the formation of various forms of farming in the agricultural field.

8.2 Literature Review An important factor in the formation of the labor market is the problem of migration. Due to economic factors, people move from rural to urban areas, from regions and countries with low levels of economic development to regions with normal conditions [16]. Depending on the type of local migration, the influx of people from rural to urban areas is predominant, while the tendency to move from urban to rural areas is low. Young people still go to study from the villages to the cities, settling there and trying not to return after graduation. To normalize the demographic situation in developing labor potential in rural areas, it is necessary to pursue a demographic policy and ensure the inflow of migrants. The arrival of migrants improves the age structure of the rural population. Thus, it can be considered an important component of demographic development (natural population growth) [9]. G. Nurzhanova and S. Niyazbekova describe another way to improve the demographic situation in rural areas. According to the authors, the way to improve the demographic situation in rural areas “is to reduce the flow of immigrants and mortality. Only then can the number of able-bodied people in rural areas be restored.

8  Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor…

63

Therefore, the demographic policy of the state in rural areas should become an important part of national policy” [8]. G. Nurzhanova states that “human resources of the country are one of its competitive advantages, and the level of professional training is the main guarantee of the quality of life. Rural youth, in particular, are a vulnerable group in the labor market” [9]. V. Stetsyuk writes that “in times of crisis, the main threat to the enterprise is the decline in capacity, which is the main factor in the viability of the enterprise” [14, 19]. The young generation has limited opportunities for self-employment. To regulate this labor market segment, the government must form regulatory measures considering the requirements for young people in the labor market. It should be noted that Kazakhstan has been implementing the project “With Diploma – to the village!” for more than ten years [1]. The project is designed so that young doctors, veterinarians, and teachers can go to work in those villages where there is a shortage of qualified specialists. The professional adaptation of young people begins at school and continues with the study of special professions.

8.3 Methodology The agricultural sector has made significant technological advances; information dissemination has accelerated. The authors used theoretical, statistical, and comparative research methods to broadly support the area of rural employment. The task has been expanded by the use of labor, balanced by the restoration of labor resources and the demand for jobs for the able-bodied population.

8.4 Results The priority direction of labor market development is the organizational factor related to employment [7]. An important role in the priority is given to the socio-economic development of rural areas and the development of personal subsidiary farming. In recent years, they have accounted for about half of all agricultural production [18]. Currently, the Ministry of Agriculture has developed a legislative project for the development of subsistence farming, which has been sent to the Majilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan for consideration [11]. According to the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, personal subsidiary farms are not considered entrepreneurial activities and are not registered. Therefore, the results of their activities are not taxed, and the land tax is very low in its level [5]. However, in our opinion, this is a small commodity farm, which is no different from a farmstead.

64

G. I. Nurzhanova et al.

Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to create a legal framework to regulate the activities of households. Demographic factors affecting the formation of the labor force of young people reflect the quantitative and qualitative properties of the labor force of young people. Quantitative properties include the following: • Quantity of labor resources; • Flexibility of labor resources; The qualitative prerequisites for the demographic factors of the labor force are as follows: • The quality of the able-bodied population in terms of general education and cultural and vocational training; • The ratio of the population employed in mental and physical labor; • The physical capabilities and health status of the able-bodied population; • National and ethnic structure of labor resources, etc. Simultaneously, in our opinion, it is necessary to develop special programs aimed at the formation and development of a community of highly qualified Kazakh rural workers on technological modernization. In our opinion, the situation with the outflow of personnel and highly qualified specialists abroad can be solved only by radical measures: political and economic stability, accumulation of resources for investment in science, and innovation in rural areas. The development strategy and launching production through the development of science in the diversification of the country’s economy are important for Kazakhstan and its regions. Increasing the level of innovative development is one of the strategic objectives of Kazakhstan. This strategy defines the basic mechanisms of science, education, and technological development in the country and its regions [13]. Innovation and technological process is a key factor determining the competitiveness of agricultural enterprises. The innovation policy of Kazakhstan is closely related to the integration of domestic science and its place in the world scientific space [6]. Innovation activity can be widely used in science, public life, political system, agriculture, and other spheres of society. Orientation on innovative processes means renewal of dynamics of development of agricultural enterprises and unification of science and industry [17]. At any stage, the educational system in the agricultural sector has developed more rapidly than in other areas, with a wealth of experience in training qualified personnel. This experience shows that, in many cases, the final result of agricultural work depends on the organizational, political, and business qualities of specialists and their managers. Therefore, mastering new technologies is of great importance in the education of agricultural specialists in Kazakhstan. On the other hand, the activities of agricultural specialists are important not only in their own business but also in the cultural and educational sense [12].

8  Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor…

65

In regulating labor potential in rural territories, it is important to increase the effectiveness of bodies engaged in organizing employment [3]. Young people have a special role to play in this process. They have the advantage of using digital literacy to adapt to innovative solutions quickly. When digital directions are integrated into educational programs, it is possible to gain insight into the use of digital tools and the skills to create them [4]. The low overall level of smartphone ownership in rural areas, combined with the high cost of the Internet and limited network coverage, also creates challenges for the use of mobile farming applications and limits the scope of using social media to help agriculture to support the flow of information between farmers. The digital availability of information can help farmers make better farming decisions that can increase yields, reduce environmental impact, and improve quality of life [15]. The variety of technologies available and the lack of standardization and interoperability between them, such as for data exchange, also create barriers for farmers because there is a lack of independent advisory services to support these decisions. Countries with high ICT education programs can afford digital tools and have good access to the Internet using better digital skills. In the agri-food sector, digital transformation will change the structure of the labor market and the nature of work. It will redefine the role of farmers and agricultural producers and change the set of skills required in the agri-food sector [10]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agricultural producers in Kazakhstan began to receive government subsidies online. The government managed to increase the amount of funding and the number of recipients. The online subsidy mechanism has markedly reduced costs for businesses and the state. Thus, procedures that used to take months of work by teams of specialists now take a few days [2]. However, despite the rapid growth of digital agricultural technology, most ICT-based solutions have yet to be developed and demonstrated at scale. One problem is that entrepreneurs lack guidance on scaling strategies in underserved markets [10]. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant decrease in employment activity in the labor market of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is worth noting that adaptation to the remote mode of work in Kazakhstan is an important factor in improving the efficiency of using labor potential [2]. As part of the digitalization of education in Kazakhstan, schools are equipped with computers. Students use electronic diaries and journals (6703 out of 7014 schools); 90% of schools (6336 schools) are provided with Internet with a speed of 4 Mbit/s or higher. Electronic queues have been implemented in 78.5% of pre-schools, and 70.3% of schools accept students online. Moreover, 74% of educational services are automated. Digitalization of the education system has reduced the gap in the quality of education between rural and urban schools by more than 30%. To provide the rural population with broadband Internet access, 705 SNPs (rural settlements) were conducted in 2019 and 489 SNPs in 2020. This made it possible to provide high-speed Internet access to 3718 government agencies and budgetary organizations. When forming the list of rural settlements, the list was sent for

66

G. I. Nurzhanova et al.

approval to local executive bodies. The constructed infrastructure stimulates the development of cellular operators. The total length of the fiber optic communication line (FOCL) was more than 20 thousand km. As of 2019, 841 state bodies and budget institutions located in 299 villages were connected to the Internet. Further, it will be gradually connected according to the approved schedule of the public-private partnership (PPP) agreement. By the end of 2020, 532,000 citizens had been trained in digital literacy; the plan was 462,846 people. About 78.3 thousand citizens from more socially vulnerable segments of the population were trained in digital literacy. However, despite the provision of broadband Internet access services to the rural population, there are problems with poor-quality Internet connection in remote rural areas.

8.5 Conclusion Solving the problem of effective use of labor potential depends on many factors, including the revision of state support mechanisms for large, medium, and small agricultural enterprises, including cooperatives of owners and personal farms. It is necessary to improve the production sphere and services provided in the process of bringing products to the consumer. Additionally, it is important to increase competitiveness based on innovative technology, which is naturally based on knowledge. All factors influencing the labor potential are interconnected and interdependent; they should be studied comprehensively. The effectiveness of the use of labor potential in rural areas must be addressed through the creation of alternative forms of employment and normal conditions for the activities of private farms. It is necessary to increase the cost of training rural residents related to developing and using ICTs and digitalization. The government needs to support the effective activities of producers engaged in entrepreneurship, specialization in entrepreneurship, and the attraction of investment in it.

