Impact of the European Green Deal (EDG) on the Agricultural Carbon (CO2) Emission in Turkey
Sanjay Taneja
| Ercan Ozen*
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The European Union (EU) hopes to motivate a sustainable green transition in response to widespread concern that the earth is heading toward environmental calamities due to climate-change issues. The present study focused on analyzing the impact of the EGD on Agricultural carbon emissions in Turkey. European Union and Turkey have strong trade relations; Turkey exports a significant portion of its exports to the European Union. This fact made it compulsory for Turkey to follow the regulations implemented in the EU regarding trade. In reaction to the European Union's EGD, Turkey formulated EGD Action Plan, this plan laid down the roadmap for Turkey to follow the regulations under the EU's EGD. Agriculture carbon emissions in Turkey and EGD are taken as the variables for the study. In the present report, an attempt has been made to analyze impact of the EGD on agriculture carbon emissions. In study, we consider agriculture CO2 emissions as the dependent-variable and the EGD as the independent-variable. Secondary data from the various published sources have been collected and analyzed with statistical tools, and findings are drawn from them. Statistical tools like Unit Root tests, the Ordinary Least Square Test, and Auto regressive distributed lag model, are used to interpret the impact. The result of our study shows that EGD significantly impacts agriculture carbon emissions.
European Green Deal (EDG), agricultural, Carbon emission, impact, Turkey, significant, action
The consequences of environment transformation and global warming are no longer hidden [1]. Every type of life on earth is in danger due to the planet's rising temperature [2]. Throughout history, there have been natural changes to the climate [3]. However, since the start of the 19th century, human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated this trend. Extreme weather, extinction of species, and food shortages are only a few of the severe challenges posed by climate change to the expansion and survival of humanity [4]. Industrialization and rapid economic growth have made climate change more catastrophic [5]. The earth's environment, including its ecology, is experiencing extreme stress and disaster [6]. According to the UN Environment Programme, global temperatures could rise by more than 3℃ if we keep up our industrial habits [7]. Such a rise in temperature has the potential to ruin our economies, disrupt our industries, and drive more people into poverty [8]. Various methods of evaluating environmental issues have been developed due to growing concern for them worldwide and, more recently, among businesses and organizations [9]. As a result, nations have been evaluated and ranked based on how well they perform in terms of the environment. The top nations are receiving the "Champion of the Earth Award" for the environmental policies they have put in place [10]. The "Global Green Economy Index" and many other assessment indices has been applied to rank the world economies [11]. The "Golden Peacock Environment Management Award" is given for excellence in corporate governance [12]. One of the most significant concern developing and developed nations are currently dealing with is climate change [13]. Most developing nations are in a phase of transition for their economic and social growth, making them extremely sensitive to climate change and reliant on international climate finance to support their climate protection and mitigation programs [14].
The European Union (EU) hopes to motivate a sustainable green transition in response to widespread concern that the earth is heading toward environmental calamities due to climate change issues [15]. By 2050, the European Union (EU) aspires to achieve its goal of a climate-neutral continent via its EGD (EGD), unveiled in December 2019. All of the European Union's initiatives to take the lead in combating the climate issue and global warming are collectively known as the EGD [16]. With the EGD, more ambitious GHG reduction objectives were established, and a reorganization of the EU industry according to circular economy principles was announced [17-19].
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3 are regarded to be greenhouse gases [20, 21]. The economy is the primary source of GHG emissions, and climate change has far-reaching consequences for human endeavors. Fuel combustion and fugitive emissions from fuels (energy including logistics), IPPU (product use and processes in industry), agriculture, LUCLUF (land use change, land use, and forestry), and waste management are five primary emission source sectors [22, 23].
