---

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 6(1) (2018) 47--58 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2018.03.004

Shynggys K. Yergobek$^{1}$, Saltanat K. Atakhanova$^{2}$, Kamilya Zh. Altayeva$^{3}$, Lyazzat B. Nyssanbekova$^{3}$, Zhuldyz B. Umbetbayeva$^{3}$

$^{1}$ Center for Accreditation and Quality of the Educational Programmes, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University; 050040, 71 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

$^{2}$ Department of Civil Law and Civil Procedure, Labor Law, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University; 050040, 71 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

$^{3}$ Department of International Law, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University; 0500407, 71 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

The paper shows that the management and regulation of transboundary natural resources is carried out in most states from the point of view of the economic approach. At the same time, the requirements of ecological systems speak about the need to consider natural and territorial complexes as unified mechanisms that cannot be considered separately, but only in combination and in conjunction with each component that make up this ecological system. The authors show that such a perception of ecological systems inevitably leads to the fact that the issue of their safety appears in the framework of cooperation between two or more states. The subject of the study is environmental systems as an element of governance in the framework of supranational and interstate agreements. They are considered as an aggregate of natural resources and biological elements living in a given territory. The novelty of the study is the provision that the management of an ecological system in the territory of two or more states requires the development of not only global standards for the use and protection of ecological systems, but also to determine the feasibility of implementing management and economic cooperation mechanisms for the even development of transboundary ecological systems. Directions for further research are the possibility of organizing supranational regulatory documents that will allow the allocation of shared environmental systems and determine the possibility of the territories’ even development.

References

1. [1]	Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J. and Garmestani, A.S. (2012), Ecosystems ecosystem Adaptive Management ecosystem adaptive management. In R.A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (pp. 3342-3357). New York, NY: Springer New York.

2. [2]	Apitz, S.E. (2007), Conceptual Frameworks to Balance Ecosystem and Security Goals. In I. Linkov, R.J. Wenning, & G.A. Kiker (Eds.), Managing Critical Infrastructure Risks: Decision Tools and Applications for Port Security (pp. 147-173). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

3. [3]

   Arruda, C., Nogueira, V.S., Cozzi, A. and Costa, V. (2015). The Brazilian Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Startups: An Analysis of Entrepreneurship Determinants in Brazil and the Perceptions Around the Brazilian Regulatory Framework. In R. Lèbre La Rovere, L. de Magalhães Ozório, & L. de Jesus Melo (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in BRICS: Policy and Research to Support Entrepreneurs (pp. 9-26). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

4. [4]	Banasiewicz, A.D. (2015), The ecosystem of executive threats: A conceptual overview, Risk Management 17(2), 109-143.

5. [5]	Bommarito II, M.J. and Katz, D.M. (2017), Measuring and Modeling the U.S. Regulatory Ecosystem, Journal of Statistical Physics 168(5), 1125-1135.

6. [6]

   Devos, Y., Craig, W. and Schiemann, J. (2012), Transgenic Crops transgenic crop, Risk Assessment transgenic crop breeding risk assessment and Regulatory Framework in the European Union transgenic crop breeding regulatory framework in the European Union. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (pp. 10765-10796). New York, NY: Springer New York.

7. [7]

   Devos, Y., Craig, W. and Schiemann, J. (2013), Transgenic Crops transgenic crop, Risk Assessment transgenic crop breeding risk assessment and Regulatory Framework in the European Union transgenic crop breeding regulatory framework in the European Union. In P. Christou, R. Savin, B.A. Costa-Pierce, I. Misztal, & C.B. A. Whitelaw (Eds.), Sustainable Food Production (pp. 1666-1697). New York, NY: Springer New York.

8. [8]

   Dyke, J., McDonald-Gibson, J., Di Paolo, E. and Harvey, I. (2007), Increasing Complexity Can Increase Stability in a Self-Regulating Ecosystem. In F. Almeida e Costa, L. M. Rocha, E. Costa, I. Harvey, & A. Coutinho (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Life: 9th European Conference, ECAL 2007, Lisbon, Portugal, September 10-14, 2007. Proceedings (pp. 133-142). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

9. [9]	Kelly, J.R. and Harwell, M.A. (1989), Indicators of Ecosystem Response and Recovery. In S.A. Levin, J.R. Kelly, M.A. Harwell, & K.D. Kimball (Eds.), Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches (pp. 9-35). New York, NY: Springer New York.

10. [10]	Kelly, J.R., Duke, T.W., Harwell, M.A. and Harwell, C.C. (1987), An ecosystem perspective on potential impacts of drilling fluid discharges on seagrasses, Environmental Management 11(4), 537-562.

11. [11]	Kim, J.-E. (2013), The incongruity between the ecosystem approach to high seas marine protected areas and the existing high seas conservation regime, Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 2(1), 1-36.

12. [12]	La Point, T.W. and Perry, J.A. (1989), Use of experimental ecosystems in regulatory decision making, Environmental Management 13(5), 539-544.

13. [13]	Levin, S.A., Kimball, K.D., McDowell, W.H. and Kimball, S.F. (1984), New perspectives in ecotoxicology, Environmental Management 8(5), 375-442.

14. [14]	Nie, M. (2008), The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation, Policy Sciences 41(2), 139-164.

15. [15]	Nilsson, A.K. and Bohman, B. (2015), Legal prerequisites for ecosystem-based management in the Baltic Sea area: The example of eutrophication, Ambio 44(3), 370-380.

16. [16]	Onischenko, N. (2015), Correlation of the national and international law: the scientific realities of our time, Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 1(80), 29-36.

17. [17]

    Pérez Martínez, J.E. and Serrano Calle, S. (2016), Future Paths of Evolution in the Digital Ecosystem. In M. Gómez-Uranga, J.M. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, & J. Barrutia (Eds.), Dynamics of Big Internet Industry Groups and Future Trends: A View from Epigenetic Economics (pp. 179-200). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

18. [18]	Stakhiv, E.Z. and Major, D.C. (1997), Ecosystem Evaluation, Climate Change and Water Resources Planning. In K.D. Frederick, D.C. Major, & E.Z. Stakhiv (Eds.), Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria (pp. 103-120). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

19. [19]	Trainar, N. (2013), New Regulatory Approaches in an Evolving Market Structure. In E. Bertin, N. Crespi, & T. Magedanz (Eds.), Evolution of Telecommunication Services: The Convergence of Telecom and Internet: Technologies and Ecosystems (pp. 155- 181). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

20. [20]	Tsatsou, P., Elaluf-Calderwood, S. and Liebenau, J. (2010), Towards a taxonomy for regulatory issues in a digital business ecosystem in the EU, Journal of Information Technology 25(3), 288-307.

21. [21]	Vayena, E. and Gasser, U. (2016), Strictly Biomedical? Sketching the Ethics of the Big Data Ecosystem in Biomedicine. In B. D. Mittelstadt & L. Floridi (Eds.), The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data (pp. 17-39). Cham: Springer International Publishing.