References 1. Digital Kazakhstan. (2019). Implementation of the State Program “Digital Kazakhstan” in 2019. Retrieved from https://digitalkz.kz/. Accessed 13 June 2022. 2. Forbes Kazakhstan. (2020, July 2). How the pandemic affected the labor market in Kazakhstan. Retrieved from https://forbes.kz/news/2020/07/02/newsid_228635. Accessed 13 June 2022. 3. Imangozhina, Z.  A., Niyazbekova, S.  U., Nurzhanova, G.  I., & Nurpeisova, A.  A. (2019). Rating of efficiency of the labor market of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In N.  B. Osipyan, M. A. Dmitrieva, & M. I. Zhbannikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the international scientific conference “science and society – 2019” (pp. 206–212).

8  Improvement of Agricultural Policy of Kazakhstan in Improving the Use of Labor…

67

4. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2016). Measuring the information society report. ITU. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-­D/Statistics/Documents/publications/ misr2016/MISR2016-­w4.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2022. 5. Kuksin, I. N. (2020). Digitalization is a new reality in law. Moscow Witte university bulletin. Series 2: Legal Sciences, 1(23), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.21777/2587-­9472-­2020-­1-­6-­12 6. Novitsky, N.  A. (2016). The choice of a model and target criteria for the breakthrough of the Russian economy into a new technological order. Moscow Witte University Bulletin. Series 1: Economics and Management, 1(16), 3–14. Retrieved from https://vestnik-­muiv. ru/article/vybor-­m odeli-­i -­t selevykh-­k riteriev-­p roryva-­r ossiyskoy-­e konomiki-­v -­n ovyy-­ tekhnologicheskiy-­uklad/. Accessed 13 June 2022. 7. Nurzhanova, G. I. (2018). Paid public works and the main priorities for the development of the labor potential of household livestock. Proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the national currency of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Modernization of the economy of Kazakhstan – A factor in the stability of the financial system of the state and the national currency” (pp.  233–236). L.N.  Gumilev Penetration. 8. Nurzhanova, G., Beisenova, M., Aitymbetova, A., Kuralbayeva, A., Zhakipbekova, D., Zhussipova, E., et al. (2019). The current state of supply chain management and development of rural labor resources in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Supply Chain Management (IJSCM), 8(1), 339–348. Retrieved from https://ojs.excelingtech.co.uk/index.php/IJSCM/ article/view/2900. Accessed 13 June 2022. 9. Nurzhanova, G., Mussirov, G., Niyazbekova, S., Ilyas, A., Tyurina, Y. G., Maisigova, L. A., et al. (2020). Demographic and migration processes of labor potential: A case study the agricultural sector of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 656–671. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(45) 10. Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2021, February 11). Maintaining position of grain nation, focus on import substitution and possibilities of agro-industrial complex  – results of last year and plans for 2021. Retrieved from https://www.primeminister.kz/en/news/ reviews/maintaining-­position-­of-­grain-­nation-­focus-­on-­import-­substitution-­and-­possibilities-­ of-­agro-­industrial-­complex-­results-­of-­last-­year-­and-­plans-­for-­2021. Accessed 13 June 2022. 11. Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2022, February 17). Development of agricultural sector for 2021 and plans for coming period. Retrieved from https://www. primeminister.kz/en/news/reviews/itogi-­razvitiya-­sfery-­selskogo-­hozyaystva-­za-­2021-­god-­i-­ plany-­na-­predstoyashchiy-­period-­22422. Accessed 13 June 2022. 12. Saparova, G. K., & Nurzhanova, G. I. (2019). Technical and vocational education for specialists in rural areas of Kazakhstan. Problems of AgriMarket, 4, 163–171. Retrieved from https:// www.jpra-­kazniiapk.kz/jour/article/view/353/302. Accessed 13 June 2022. 13. Solodov, A. K. (2017). On the new model of ensuring financial resources of solutions of economic and social tasks of Russia. Moscow Witte University Bulletin. Series 1: Economics and Management, 4(23), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.21777/2587-­9472-­2017-­4-­7-­13 14. Stetsyuk, V., Pravikov, O., & Denisov, V. (2018). Strategic change in investment policy rationale of enterprises modernization as a key condition for getting over economic crisis. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.21511/ imfi.15(3).2018.18 15. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2015, January 1). Human development report 2015: Work for human development. UNDP. Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/2015humandevelopmentreportpdf_1.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2022. 16. Yessengeldin, B., Khussainova, Z., Kurmanova, A., Syzdykova, D., & Zhanseitov, A. (2019). Exploitation of natural resources in Kazakhstan: Judicial practice for foreign investment. Journal of East Asia and International Law, 12(1), 169–179. Retrieved from https:// www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean. artiId=ART002584213. Accessed 13 June 2022.

68

G. I. Nurzhanova et al.

17. Yurkova, E. A. (2013). Competitiveness of agricultural enterprises and the impact of the innovative potential of the agro-industrial complex on its improvement (Synopsis of Dissertations of candidate of economics). Russian State Social University. 18. Zeynalova, L.  M. (2018). Actual problems of local self-government and ways of its development in Russia at the present stage. Moscow Witte University Bulletin. Series 2: Legal Sciences, 1(14), 22–25. Retrieved from https://vestnik-­muiv.ru/article/aktualnye-­problemy-­ mestnogo-­samoupravleniya-­i-­puti-­ego-­razvitiya-­v-­rf-­na-­sovremennom-­etape/. Accessed 13 June 2022. 19. Zhartay, Z., Khussainova, Z., & Yessengeldin, B. (2020). Development of the youth entrepreneurship: Example of Kazakhstan. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 1190–1208. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(80)

Chapter 9

Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products as an Important Aspect in the Development of the AIC Tatiana V. Biryukova , Tatyana I. Ashmarina , Natalya A. Yagudaeva Andrey N. Romanov , and Ekaterina F. Malykha

,

9.1 Introduction In recent decades, the Russian Federation has seen a significant increase in the rate of production of the entire meat industry. This state of affairs was primarily facilitated by the considerable government support for the development of the industry. Currently, production is stagnant due to several factors. Most organizations carry out their activities with maximum efficiency [4]. However, companies are forced to change their development strategies due to serious restrictions on the export of certain production means, such as feed and vitamin supplements, veterinary drugs, and other means. Thus, manufacturers are currently facing several challenges. On the one hand, these challenges are related to increasing production efficiency. On the other hand, they are related to ensuring competitiveness by accurately orienting products to the consumers’ needs and requirements [9, 10]. The above indicates the importance of understanding the aspects of product selection by the consumer as the main vector of production development. This paper aims to assess the main significant characteristics in the selection of meat and meat products. Particular attention is paid to the process of making a purchasing decision as a significant aspect of product selection. This study is fundamental to identifying new development vectors for organizations involved in meat production and processing.

T. V. Biryukova (*) · T. I. Ashmarina · N. A. Yagudaeva · A. N. Romanov · E. F. Malykha Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_9

69

70

T. V. Biryukova et al.

9.2 Materials and Methods Thus, the research goal is to identify and evaluate the main significant characteristics in the choice of meat and meat products by end users in today’s conditions. The analysis was based on market research, the purpose of which was to trace the dependence formed by respondents on the basic constants of choice of meat and meat products. In our opinion, the theoretical aspects of the formulation of methods should be based on a model of decision-making on the purchase with a step-by-step determination of the priority factors for the consumer [5]. The development of the model of food behavior was based on the concept of C. Levin [7], who was one of the first researchers in this field to pay attention to the relationship between internal and external factors and identify the significant constants of the model of consumer eating behavior, which guide a consumer at the time of the purchase [6]. Based on the above, we transform this model considering consumer choice of meat and meat products. Next, we determine the range of significant aspects that the consumer controls when making a purchasing decision (Fig.  9.1). Thus, eating behavior is central to this model; it is a factor that depends heavily on external control related to the individual’s environment and internal control factors that should include features of the individual’s internal perception of states such as hunger, thirst, knowledge of the product, etc. It is necessary to emphasize the individual’s perception of these two groups in relation to earlier studies [2]. For example, internal factors encourage consumers to respond emotionally to the product choice and the purchase speed. This group is based on in-depth indicators of an individual’s perception of a “healthy lifestyle,” understanding aspects of product quality transformation, and evaluation of useful properties. It is necessary to study the unmet need for meat and meat products formed in relation to the conditions of the influence of the external environment.

Internal control

Cultural factors (religion, culture, and traditions)

Individual

External control

External Environment Eating behavior

Internal factors: • Primary food needs; • Emotional connection; • Facts; • Risks;

External factors: • Social status (connections); • Media, media, advertising; • Public opinion (atmosphere); • Assortment of meat products.

Fig. 9.1  Model of the influence of main factors on consumer behavior when choosing meat and meat products. (Source: Compiled by the authors)

9  Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products…

71

Thus, it is important to determine what factors determine the consumer as the main factors in making purchasing decisions and identify market segments with a high dissatisfaction with the market offer. The survey was conducted in February 2022 using the panel method in Moscow, Voronezh, and Krasnodar.