On the administrative front, Turkey has been carefully monitoring the EGD and its implementation from the outset. In February 2020, a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Trade was established, comprised of representatives from several Turkish ministries [24, 25]. In July 2021, Turkey's EGDAP was unveiled as a result of consultations with many stakeholders, including the business sector [26, 27]. The present ties between the EU and Turkey are not encouraging, even though EGDAP handles the majority of the problematic areas and anticipates strong collaboration with the EU [28, 29]. The EU and Turkey have been in admission talks since 2005 [30, 31]. However, it has been quite erratic. Settling on a way to work together on green transformation could be seen as a new chance to improve Turkey's stalled and frozen relations with the EU, since the EGD was introduced and Turkey had to change to fit it [32-37]. With the EGD, third-party countries with economic ties to the EU, like Turkey, could take steps to adapt to a green transition. The new economic structure the green revolution will create will gradually spread worldwide [38]. Turkish EGDAP has 81 actions and 32 targets organized into the following 9 themes (Table 1):
Table 1. Major themes under the Turkish EGD action plan
|
S.N. |
Particulars |
|
1 |
Carbon Border Adjustment |
|
2 |
Informative and Educational Activities |
|
3 |
Defend Climate |
|
4 |
Ecological Economy |
|
5 |
Eco-Finance |
|
6 |
Agricultural sustainablity |
|
7 |
Smart Mobility with Sustainablity |
|
8 |
Diplomatic policies |
|
9 |
Affordable, Clean, and Secure Energy Supply |
Source: Author Compilation
Due to the close trade and industry ties between the EU and Turkey as trading partners, European Commission's introduction of the EGD garnered considerable attention from both state authorities and the business community in Turkey [39, 40]. After the EGD and the associated CBAM were announced, In response to raising matters and pressure from the business sector, the Turkish government began to implement an dynamic policy for climate by the end of 2020 [41, 42]. This was mostly done under the direction of the Ministry of Trade [43, 44]. At the Glasgow COP26 Summit, Turkey quickly released a plan for adapting to EGD, passed the Paris Agreement in parliament, and promised to be carbon neutral by 2053 [45, 46]. Turkish exporters may choose from a broad range of options throughout the value chain [47].
1.1 EGD and cultivation
It is a well-known piece of evidence that drastic fluctuations in the climate, such as droughts, floods, rising sea levels, and the disruption of ecosystems, are causing instability in ranching, fisheries, animal husbandry, etc., not only in Turkey but also in European region. Most crops grow increasingly vulnerable to high temperatures as they reach their reproductive and maturity phases [48]. The challenge of predictability for agricultural output is exacerbated by the high seasonality and unpredictability of feed supply and pasture conditions due to weather fluctuations [49].
The EGD laid forth the primary objectives concerning different agricultural techniques that are to be accomplished by 2030 [50, 51], and they are as follows:
1. Relating to the use of insecticides. It has been decided to cut down on chemical pesticides and their hazards by half, with an additional 50% reduction in the usage of the most dangerous pesticides [52, 53]. The agreed goals are based on the recognition of the harmful effects from the use of pesticide in agriculture on water, soil, and air pollution [54, 55].
2. Regarding how fertilizers are used, chosen goal is cut down on fertilizer consumption by at least 20% and avoid nutrient loss by at least 50% [56, 57]. The establishment of the objectives intended to simplify fertilizer management on farms is a direct response to the realization that excessive nutrient runoff significantly contributes to air, soil, and water pollution, consequently, deleterious effects on biodiversity and climate [58, 59].
3. Concerning the selling of antimicrobials. For this reason, we have set a goal of halving the market share of antimicrobials used on farms and in fish farms by 2025 [60]. Because antimicrobials are so often used to treat animals and people, certain germs have become resistant to them. This rising resistance is responsible for an estimated 33,000 annual fatalities in the EU, making it imperative to alter farming practices there [61].
4. Concerning the popularisation of organic farming. In this respect, a lofty objective has been set: 25% of all cultivated land should be farmed in line with organic standards [32, 62-64]. Reasons for adopting such a lofty goal include its relevance in preserving natural resources (via ecologically sound farming methods) and its beneficial effects on the environment generally and on biodiversity in particular [65].
A McKinsey Global Institute analysis claims that Turkey, Iran, and Mexico will be among those hit worst by water scarcity as a result of global warming [66]. Given anticipated droughts and a potential lack of fresh water supplies, this will seriously jeopardize the fertility of agricultural areas and the entire food systems [67]. Due to rising of demand, and pollution in the water collecting basins, drought, the quantity of water in the nation is progressively becoming insufficient to satisfy the demands of industry and agriculture [68]. The Problems with water management stem is insufficient planning, monitoring, assessment, and examination; a shortage of a shared database and information flow; and a lack of institutional coordination [69, 70].
Despite a rapidly expanding population, Turkey has a challenge with the significant loss of arable land and the overall amount of agricultural land used [71-74]. From 41.000 thousand hectares in 2001 to 37.762 thousand hectares in 2020, as shown by data compiled by TurkStat, the overall area used for agriculture decreased [75]. According to statistics of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and TurkStat, pesticide use increased from 2006 to 2020, going from 45 000 to 54 000 tonnes, despite the EU's efforts to reduce pesticide use [76].
European Fisheries Control Agency and The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) can work together on four initiatives (EFCA) [77]. While there used to be ad hoc technical cooperation between Turkey and the EFSA, there is currently none with the EFCA [78].
Turkey should work with the EU through the EFSA to adapt to the EU's pesticide and anti-microbial reduction targets perform R&D on waste, reduction generalize biological and biotechnological conflict and waste reuse in agricultural output, and prevent food waste and waste recycling [79, 80].
The Present paper includes the 6 sections and Section 1 depicts the introduction followed by section 2 presents the Literature, section 3 highlights the Objective and Methodology, Section 4 presents the result analysis with sub section 4.1. Includes descriptive analysis, 4.2 includes Stationarity Test, 4.3 depicts Ordinary Least Square Test, Section 5 presents the conclusion and Suggestions and Section 6 depicts the Limitations and future research.
Cordella and Sala [57] highlighted that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have not been achieved yet, and the world is now dealing with issues like environmental degradation and climate change and [81, 82]. The EGD is one instance of an initiative showing how science-based policies may advance sustainability worldwide [83]. The EGD provides a worldwide reference for developing sustainable and flexible economies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, together with the lesson learned from the 2008-2009 fiscal crisis [84]. The EGD draws on the sustainability debate that has taken place over the last several decades and the supporting scientific evidence [85]. To maintain the planetary limits, it is essential to decouple economic development from resource usage and environmental repercussions [86]. This may be done using sustainability assessment techniques like life cycle sustainability assessment [87]. However, in order to have a significant worldwide influence, multiparty agreements, multinational associations, and joint venture, as well as long-term obligations, need to be further pushed [88].
Ciot [89] stated that the EGD is the European Commission's new and ambitious growth plan for making the EU into a wealthy and flexible society built on a competitive economy, resource allocation efficiency, and a healthy environment [89]. However, this study aims to highlight the fundamental objections to the EGD by considering the market's entrepreneurial and competitive aspects [90]. A systematic evaluation of the specialized literature was made to gather information regarding the issue [91]. The study's findings demonstrated that, despite the free market, the EGD prioritizes the environment and has an impact on entrepreneurial activity [92]. The EGD outlines the backdrop of governmental regulations and interventions that would distort entrepreneurial and competitive processes via fiscal tools, policies and other mechanism in order to accomplish the stated aims [93]. According to the study, the EGD has problems, including a lack of transparency, vague goals, and exorbitant prices [94]. However, when looking at the long view, the study findings are far from negating the significance of the EGD [95].
Faichuk et al. [45] highlighted the threats and challenges under the provisions of the EGD for the exporters of agricultural products to the European Union [96]. They revealed comparative advantages index (RCA), after apply of correlation, comparison method, taxonomic method and regression techniques. The tests' results helped identify the fundamental causes of agricultural exports to the EU [97]. It also revealed that even some of the leading exporters to the EU are not adhering to the regulations set under the EGD [98]. Correlation and regression analysis revealed that the volume of fertilizers used per cropland strongly influences CO2 emissions [99]. They quoted that if the executive body and government of the exporting countries did not take significant steps towards the fulfillment of the requirement of EGD, then they might have to face a reduction in the exports values to the European Union [100].