9.3 Results Marketing research of consumers of meat and meat products was carried out by the panel method. The survey was conducted via videoconference. The majority of respondents in the survey were between the ages of 36 and 44 (24%); 21% of respondents were 45–54 years old, 17% were 55–64 years old, 10% were 25–35 years old, and 8% were younger than 24 years old. As for gender differentiation, 67% of respondents were female, and 33% were male. In terms of education, 1.1% of respondents did not have a complete secondary education, 17.5% had secondary education, 30.5% had secondary vocational education, 39.7% had higher education, and 11.2% had a degree. Some respondents did not answer this question. Most respondents live in families. The survey involved persons whose family composition consisted of two persons (34%), three persons (23%), and four persons (24%); 17% of respondents were living on their own. The rest of the respondents lived in families of five or more people. An important criterion for the differentiation of consumers is the level of income. However, about 23% of respondents refused to give information on this group of questions. Most households were divided into five classes according to the level of income commensurate per family member: less than 20 thousand rubles (22%); 21–45 thousand rubles (34%); 46–65 thousand rubles (38%); 66–85 thousand rubles (5%); the rest of the respondents had an income of 86 thousand rubles or more. More than 79% of the respondents are working people, of whom 38% work in managerial positions and 18% are housewives. It is necessary to note the great interest of respondents regarding the research topic. Most of the respondents emphasized the quality of the product, the time it takes to cook it, their attitude toward healthy lifestyles, and the product’s price. Respondents were asked open-ended questions, so they could independently focus on the significant factors that characterize the process of making a purchasing decision. The distribution of answers concerning the priority of the choice of criteria characterizing internal and external factors determining the choice of meat and meat products is presented in Table 9.1. Analyzing the research results, we note the highlighted pattern that allows us to characterize the criteria for selecting a product. Thus, when buying meat and meat products, priority is given to the ratio of price factors with a number of criteria that characterize the product itself. Most respondents identified the importance of eating meat and meat products (including convenience foods) as two equally important products (57% of

72

T. V. Biryukova et al.

Table 9.1  Distribution of respondents’ answers about the priority of the choice of criteria for buying meat and meat products Criteria for evaluating Distribution of respondents’ answers regarding the priority of purchase factors criteria selection (out of 214 respondents) Meat Appearance 175 Brand 164 Flavor qualities 150 Nutritional value 134 Health benefits (healthy 128 eating) Source of cholesterol 76 Product safety 54 Animal content 43 Meat products (including semi-finished products) Appearance 185 Brand 164 Flavor qualities 148 Nutritional value 135 Health benefits (healthy 129 eating) Source of cholesterol 84 Product safety 46 Source: Compiled by the authors based on the conducted research

respondents); about 32% of those surveyed believed that prepared meat products and convenience foods were an important part of the daily diet, while dishes made with meat were holiday or weekend meals. This state of affairs is primarily due to the time for product preparation. When interviewing consumers, it was found that the main component of wasted time is the preparation of semi-finished meat products, the cooking time itself, and the time required for cleaning (washing the forms and containers required for cooking semi-finished products and ready meals). The discussion on this topic was mainly supported by respondents living in single-parent families, families consisting of two people, or living alone. The main criteria for choosing meat determined by internal factors and, in this regard, related to the emotional aspects are the traditional cooking of a number of dishes (48% of respondents) and the basis of the diet (if there is meat, then there is a full meal) (31% of respondents). It should also be noted that the perception of hunger was associated with the purchase of meat for only 11% of respondents; 73% of those surveyed associated the perception of hunger with the purchase of convenience foods. The most popular type of meat in the diet was poultry (49%), pork (33%), beef and veal (14%). The rest of the respondents prefer other types of meat. From the point of view of the majority of respondents, the most important is the flavor

9  Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products…

73

qualities of the product, which, according to the model, were correlated with the description of certain ready meals or the emotional perception of the product. Despite global trends in reducing the proportion of meat and meat products in the diet, most respondents believe that eating meat 3–8 times a week on a regular basis has a positive effect on health, with low-fat types of meat and meat products being the basis of such consumption (about 43% of respondents). It should be noted that 25% of the respondents noted the importance of meat consumption for children, indicating the basis of such a diet (first and second traditional national dishes). With an emphasis on the process of making a purchasing decision, it should be noted that most respondents try to self-evaluate the product and, above all, its appearance. For 45% of the respondents, this criterion transformed into such characteristics as packaging, meat color, shelf life, the presence of liquid inside the package, and the presence of fat layers. For the majority of respondents, the brand was a guarantee of product quality. However, it should be noted that 17% of the respondents believe that the place of production is more important. The main companies whose brands were most often identified by the respondents are PJSC “Cherkizovo” and AIH “Miratorg.” Most respondents associated the taste of meat with an emotional perception of certain dishes. Some respondents noted the importance of the presence of flavor characteristics and the unacceptability of the presence of other flavors in a product that disturbs the harmony of the prepared dish [3]. For most respondents, the nutritional value of meat is a significant factor in making a purchasing decision. For 24% of respondents, the nutritional value is tied to the presence and amount of fat in the piece of meat. The following indicators, such as health benefits and the presence of cholesterol, belong to the group of perceptions of external factors formed based on information presented in the media and public opinion. In many ways, these two significant criteria were seriously interrelated and, when delved into deeply, were associated with the risks of eating meat. For 67% of the respondents, the main risk was the presence of cholesterol in the product. According to 22% of the respondents, the second risk group consisted of such factors as the use of antibiotics and growth stimulants in animal breeding. According to 54 respondents, product safety is the main aspect of the choice that characterizes the production process. The main characteristics were microbiological indicators and the refusal to use antibiotics and growth hormones in livestock breeding. Female respondents actively discussed the criterion of animal content. Simultaneously, only one-fifth of all respondents believe that the conditions for keeping animals are fully consistent with the level of technological development. A majority of respondents (47%) agreed that growing conditions were directly dependent on acceptable legal standards and the ethics of producers. Most of the respondents actively answered the questions related to the choice and consumption of processed products, giving specific examples that confirm the correctness of their choice. Thus, the most popular were ready-to-eat products (sausages, frankfurters) (61%), frozen semi-finished products (including ready meals,

74

T. V. Biryukova et al.

nuggets, and dumplings) (18%), and products made by meat processing plants from raw meat (marinated meat, kupaty, and kebab products) (21%). During the interview with the respondents, the latter group of products was positioned as meat rather than meat products. The main criteria for this positioning were the manufacturer, the place on the store shelf, packaging, shelf life, cooking time, and composition. It should also be noted that about 56% of the respondents consider the consumption of sausage products harmful. The brand is the main selection criterion for most respondents. The conversation established a strong emotional connection to major brands. The majority of respondents compare the criterion of product quality and brand. Equally important is the speed of preparation of the semi-finished product. About 24% of the respondents believed that processed meat was a staple of the daily diet, generally referring to sausage, sausage products, and frozen semi-finished products, with an average cooking time of less than 15 minutes. The taste qualities of the product were evaluated by respondents, including the risks of consuming processed products [8]. Thus, about 34% of respondents say that the use of advanced technology and some ingredients allows significantly reducing the quality of the product without reducing its taste characteristics. In general, the product’s taste was evaluated in the complex of a complete meal. When choosing a product, consumers try to build a model of the whole meal or meals in mind based on previous experience and using internal factors of product choice [1]. Nutritional value and the criterion of health benefits were almost equally important in the choice of product. However, about 32% of respondents believe that the useful qualities of the product are always indicated by the manufacturer on the package. According to the respondents, the main significant characteristics that reflect the quality of the product and, accordingly, its usefulness are grain-fed animals, the absence of GMOs in the product, and the absence of soy and gluten. The presence of large amounts of cholesterol in processed foods was noted by about 47% of respondents, mostly living in families consisting of three or more people. The study established the importance of preserving the ecology of the region in which these enterprises are located, the free range of animals, and the producers’ refusal to use hormones and growth regulators when raising animals. We should also note the high polarity in respondents’ answers with different income levels and equating certain product qualities with the price. Thus, according to respondents with the lowest income, the quality and taste of processed products should not depend on the price. The availability of promotions and discounts, which make it possible to significantly save on purchasing products, was noted as important. In turn, respondents with high income note the importance of price as belonging to the premium segment, which, in their view, is currently not fully formed in this category of products.

9  Transformation of Purchasing Behavior in Choosing Meat and Meat Products…

75

9.4 Discussion Thus, it is necessary to note the significant dependence of respondents in the choice of products on the significant criteria, which are largely due to the proposed model of internal motivating factors. This group is formed during the formation of a person and the consideration of those motivations that look primary before the consumer. The brand acts as one of the significant aspects for consumers, encouraging them to reduce the time to make a purchasing decision. The role of meat and meat products in the diet of consumers is also significant. Despite global trends, most respondents believe that meat and meat products are the basis of a complete diet. This trend in Russia is confirmed by statistical data, showing a steady increase in consumption of processed products over the past five years. The attitude of consumers to the conditions under which the animals are raised is also important. Consumers are well aware of the operation of modern complexes due to the serious influence of external factors of the proposed model. Trust in the retail chains is also important. Most respondents did not consider shelf life significant; in their opinion, the products presented in the federal retail chains are always fresh.

9.5 Conclusion Thus, the main factors influencing consumer behavior when choosing meat are appearance, brand, taste, nutritional value, health benefits, the source of cholesterol, product safety, and animal content. The above characteristics show significant development in the model of making a decision on purchasing meat and meat products. This study is fundamental to determining the strategic vectors of development of enterprises operating in this area. The research outlines a vector of the conceptual development of the market for meat and meat products for the future, considering the definition of product selection constants that are significant for consumers, corresponding to general market trends. In our opinion, further research in this area will provide a more in-depth assessment of the influence of internal and external factors on making a decision on purchasing various types of meat and processed meat products. This research should be carried out with an analysis of the range of products existing on the market to identify new unmet consumer preferences in each of them.

76

T. V. Biryukova et al.

References 1. Ashmarina, T. I., Biryukova, T. V., Sergeyeva, N. V., & Romanov, A. N. (2021). Innovation in mushroom production. In A. V. Bogoviz (Ed.), The challenge of sustainability in agricultural systems (pp. 1069–1078). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­72110-­7_118 2. Biryukova, T. V., & Ashmarina, T. I. (2021). Consumer activity evaluation in relation to the purchase of food products of a certain regional affiliation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 650, 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-­1315/650/1/012021 3. Biryukova, T. V., Surkova, N. V., Konopleva, Z. V., Sadykova, Z. F., & Ashmarina, T. I. (2021). Transformation of consumption demand for meat and meat products as an important aspect of agricultural development. In A. V. Bogoviz (Ed.), The challenge of sustainability in agricultural systems (pp. 633–639). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­73097-­0_71 4. Chutcheva, Y. V. (2019). Technical and technological innovations in agricultural production. Russian Agricultural Economy, 3, 36–39. 5. De Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the Irish market. Food Quality and Preference, 15(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0950-­3293(03)00054-­5 6. Grashorn, M., & Serini, C. (2006). Quality of chicken meat from conventional and organic production. In Proceedings of the 12th European Poultry Conference. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.878.5895&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 20 June 2022. 7. Grunert, K. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016 8. Marwa, M. E., Mburu, J., Oburu, R. E. J., Mwai, O., & Kahumbu, S. (2012). Impact of ICT-­ based extension services on dairy production and household welfare: The case of iCow service in Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science, 12(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas. v12n3p141 9. Paptsov, A. (2018). International scientific and practical conference on agrarian economy in the era of globalization and integration. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 274, 011001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-­1315/274/1/011001 10. Sergeyeva, N. (2020). The cost planning and cash limits for repair and maintenance work in the AIC. In A. V. Bogoviz (Ed.), Complex systems: Innovation and sustainability in the digital age (pp. 585–594). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­44703-­8_64

Part 2

Russian and International Agricultural Policies for Food Security

Chapter 10

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming Yulia V. Reshetkina

, Lyubov B. Vinnichek

, and Olga A. Stolyarova

10.1 Introduction Dairy cattle breeding plays a huge role in ensuring the food security of the country and the region. In the Penza Region, livestock products account for more than 38% of revenues, including dairy cattle, which accounts for more than 25% of the total revenues for livestock products sold [1]. In 2020, all agricultural producers in the region produced agricultural products at actual prices worth 129.1 billion rubles, which is 14.4% higher than in 2019 (this includes crop production worth 73.8 billion rubles (25.7% more) and livestock production worth 55.3 billion rubles (4.8% more)). According to the index of agricultural production, the Penza Region ranked second in 2020 among the regions of the Volga Federal District. In 2021, the region produced milk in 516 large, medium, and small agricultural organizations and subsidiary farms of non-agricultural enterprises, 1730 peasant (farmer) enterprises (P(F)E), individual entrepreneurs (IE), and 296 thousand households. The paper aims to assess the economic efficiency of dairy cattle breeding and substantiate the main directions to develop the industry. To achieve the research goal, the authors set the following tasks: • To analyze the development and efficiency of dairy cattle breeding; • To substantiate the directions of increase of economic efficiency of milk production. Y. V. Reshetkina (*) · O. A. Stolyarova Penza State Agrarian University, Penza, Russia e-mail: [email protected] L. B. Vinnichek St. Petersburg State Agrarian University, St. Petersburg-Pushkin, Russia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_10

79

80

Y. V. Reshetkina et al.

10.2 Materials and Methods This research was based on the use of statistical, comparative, computational, monographic, and graphical analysis methods. Let us analyze milk production on farms of different organizational forms in the Russian Federation (Table 10.1). Table 10.1 shows that milk production has not increased in all categories of farms in the Russian Federation. In 2018–2021, agricultural organizations increased the production of milk from 16.2 million tons to 18.2 million tons, or by 12.3%, peasant (farmer) enterprises and individual entrepreneurs – from 2.5 million tons to 2.9 million tonnes, or by 16.0%. However, in private subsidiary farms, production decreased from 11.8 to 11.2 million tonnes, i.e., by 5%. In 2010–2021, milk production on farms of all categories increased by 2.5%. To increase milk production, it is necessary to use an extensive factor in the development of dairy cattle breeding – increase the number of cows. In agricultural organizations of the Russian Federation, in 2021 compared to 2010, the number of cows decreased by 485.2 thousand animals and amounted to 3227.5 thousand animals. In 2021, the share of cows in agricultural organizations of the Penza Region was expected to be 50.3% of the total number in farms of all categories, in individual subsidiary plots of population – 23.9%, in peasant (farm) enterprises and individual entrepreneurs – 25.8%. The increase in the number of cows in peasant (farm) enterprises and individual entrepreneurs did not affect the growth of milk production in the region. In 2021, milk production on all categories of farms in the Penza Region decreased by 17.6% compared to 2010, and increased by 16% compared to 2015, totaling 384.400 tons (Fig. 10.1). Peasant (farm) enterprises have achieved positive results in dairy farming in the Penza Region. For example, in 2010–2021, the production of milk on these farms increased 3.3 times to 51.1 tons. The increase in milk production in agricultural organizations ensures an increase in cow productivity and livestock numbers by 8.3% and 3.2% in 2021 compared to 2020. This has contributed (albeit slightly) to an increase in the profitability of milk production to 26.7% (Table 10.2). The total cost of one metric centner of milk remains high and amounts to 2241.9 rubles per one centner in 2021. However, the selling price of one centner of milk in Table 10.1  Milk production in farms of all categories in the Russian Federation, million tons Index Households of all categories Including: agricultural organizations Private farms of the population P(F)E & IE

2010 31.5 14.3 15.7 1.5

2015 29.9 14.7 13.2 2.0

Source: Compiled by the authors based on the [2]

2018 30.5 16.2 11.8 2.5

2019 31.3 17.0 11.7 2.6

2020 32.2 17.9 11.5 2.8

2021 32.3 18.2 11.2 2.9

2021 to 2010, % 102.5 127.3 71.3 193.3

10  Assessment of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming

81

500 450

15.6

400

300

51.1

55

350 287.7

33.8

51.3

48.7

81.7

117.7

250

142.6

120.8

120.4

155.1

171.9

172.6

200 150 100

163.3

251.6

211.5

50 0 2010

2015

agricultural organizations

2018

2019

2020

private farms of population

2021

peasant (farm) households

Fig. 10.1  Milk production in the Penza Region, thousand tons. (Source: Compiled by the authors based on the data of the [3]) Table 10.2 Indicators of milk production efficiency in agricultural organizations of the Penza Region Index Milk yield per average annual cow, kg Milk production, thousand tons Total milk sales, thousand tons Marketability rate, % Total cost of one cwt of milk, rubles Selling price of one metric centner of milk, rubles Milk production profitability rate, %