Tutak signified the contribution of the EGD in the EU- Turkey relations [101]. The research intends to investigate the possibilities for EU-Turkey climate collaboration and a green agenda, emphasizing the need for such cooperation, outlining the situation as it is, and proposing relevant platforms and policy areas for efficient EU-TR cooperation on green transformation [102, 103]. The following are five priority fields that have been highlighted as high latent areas for cooperation: (1) the transition to carbon pricing and clean energy [104]; (2) the circular economy and sustainable industries; (3) sustainable agriculture; (4) sustainable transportation; and (5) the availability of green financing and capacity development. This collaboration may be realized through participation in the EU's industrial alliances and related decentralized EU institutions. An inclusive stakeholder participation strategy is essential to ensuring societal acceptability and widespread support for the green revolution [105-107].
Researchers had analyzed the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consolidated in the value-added substance of Turkish mutual trade with the European Union [108, 109]. For the study, they developed a model considering the principles of Ecological Unequal Exchange (EUE) theory [110]. They attempted to evaluate the direct and indirect emissions along the national and intenrnational value-added chains [111]. They took the data from 1995 to 2015, and the results showed that Turkey had a deficit in trade with the EU during the mentioned period [112]. However, the GHG emissions resultant from Turkey's export activity to the EU lead to an increase in the EU's GHG emissions resultant from exports activity of the EU to Turkey [113].
Dazzi [114] conducted a study to analyze the potential impact of the Cross Border Adjustment (CBA) mechanism on the production sector of Turkey. They have constructed Applied General Equilibrium (AGE) model around 24 production sectors in the Walrasian tradition wherein they have simulated the aggregate demand and the supply with the interaction of relative prices to carry equilibrium in the foreign exchange, market of services, labor, and goods [115]. The proposed model is flexible and functional at a multi-level to create a link between the production activities with GHGs emissions, public expenditures, and the government mechanism of the environmental policy tools [116]. The outcome of their study showed that the unfavorable effect of the CBA on the Turkish economy will vary from 2.7 to 3.6% loss of the GDP by 2030 over the trade -as-(un)usual position path [117]. They have also suggested ratifying the Paris Climate Agreement and revising the INDC targets in the Parliament to speed up the process of the Emission Trading System in the Turkish economy [118].
Leonard et al. [119] had undertaken a study to analyze how far the renewable energy use, forest area, economic growth urbanization, industrialization, agriculture productivity, and tourism in Turkey had contributed towards achieving the environmental sustainability goals of the country by lowering carbon dioxide emissions. For the purpose of the study, they have taken time series data from 1990 to 2020 and applied the Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares method for analysis [120]. The results of the study depicted that a 1% rise in the growth of economy, industrialization, urbanization, and tourism will lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 0.39%, 1.22%, 0.24%, and 0.02% in Turkey, respectively. Moreover, a 1% increase in renewable energy consumption, agricultural productivity, and forest area will decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 0.43%, 0.12%, and 3.17%, respectively. However, this research recommended the formulation of a more robust regulatory framework to minimize environmental deterioration and foster sustainable development growth in Turkey [121, 122].
Biresselioglu et al. [123] conducted a study to assess the impact of the European Union (EU) 's climate change policy which has the Climate Pact and the EGD as their significant components [124, 125]. They have undertaken a comparative study between Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey [126, 127]. Through this study, they aimed to understand better the status of the Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) and citizen energy communities (CECs) in the EU and nonmember countries. The study's results revealed that none of the countries under the study had yet succeeded in harmonizing their legislation concerning RECs and CECs with the legal and administrative framework [128]. They also suggested that a lot more progress is required at the varying levels in each country under study [129].
This study focused on analyzing the impact of the EGD on the Agricultural carbon emissions in Turkey. European Union and Turkey have strong trade relations; Turkey exports a significant portion of its exports to the European Union. This fact made it compulsory for Turkey to follow the regulations implemented in the EU regarding trade. In response to the European Union's EGD, Turkey formulated EGD Action Plan, this plan laid down the roadmap for Turkey to follow the regulations under the EU's EGD.
EGD highlighted the significance of sustainable agriculture for the responsible development of the economies. Specific objectives are set under the EGD regarding the sustainable growth of agriculture. Even Turkey's EGDAP mentioned many actions for the agricultural sectors sustainable development in the Turkey.
The study's primary question is whether EGD has any impact on the carbon emissions from the agriculture sector in Turkey or not. For the same, the data has been collected regarding carbon emissions and analyzed with the help of statistical tools and techniques.
Agriculture carbon emissions in Turkey and EGD are taken as the variables for the study. In the present report, an attempt has been made to analyze the effect of the EGD on agriculture carbon emissions. In this case, we consider agriculture carbon emissions as the dependent variable and the EGD as the independent variable.
Secondary data from the various published sources have been collected and analyzed with statistical tools, and findings are drawn from them. Statistical tools like Unit Root tests, the Ordinary Least Square Test, and Auto regressive distributed lag model, are used to interpret the impact.
Time series data related to the carbon emissions of the agriculture sector in Turkey has been collected from the TURKSTAT, an official website of the Turkey Government for the statistical data related to the various domains. We took emissions data from the year 1990 to 2020. As per the latest published reports of the Turkey government on Environment and Energy, data is available up to 2020 only.
As per the objective of this study, it is decided to analyze the impact of the EGD on the Agriculture Carbon Emissions in Turkey. Data for agriculture CO2 emissions is taken from published official sources. However, for the study, we also require some quantitative data related to the EGD. So, we took Dummy Variables to quantify the EGD for the sake of study. For the years when EGD is not applicable, i.e., from 1990 to 2018, we took values as 0, and for the years 2019 and 2020, we took the values as 1.
Dummy variables used for instance, in econometric time series analysis to track the occurrence of wars or other significant events. Thus, it might be considered a truth value represented by the numbers 0 or 1.
4.1 Interpretation of data for analyzing the impact of EGD on the agriculture carbon emissions
4.1.1 Descriptive statistics
The Figures 1-6 below show the descriptive statistics for the agriculture carbon emissions; it is assumed that descriptive statistics provide information about the essential characteristics of the data set, which is helpful for the researcher in organizing, simplifying, and summarizing data. The histogram is also drawn for a better understanding of the data.
Descriptive statistics show that the average carbon emissions from the agriculture sector are 48.62 million tonnes from 1990 to 2020, with maximum emissions of 73.15 million tonnes and minimum emissions of 37.60 million tonnes during this time. Graphical figures are also shown to enhance the understanding of the series.
Figure 1. Descriptive statistics for the agriculture carbon emissions
Figure 2. Agriculture carbon emissions
Figure 3. Differenced agriculture CO2 emissions
Figure 4. % change agriculture CO2 emissions
Figure 5. Log agriculture CO2 emission
Figure 6. Log differenced agriculture CO2 emissions
4.2 Stationarity test
At various levels, stationarity tests have been undertaken using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller Unit Root Test for Agricultural Carbon Emissions DATA based on time series.
4.2.1 Unit Root Test at level including intercept
First, investigated the stationarity of agriculture CO2 emissions data series at Level including intercept in test equation, taking null hypothesis as agriculture CO2 emissions has a unit root and exogenous as constant. We took a lag length equal to 0 and a maximum lag length equal to 7. However, the results of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic show that result is not significant as the prob. value is 1.00, which is higher than the required 0.05 value. So, the results of the Unit Root Test at level including intercept depict that the agriculture CO2 emissions data series is not stationary (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2. Unit Root Test at level including intercept
|
ADF |
t-Statistic |
Prob.* |
|
|
2.730636 |
1.0000 |
||
|
Test critical values: |
1% |
-3.67017 |
|
|
5% |
-2.963972 |
||
|
10% |
-2.621007 |
||
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Table 3. Unit Root Test at level including intercept
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS (-1) |
0.127982 |
0.046869 |
2.730636 |
0.0108 |
|
C |
-5.214625 |
2.270419 |
-2.296768 |
0.0293 |
|
R2 |
0.210297 |
Mean dependent var |