Year 2010 3302 163.3 147.4 90.3 958.68 1138.4

2015 4676 150.5 142.6 94.7 1659.8 1905.0

2018 6571 171.9 156.6 91.1 2112.7 2616.3

2019 7499 172.6 158.2 91.6 2140.3 2683.7

2020 8514 211.5 195.0 92.2 2215.4 2796.0

2021 9223 251.6 230.0 91.4 2241.9 2841.3

18.6

20.7

24.2

25.1

26.2

26.7

Source: Compiled and calculated by the authors based on the consolidated annual reports of agricultural organizations in the Penza Region

agricultural organizations of the Penza Region remains low and equals 2841.3 rubles per one centner. In our opinion, to effectively manage the industry, the level of profitability of milk production should not be lower than 55%. The above analysis shows that there are significant reserves for increasing the economic efficiency of milk production in agricultural organizations and private subsidiary plots of population due to the increase in the number of cows, improvement of breeding work, enhancement of forage base, and improvement of material and technical base that promotes the use of innovative technologies. To ensure profitable milk production, it is necessary to keep the dynamics of milking herd reproduction at a high level [4]. With the well-organized zootechnical work, the dairy cattle breeding must provide the possibility of selling

82

Y. V. Reshetkina et al.

over-reproductive animals at the rate of not less than seven animals per 100 cows (having 1000 heads of breeding stock, the farm must sell not less than 70 heifers) [5]. In the Penza Region, 73 calves per 100 cows were produced in 2020, which means that self-sufficiency in breeding young stock is still low. Of the region’s nine breeding enterprises, some are unprofitable. For example, in 2020, the net loss at JSC “PZ Elansky” was 34,548 thousand rubles. It is necessary to strengthen the government support to such organizations, on which the share of breeding animals with high genetic potential depends. The use of artificial insemination requires additional capital investment. The subprogram “Improvement of genetic potential of dairy cattle” of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 25 August 2017 No. 996 “On approval of the Federal Scientific and Technical Program for Agricultural Development in 2017–2025” states that “the basis for increasing the efficiency of dairy cattle breeding and, consequently, milk production is genetic improvement of bred dairy cattle.” According to the Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “All-Russian Research Institute of Breeding,” the share of breeding cows of dairy direction under productivity control in the total number of cows was 13.8% (1226.4 thousand animals), according to the results of boning for 2019. The development and strengthening of the fodder base are important in improving the economic efficiency of dairy cattle breeding in agricultural organizations. In our opinion, animal feeding is still insufficient and unbalanced. In the Penza Region, there was used 19.7 centners of fodder units per cow in 2021 and 27.6 centners of fodder units in 2010. In 2021, the share of forage crops in agricultural organizations of the Penza Region was 15.3% in the total sown area. For the analyzed year, the share of forage grasslands and pastures in the area of agricultural land in the region was 5.8%. In our opinion, improving the structure of sown areas of forage crops should help increase fodder production. In the Russian Federation, the share of fodder crops in the total sown area was 21.7% in 2021. The area of fodder crops per cow has decreased (the growth rate was 78.9%), which supports the conclusion that the development of fodder production in agricultural organizations is insufficient and hinders further growth in dairy farming [6].

10.3 Results The effective development of dairy cattle breeding should be provided with a sufficient level of government support. Agricultural producers in the Penza Region receive grant support in the following forms: • Grants “Agro – start-up”; • Grant support for the development of family farms and grants “Agro-progress”;

10  Assessment of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming

83

• Grants for the development of material and technical base of agricultural consumer cooperatives. The volume of government support for agrarians of the Penza Region in 2022 is more than 334 million rubles, which is 2.4 times more than the amount sent in 2021. The mentioned directions of government support are provided to agricultural organizations in the form of grants “Agro – progress” up to 30 million rubles but not more than 25% of the project cost; for development of family farms – grants for farms and individual entrepreneurs up to 30 million rubles but not more than 60% of the project cost. It is not provided for household farms that produce almost 36% of milk [7]. Most of the farmers who received grant support in 2020 are developing dairy and beef cattle breeding (30.8% and 38.1%, respectively) [8]. A program for the development of dairy cattle breeding should be elaborated in the Russian Federation, which will present the main directions and measures for government support of this sector. The target indicators of this program should provide an increase in the number of cows in all categories of farms, parameters of milk production in accordance with its consumption, and reduction of dependence on imported raw milk. This requires considerable government support for pedigree dairy cattle breeding in Russia. The provision of milk and dairy products to the population remains an important challenge. The recommended rational norm for the consumption of milk and dairy products in terms of milk is 325 kg per person per year. In 2021, the level of self-­ sufficiency in milk and dairy products was 84.3%, which is 5.7% lower than the indicator stipulated by the Food Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Consumption of milk and dairy products is still insufficient, while per capita consumption was expected to rise from 229 kg in 2018 to 239 kg in 2021. The consumption of milk and dairy products (in terms of milk) in the Penza Region in 2020 remained low and amounted 214 kg per capita. Per capita consumption in 2020 was also low and amounted 214 kg per capita. The Penza Region’s demand for milk in 2021 was 185,100 tons, which is 7300 tons lower than in 2000 but 30,500 tons higher than in 2015. The volume of milk produced in 2021 was 384,400 tons, and the volume of milk processed was 208,200 tons, which is higher than the region’s milk requirement (Fig. 10.2). One of the main indicators for assessing the stability of domestic milk production is the coefficient of dependence of consumption on imports, which is calculated as follows: Rd 

Vi 100%, Vpc  FPC

(10.1)

in which: Vi – the volume of imports of milk and dairy products, thousand tons; Vpc – the volume of production consumption, thousand tons; FPC – fund of personal consumption, thousand tons.

84

Y. V. Reshetkina et al.

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 2010

2015

2018 2019 2020 milk production in all categories of households dairy production milk requirement milk processing volume

2021

Fig. 10.2  Penza Region’s self-sufficiency in milk, thousand tons. (Source Compiled by the author based on [9])

For the Russian Federation: Rd = 6911.2/ (3031.4 + 35285.1) * 100 = 18.0% For the Volga Federal District: Rd = 2186.4/ (1168.4 + 7962.4) * 100 = 23.9% For the Penza Region: Rd = 59.3/ (31.6 + 282.5) * 100 = 18.9% This ratio shows that Russia is only 18% dependent on the volume of imported milk and dairy products. In turn, the dependence of the Penza Region is 18.9%, which is a positive development for domestic milk production.

10.4 Discussion We agree with scientists that the effectiveness of innovative development in dairy farming is determined by the perfection of the price mechanism in the system of relationships between partners in the agro-industrial complex. When forming prices, the difficulty lies in the fact that the price is a conjunctural category that depends on political, economic, social, psychological, and other factors [10]. The main motivation for commodity producers is a high price that can recoup the costs of production and sales [11]. The selling prices of milk are low for Russian and regional producers. According to the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation, the average selling price of one ton of milk in agricultural organizations in 2020 was 25.12 thousand rubles, which is only 1.3% higher than in 2019. In the Penza Region, the average selling price of one ton of milk in 2020 was slightly higher and equaled

10  Assessment of the Effectiveness of Dairy Farming

85

27.9 thousand tons. Nevertheless, the high total cost of sold milk does not lead to an increase in the profitability of milk production. Currently, production costs are standard and fixed; entrepreneurs have no opportunity to reduce the cost of machinery [12]. An important problem remains the disparity in prices for dairy products and machinery. The lack of financial resources makes it impossible for many producers to buy new machinery and equipment. It is worth to agree with the authors that the nature of agricultural production in dairy cattle breeding of small-scale farming is mostly related to the use of traditional, extensive, or obsolete technologies, which cover more than 90% of economic entities [13]. The main direction for the development of dairy cattle breeding and improvement of its efficiency is the introduction of innovative technologies.

10.5 Conclusion The priority perspective for the development of the AIC in the Penza Region is meat and dairy cattle breeding with an emphasis on improving the productive qualities of livestock, development and support of selection and breeding work [14], fodder production, and cooperation in small agribusiness. Increasing the efficiency of dairy cattle breeding should be achieved through intensive (increase of cow productivity) and extensive factors (growth of the number of cows). The relevant problem is the reduction of the share of fodder consumption per production unit. The rate of reduction of fodder consumption per unit of livestock production should exceed the growth rate of animal productivity [15], which will increase the profitability of milk production. At the national level, it is necessary to “level out” the disparity in prices for engineering products and domestic dairy products. We agree that to increase the efficiency of dairy cattle breeding, stimulate investment and innovation activity in the industry, and increase milk production and saturation of the dairy market with domestic products, it is necessary to increase the effectiveness of state regulation measures, including mechanisms and volumes of government support [16]. In our point of view, milk production in the region can be efficient if the following objectives are achieved: • Improving the reproduction of dairy herds, strengthening government support for breeding enterprises; • Improving the structure of areas sown in agricultural organizations to increase the share of forage crops and strengthen the forage base; • Increasing the volume of subsidies to agricultural organizations and providing budget support to household farms; • Using innovative technologies to increase milk production and reduce production costs; • Increasing the profitability of milk production by increasing marketable output while improving the pricing mechanism.

86

Y. V. Reshetkina et al.

References 1. Stolyarova, Y. V., & Stolyarova, O. A. (2018). Assessment of the efficiency of investment in the region’s dairy industry fixed capital. Regional Economy: Theory and Practice, 16(10), 1916–1928. https://doi.org/10.24891/re.16.10.1916 2. Federal Service state statistics. (2022). Retrieved from https://rosstat.gov.ru/enterprise_economy. Accessed 20 June 2022. 3. Rosstat regional office of Penza Region. (2022). Retrieved from https://pnz.gks.ru/agriculture_hunting_forestry. Accessed 20 June 2022. 4. Titorenko, K. V., & Zhichkin, K. A. (2022). Ways to improve the economic mechanism of the regional breeding service activity (on the example of Samara region). Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 1, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.31442/0235-­2494-­2022-­0-­1-­27-­33 5. Stolyarova, O.  A., & Safronova, Y.  V. (2015). State and prospects for the development of dairy cattle breeding in the Penza region in the conditions of import substitution. International Agricultural Magazine, 4, 36–38. 6. Starkova, O. (2022). Problems of milk production in the Russian Federation. Economy of Agriculture of Russia, 3, 75–78. 7. Minakov, I. A. (2022). Trends and prospects for the development of dairy cattle breeding in small-scale farming. Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 1, 43–48. 8. Kolonchin, K. V., Seregin, S. N., & Sysoev, G. V. (2022). Innovative vector and social orientation of Russia’s food complex development – A key factor of state policy. Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 2, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.31442/0235-­2494-2022-0-2-2-14 9. DairyNews. (2021). Dairy market of the Penza region. Retrieved from http://www.dairynews. ru/company/region/penzenskaya-­oblast/stat/. Accessed 20 June 2022. 10. Stolyarova, O. A., Vinnichek, L. B., & Reshetkina, Y. V. (2022). Improving the price mechanism in milk production and processing. In E. G. Popkova & B. S. Sergi (Eds.), Sustainable agriculture (pp. 359–369). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­16-­8731-­0_35 11. Kovalenko, N.  A., & Bautina, O.  V. (2022). Diversification of the enterprise as an instrument of influence on pricing in dairy cattle breeding. Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises, 4, 18–21. https://doi.org/10.31442/0235-­2494-­2022-­0-­4-­18-­21 12. Kuznetsova, M., Zinovieva, E., & Limarev, P. (2022). Assessment of the level of development of peasant (farm) farms in the Russian Federation. Economics of Agriculture of Russia, 3, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.32651/223-­2 13. Korabelnikov, I., & Gribkova, A. (2022). State and trends of development of dairy cattle breeding: Regional aspect. Economics of Agriculture of Russia, 3, 56–63. https://doi. org/10.32651/223-­56 14. Silaeva, L.  P. (2022). Main trends in the spatial development of agriculture in Russia. Economics of Agriculture of Russia, 3, 94–98. https://doi.org/10.32651/223-­94 15. Kononchuk, V. (2022). Using methods of economic and mathematical modeling in increasing the efficiency of the regional Agro-Industrial Complex. Economics of Agriculture of Russia, 3, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.32651/223-­88 16. Grudkin, A., & Grudkina, M. (2015). Ensure the effective implementation of sub-program of development of dairy cattle breeding. AIC: Economics, Management, 2, 69–73.

Chapter 11

The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security Tatiana V. Kolesnikova

11.1 Introduction Agricultural protectionism has long been a distinct research topic, comprising public policy factors, the economic impact on citizens, businesses, and the state, and food security issues [20]. Having conducted a comprehensive analysis of state support for the agricultural sector in countries with different levels of development, scientists conclude that state regulation largely determines food security [11]. It becomes especially important in situations of increased international economic and political uncertainty [12]. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic has affected the general tendency of different countries to strengthen the protectionist policy regarding public administration [2, 7] and food security. Food protectionism has become a response to the challenges of closed borders, shutdowns, and declining incomes. This is a serious problem for the least developed countries (in particular, African countries) that receive humanitarian aid from developed states in the form of loans [25]. The research aims to substantiate the need for practicing agricultural protectionist policy to ensure food security in the context of ongoing deglobalization.

T. V. Kolesnikova (*) Saint-Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, St. Petersburg, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_11

87

88

T. V. Kolesnikova

11.2 Methodology The research is based on the results of recent scientific findings. The theoretical part of the research is based on scientific publications on protectionism, public administration, and food security. Agricultural protectionism is rising due to the fact that the agricultural industry is of great significance in ensuring food security for all sections of society and the survival of humanity. It can also be seen as a measure of providing resilience to global market influences [1]. The implementation of food protectionism in global agricultural markets in relation to concepts of equity is also a research question [17]. Researchers highlight the special place of agricultural protectionism among all types of protectionist policies. As a rule, the general public is often negative about the introduction of protectionism because it leads to higher prices for products due to reduced imports and higher costs for consumers; the burden falls on the shoulders of taxpayers in the form of public funding of industries. However, when it comes specifically to agricultural protectionism, citizens are more willing to support it. The benefits in terms of food security, the development of private farms and rural employment, and the ability to influence the sustainability of products outweigh the disadvantages in terms of rising costs. This is illustrated by the example of public support for the US intervention policies in the agricultural industry [15]. State regulation of agriculture is quite widespread worldwide, though it is not effective enough. The lack of systemic integrity of state management of the agro-­ industrial sector leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of protectionist measures. The state regulation of prices in the agro-industrial complex bears great significance [5]. Protectionism can be effective in creating and developing high-tech agricultural clusters [21]. The analysis of Tanzania’s restrictive tariff measures on edible oils examines the effectiveness of protectionism for developing countries to ensure food security. Along with higher import duty rates, the provision of conditions to reduce domestic production costs can create a competitive industry domestically and internationally [14]. The interrelation between protectionism and competitiveness of the agricultural sector has been studied on the example of the Turkish agricultural sector. Researchers have concluded that facilitating the development of domestic agricultural entrepreneurship is more beneficial than subsidizing the agricultural industry [4]. In the African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, reducing restrictions on trade in agricultural products has a mixed effect, combining advantages and disadvantages for national economies. The most important question, to which there is no clear answer, is whether free trade in agricultural products leads to food security in developing and least developed countries and whether it solves the problem of hunger and global poverty [18]. Other studies also confirm these provisions. In particular, the analysis of state support of agriculture in the USA and Switzerland reveals public loyalty to subsidizing the agro-industrial complex. While subsidies for farmers are paid from

11  The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security

89

taxpayers’ funds, citizens are willing to bear this additional burden for the sake of food security and the welfare of farm animals [16]. Another facet of agricultural protectionism is related to the environmental friendliness of products and food safety. In particular, the ban on the production of genetically modified foods has an environmental rather than an economic goal. However, when production and foreign trade policies are not aligned, domestic producers may lose the price competition when genetically modified raw materials are allowed to be imported; and consumers find themselves confused and unable to assess product quality objectively [22]. Higher standards for food safety and quality are seen as a concern for consumer health and a protectionist tool to regulate foreign trade [10]. This leads to limiting imports and creating additional competitive advantages for national producers. The generalization of the results obtained by researchers is the basis of this research. This paper provides a comparative analysis of import duty rates for agricultural and non-agricultural goods in most countries worldwide. The largest importers and exporters of essential goods have been identified on the example of commodity item 100,590 “Cereals; maize (corn), other than seed.” The method of comparison and generalization has been used to determine the features of the protectionist policy of countries. Logical methods have been used to draw conclusions.

11.3 Results The specifics of agricultural protectionism lie in its importance for food security. To determine how protectionism is practiced to protect the agro-industrial complex, the authors conducted a comparative analysis of the average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rate. This rate is applied within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). WTO member countries apply these rates to imports unless trade is carried out within the framework of bilateral trade agreements, which stipulate a reduced tariff level. As shown in Table 11.1, most countries impose import duties of up to 10% on non-agricultural goods, while import duty rates for agricultural goods are 10% and higher. The highest protectionist trade tariff is imposed by Turkey and South Korea, where the average of MFN tariffs is above 50%. Overall, the figures presented in Table 11.1 clearly reflect high barriers to imports of agricultural goods. The aim of practicing protectionism is to protect domestic producers against foreign competition [6]. Under deglobalization, this is important as the threats associated with foreign supply chain disruptions are thus reduced. Let us consider the international trade in essential products. According to the UNCTAD methodology, there are 137 commodity items with an HS (Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System) six-digit identification code, which corresponds to essential goods [24]. From 2010 to 2020, international trade in essential commodities of biological origin increased almost 1.5 times, from $493 billion to $716 billion. However, there was a decrease in the sale of some items

90

T. V. Kolesnikova

Table 11.1 List of countries by import duty rates for agricultural and non-agricultural products, 2021 Non-agricultural product Average of MFN tariffs Country 0–5 USA, Canada, Peru, EU, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Norway, Libya, Ukraine, Switzerland, South Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines 5–10 Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Madagascar, Botswana, Angola, Namibia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Katar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and the Solomon Islands 10–15 India, Morocco, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, Niger, Mali, Togo, Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, and Bhutan

Agricultural product Average of MFN tariffs Country 0–5 Peru, Australia, and Libya

15–25

15–25

Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan, and Nepal

5–10

USA, Chile, Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Ukraine, Georgia, Laos, and Cambodia

10–15

EU, Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mauritania, Mozambique, Madagascar, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Bangladesh, and Bhutan Algeria, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Zambia, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Niger, Mali, Togo, Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, China, Japan, Vietnam, Nepal, and Sri Lanka Canada, Tanzania, Kenya, Morocco, Guyana, Sudan, Uganda, Switzerland, Norway, Thailand, the Solomon Islands, and India Turkey and South Korea

25–50

25–50

>50

>50

Source: Compiled by the author based on MacMap data [13]

(certain types of fish, coffee, nuts, cocoa, and natural fabrics) from 5% to 90% over the studied period [24]. Let us take a single commodity item as an example and examine the tariff restrictions imposed by the key consumers based on what country the goods come from. By analyzing tariff barriers for commodity item 100,590 “Cereals; maize (corn), other than seed,” let us identify the main importers (Table  11.2) and exporters (Table 11.3).

11  The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security

91

Table 11.2  Top importers of commodity item 100,590 “Cereals; maize, other than seed,” 2021 National economy World China Japan Mexico Iran Korea Egypt Vietnam Spain Colombia Netherlands Taipei Italy Peru Algeria Saudi Arabia

mln, $ 54,236 8020 4727 4286 3394 3218 2411 2360 2101 1741 1472 1323 1290 1075 821 799

% 100.0 14.8 8.7 7.9 6.3 5.9 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.5

Source: Compiled by the author based on TradeMap data [23]

Table 11.3  Top importers of commodity item 100,590 “Cereals; maize, other than seed,” 2021 National economy World USA Argentina Ukraine Brazil UAE Romania France India South Africa Hungary Russian Federation Poland Serbia Myanmar Bulgaria

mln, $ 50,966 18,842 9023 5837 4098 1993 1770 1116 883 757 721 688 561 557 512 481

Source: Compiled by the author based on TradeMap data [23]

% 100.0 37.0 17.7 11.5 8.0 3.9 3.5 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9

92

T. V. Kolesnikova

The results obtained (Table 11.2 and Table 11.3) are largely determined by the specific production patterns of the countries in the context of the established international division of labor. Thus, certain products are predominantly produced only in countries where nature and climate form comparatively advantageous conditions for growing certain crops. Based on the data provided by the analytical portal MacMap [13] on 2021 import duties, the author analyzed import tariff rates for commodity item 100,590 “Cereals; maize (corn), other than seed” of the largest importers in relation to the largest exporters. The following results were obtained: 1. Imports from the USA are subject to the highest duties in China (65%), India, Tanzania, (50%), and Norway (47.75%). Notably, in accordance with the USMCA provisions, imports from the USA to Canada and Mexico are duty-free. 2. A similar pattern can be seen regarding import tariffs imposed by the largest buyers importing goods from Argentina, India, the UAE, and most other suppliers. 3. On average, higher customs duties are for imports from the Russian Federation, with Canada imposing a striking 35% duty rate on imports from Russia. 4. All countries of the world set the most attractive import duty rates for Myanmar products, which can be explained by the preferential regime established in the framework of the World Trade Organization. This regime applies to the least developed countries, which Myanmar belongs to according to the UN classification. The practice of applying a set of (tariff and non-tariff) protectionist measures allows us to conclude that much attention in public policy is given to the issue of food security. Violation of customs regulations and uncontrolled imports can lead to risks for domestic producers and public health. In particular, unregulated trade in genetically modified (GM) food products and the transmission of animal and plant diseases pose a big threat [1]. Analyzing the prospects for agriculture in Europe, scientists note that liberalization and eliminating government subsidies for producers will lead to increased efficiency and reduced environmental burden. However, domestic production will be reduced, which will be reflected in the abandonment of European farmland. Simultaneously, protectionist policies will ensure high production with lower efficiency and higher environmental impact [19]. On the example of the USA-Mexico confrontation regarding the trade in sweeteners (US protectionist barriers on sugar imported from Mexico, and Mexico’s mirror measures on corn syrup imported from the USA), researchers conclude that the benefits of free trade for consumers are not as great as generally perceived [9]. However, it is noteworthy that these goods can be considered substitute goods, and the imposition of reciprocal restrictive measures in mutual trade has led to the situation when domestic producers provide for the national needs. Globally, the issues of food security and agricultural protectionism have become particularly acute due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the negative impact of the economic downturn of the COVID-19 pandemic on Indonesian food security

11  The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security

93

has been highlighted. As a food-importing country, Indonesia is interested in stable supply [3]. However, in the context of the growing deglobalization trend, to achieve food security and sustainability, a policy of intervention in this area is necessary to diversify the supply structure and make use of domestic capacities to meet domestic demand. Diversification of supplies can also be seen as a protectionist measure. This is vividly illustrated by the example of China, the largest importer of agricultural products. In the context of increasing protectionism in developed countries, including the agricultural sector, it is becoming important for China to increase trade volumes with the countries participating in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative. To increase trade turnover, it is necessary to reduce tariff restrictions and harmonize product quality requirements and standards among the members [8]. Countries with low levels of economic development may benefit from strengthened regional cooperation, including South-South cooperation [18].

11.4 Conclusion Summarizing the research results, we should note that agricultural protectionism is practiced in public administration in most countries worldwide. The scale and types of protectionist measures depend on the goals of agricultural policy. The public support for agricultural protectionism is higher than their support for other types of protectionism. The intensification of the deglobalization trend, accelerated by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, and expressed in the prioritization of domestic objectives, has led to the intensification of protectionist measures. The least advantageous countries are the importers of agricultural products that depend on foreign supplies. They are expected to turn their state policy towards the development of domestic production and make an effort to diversify the geographical structure of suppliers to improve the sustainability of the economy and ensure food security.

References 1. Abrhám, J., Vošta, M., Čajka, P., & Rubáček, F. (2021). The specifics of selected agricultural commodities in international trade. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 7(2), 5–19. https:// doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.02.01 2. Afontsev, S. A. (2020). Politics and economics of trade wars. Zhournal Novoi Ekonomicheskoi Associacii [Journal of the New Economic Association], 1(45), 193–198. https://doi.org/1 0.31737/2221-­2264-­2020-­45-­1-­9 3. Akbar, Darma, R., Mujahidin, I., & Irawan, A. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19’s economic recession on food security in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1012(1), 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-­1315/1012/1/012005 4. Arisoy, H. (2020). Impact of agricultural supports on competitiveness of agricultural products. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), 66(6), 286–295. https://doi. org/10.17221/416/2019-­AGRICECON

94

T. V. Kolesnikova

5. Bazenov, A. B., Begzhan, A. M., Zhunissov, Z. S., Tazhikov, A. K., & Amandossuly, B. (2020). Economic and legal mechanisms of interstate support for agricultural producers. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 3175–3186. Retrieved from https://www.lifescienceglobal.com/pms/index.php/ijcs/article/view/7996/4254. Accessed 30 Oct 2022. 6. Bondar, E.  G. (2020). Current issues of determining and controlling the customs value of goods. Economics and Entrepreneurship, 7(120), 1048–1052. https://doi.org/10.34925/ EIP.2020.120.7.216 7. Fajgelbaum, P. D., Goldberg, P. K., Kennedy, P. J., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2020). The return to protectionism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1(135), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ qje/qjz036 8. Gai, F. (1648). Research on international trade trends of Chinese agricultural products based on computer-aided analysis under the background of “One ribbon and one road.”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2020(2), 022062. https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-­6596/1648/2/022062 9. García-Salazar, J. A., Ramos-Sandoval, I. N., & Aquino-Mercado, P. R. (2021). Libre comercio vs. Proteccionismo en la agricultura de méxico: el caso del azúcar y el jarabe de maíz de alta fructose [Free trade vs. Protectionism in Mexican agriculture: The case of sugar and high-­fructose corn syrup]. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 44(3), 455–463. 10. Kareem, F.  O., Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Brümmer, B. (2018). Protecting health or protecting imports? Evidence from EU non-tariff measures. International Review of Economics and Finance, 53, 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2017.08.012 11. Kovalchuk, J. A., Stepnov, I. M., Melnik, M. V., & Petrovic, T. (2022). Public goals and government expenditures: Are the solutions of the “modern monetary theory” realistic? Finance: Theory and Practice, 26(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-­5671-­2022-­26-­3-­6-­18 12. Lescheva, M., Ivolga, A., & Labenko, O. (2020). State support of agricultural production in emerging countries as a tool to ensure food security. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Research anthology on food waste reduction and alternative diets for food and nutrition security (pp. 884–902). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-­1-­7998-­5354-­1.ch045 13. MAC MAP. (n.d.). Market Access Map. Retrieved from https://www.macmap.org/. Accessed 30 Oct 2022. 14. Mgeni, C. P., Sieber, S., Amjath-Babu, T. S., & Mutabazi, K. D. (2018). Can protectionism improve food security? Evidence from an imposed tariff on imported edible oil in Tanzania. Food Security, 10(4), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-­017-­0746-­3 15. Moon, W., & Pino, G. (2018). Do U.S. citizens support government intervention in agriculture? Implications for the political economy of agricultural protection. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom), 49(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12400 16. Nguyen, Q., Spilker, G., & Bernauer, T. (2021). The (still) mysterious case of agricultural protectionism. International Interactions, 47(3), 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305062 9.2021.1898957 17. Powers, M. (2018). Food, fairness, and global markets. In A.  Barnhill, M.  Budolfson, & T. Doggett (Eds.), The oxford handbook of food ethics (pp. 367–398). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372263.013.26 18. Rajack-Talley, T.  A. (2019). Agriculture, trade liberalization and poverty in the ACP countries. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Urban agriculture and food systems: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp.  67–86). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-­1-­5225-­8063-­8.ch004 19. Rega, C., Helming, J., & Paracchini, M. L. (2019). Environmentalism and localism in agricultural and land-use policies can maintain food production while supporting biodiversity. Findings from simulations of contrasting scenarios in the EU. Land Use Policy, 87, 103986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.005 20. Sanderson, F.  H. (2016). Agricultural protectionism in the industrialized world. Routledge. (First published in 1990). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651699

11  The Role of Agricultural Protectionism in National Food Security

95

21. Stepnov, I. M., Kovalchuk, J. A., & Gorchakova, E. A. (2019). On assessing the efficiency of intracluster interaction for industrial enterprises. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 30, 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1134/S107570071903016X 22. Tagliabue, G. (2017). The EU legislation on “GMOs” between nonsense and protectionism: An ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices. GM Crops and Food, 8(1), 57–73. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270488 23. TRADE MAP. (n.d.). Trade statistics for international business development. Retrieved from https://www.trademap.org/. Accessed 30 Oct 2022. 24. UNCTADStatist. (2010–2020). Trade and Biodiversity – Trade of priority products in thousands of United States dollars, annual. Retrieved from https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=227727. Accessed 30 Oct 2022. 25. Yaya, S., Otu, A., & Labonté, R. (2020). Globalisation in the time of COVID-19: Repositioning Africa to meet the immediate and remote challenges. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-­020-­00581-­4

Chapter 12

Some Aspects of Food Security in the Kyrgyz Republic Torogul N. Bekov , Natalia A. Borisenko , Sofia Zh. Kozubekova Natalia V. Murzalieva, and Saltanat S. Derkenbaeva

,

12.1 Introduction In the context of the current geopolitical changes, the economic security issue becomes extremely acute. In view of the multifaceted nature of economic security and the inclusion of such types of security as energy, raw materials, financial, information, environmental, food, and other types of security, the authors consider it necessary to dwell on food security, considering it the key in the issues of providing food to the population and the establishment of possible sanctions to prevent this process. Kyrgyz scientists pay considerable attention to the issues of food security. International organizations and experts are also interested in the study of this area. Ensuring food security is an important strategic objective of any country. This aspect is confirmed by the presence in Kyrgyzstan of more than 40 normative legal acts regulating various areas of the investigated problems. The central document for food security policy is the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On food security” (August 4, 2008 No. 183) [1]. The current program document is the Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic “On approval of the program of food security and nutrition T. N. Bekov Agribusiness Competitiveness Center, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan e-mail: [email protected] N. A. Borisenko Kyrgyz Russian Slavic University named after First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan e-mail: [email protected] S. Zh. Kozubekova (*) · N. V. Murzalieva · S. S. Derkenbaeva Kyrgyz National Agrarian University named after K. I. Skryabin, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Popkova et al. (eds.), Digital Agriculture for Food Security and Sustainable Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27911-9_12

97

98

T. N. Bekov et al.

in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2019–2023” (June 27, 2019 No. 320) [2]. The implementation of this decree is monitored by the Department of Agriculture and Environment of the Apparatus of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic.

12.2 Methodology The methodological basis for the research on food security in Kyrgyzstan was a bibliometric analysis of the literature on relevant topics, as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis of relevant documents and statistical data. This research has covered different groups of information sources for greater argumentation of the conclusions assumed in the research, such as international expert reports and assessments [3, 4], national statistical compilations [5, 6], international statistical databases [7, 8], legal acts of the Kyrgyz Republic [9, 10], etc. To analyze the prospects for food security in Kyrgyzstan, the authors reviewed articles in Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and eLIBRARY, as well as printed publications of Kyrgyz scientists, including the works of H.  Y. Chan, S.  Abdul Halim-Lim, T.  B. Tan, N.  H. Kamarulzaman, A.  A. Jamaludin, and W.  A. A.  Q. I.  Wan-Mohtar [11]; K.  E. Giller, T.  Delaune, and J.  V. Silva [12]; P. Pinstrup-Andersen [13]; F. Riely, N. Mock, B. Cogill, L. Bailey, and E. Kenefick [14]; R. Ruben, R. Cavatassi, and P. Winters [15]. To assess food security at the national level, the authors applied the methodology of sectoral analysis, a demographic and health survey, and a household expenditure survey to identify the share of spending on food products. A survey of living standards is also required.

12.3 Results Before assessing the food security of the Kyrgyz Republic, it is necessary to determine the assessment methodology to be used. The problem is that Kyrgyzstan is a developing country deeply dependent on external supplies of goods, including food. Another problem is that the Kyrgyz Republic does not participate in the international rating of countries regarding food security. Currently, the FAO methodology is used to assess food security in Kyrgyzstan. Nevertheless, many experts believe that this methodology does not consider the peculiarities of developing countries. Thus, it is necessary to develop a specific assessment of food security in countries with transforming economies, which requires a unique approach. This research assesses food security in two main areas: self-sufficiency (physical accessibility) and accessibility (affordability).

12  Some Aspects of Food Security in the Kyrgyz Republic

99

12.3.1 Physical Availability of Food The actual provision of the internal needs of the population with food is determined by the share of domestic agricultural products in the total volume of commodity resources, which can be reflected in the following table on self-sufficiency, compared with threshold values in the dynamics (Table 12.1). According to Table 12.1, the threshold value is exceeded for the following items potatoes and potato products, vegetables, fruits, meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, and fish and fish products. No threshold value is observed for grain, sugar, and confectionery products. The critical value is observed for vegetable oil. However, it is necessary to note the rapid growth in self-sufficiency in fish and fish products, which has increased eight times over six years. The situation with self-­ sufficiency in vegetable oil remains difficult; there is a moderate downward trend in this indicator throughout the reviewed period. There is also a decrease in self-­ sufficiency in vegetables, although it so far exceeds the threshold value. The state of agriculture plays a major role in the physical availability of food. Considering the main aspects of this sector, it is necessary to pay attention to the state of the sown areas. The total sown area in the Kyrgyz Republic increases from year to year. In 2020, the total sown area was 1223.6 thousand hectares. By 2022, this indicator will increase to 1228.8 thousand hectares. However, crop yields remain quite low. We should also pay attention to significant reductions in crop yields in 2021 compared to 2020. In general, grain yield decreased by 9.4 centners per ha (c/ha), particularly wheat by 11 c/ha, vegetable yield by 6.8 c/ha, melons by 18.9 c/ha, oilseeds by 1.7 c/ha, and fruit and berry crops by 2.1 c/ha. Reduced yields significantly reduced the gross harvest of crops in 2021 compared to 2020: cereals harvested less by 28.4%, potatoes – by 2.9%, vegetables – by 1.5%, melons – by 14%, and fruits – by 4.4%.

Table 12.1  Dynamics of self-sufficiency rates in the Kyrgyz Republic, % Grain Potatoes and potato products Vegetables, food gourds, and products of their processing Fruits (including grapes and citrus fruits) and products of their processing Sugar and confectionery Vegetable oils Meat and meat products Milk and dairy products Eggs and egg products Fish and fish products

Thresholds 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 not