0.90339 |
|
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.182093 |
S.D. dependent var |
2.22459 |
|
|
S.E. of regression |
2.011875 |
Akaike-info-criterion |
4.30035 |
|
|
∑resid2 |
113.3339 |
Schwarz-criterion |
4.39376 |
|
|
Log likelihood |
-62.50527 |
Hannan-Quinn criter |
4.33024 |
|
|
F statistic |
7.456374 |
Durbin-Watson-stat |
1.38018 |
|
|
Prob (F-statistic) |
0.010811 |
|||
4.2.2 Unit Root Test at level including trend and intercept
The Unit Root Test based insignificant result at the level including intercept only prompted us to try it with the inclusion of trend. Thus, we examined stationary from use of the Unit Root Test, including the trend and the intercept. We consider the null hypothesis as agricultural CO2 emissions have a unit root and the exogenous variable as constant, linear trend. The lag length considered is 0, and the maximum lag length is 7. The results of test revealed that the series is not stationary at level including the trend and the intercept as the prob. value is 0.9989, which is again higher than the required prob. value is 0.05 (Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4. Unit Root Test at level including trend and intercept
|
ADF |
t-Statistic |
Prob.* |
|
|
0.527919 |
0.9989 |
||
|
Test-critical values: |
1% |
-4.296729 |
|
|
5% |
-3.568379 |
||
|
10% |
-3.218382 |
||
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Table 5. Unit Root Test at level including trend and intercept
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS (-1) |
0.030197 |
0.057200 |
0.527919 |
0.6019 |
|
C |
-2.606794 |
2.306155 |
-1.130364 |
0.2683 |
|
@TREND ("1990") |
0.133332 |
0.051792 |
2.574359 |
0.0158 |
|
R2 |
0.365933 |
Mean dependent var |
0.903390 |
|
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.318965 |
S.D. dependent var |
2.224585 |
|
|
S.E. of regression |
1.835835 |
Akaike-info-criterion |
4.147516 |
|
|
∑resid2 |
90.99788 |
Schwarz-criterion |
4.287636 |
|
|
Log likelihood |
-59.21274 |
Hannan-Quinn criter |
4.192341 |
|
|
F statistic |
7.791126 |
Durbin-Watson-stat |
1.567572 |
|
|
Prob (F-statistic) |
0.002132 |
|||
4.2.3 Unit root at 1st difference including intercept
Here under took the Unit Root Test at the first difference, including the intercept. We took the null hypothesis as at first difference agriculture carbon emissions series has a unit root and also considered the exogenous variable as constant. We took the lag length as 0 and the maximum lag length as 7. We applied the Unit Root Test on the time series data with these assumptions. The results depict that series is not stationary at the first difference, including the intercept, as the probability value is greater than 0.05 (Tables 6 and 7).
Table 6. Unit Root Test at 1st difference including intercept
|
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic |
t-Statistic |
Prob.* |
|
|
-2.668413 |
0.0917 |
||
|
Test critical values: |
1% |
-3.679322 |
|
|
5% |
-2.967767 |
||
|
10% level |
-2.622989 |
||
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Table 7. Unit Root Test at 1st difference including intercept
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
D (AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS (-1)) |
-0.481522 |
0.180453 |
-2.668413 |
0.0127 |
|
C |
0.511624 |
0.398818 |
1.282851 |
0.2104 |
|
R2 |
0.208685 |
Mean dependent var |
0.146850 |
|
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.179377 |
S.D. dependent var |
2.227217 |
|
|
S.E. of regression |
2.017596 |
Akaike-info-criterion |
4.308163 |
|
|
∑resid2 |
109.9087 |
Schwarz-criterion |
4.402459 |
|
|
Log likelihood |
-60.46836 |
Hannan-Quinn criter. |
4.337695 |
|
|
F statistic |
7.120426 |
Durbin-Watson-stat |
1.838024 |
|
|
Prob (F-statistic) |
0.012732 |
|||
4.2.4 Unit Root Test at 1st difference including trend and intercept
After testing agriculture data series stationarity at 1st difference including intercept, found that it is not stationary at that level. Then tried it at 1st difference including trend and intercept; here took the null hypothesis as at first difference agriculture CO2 emissions has a unit root and exogenous variable as constant, linear trend. The lag value is taken as 1, and the maximum lag value is 7. the results depict that agriculture CO2 emissions are stationary at this level. Here the prob. value is 0.0102, which is lesser than the required value of 0.05. So, agriculture CO2 emissions are stationary at first difference including trend and intercept (Tables 8 and 9).
Table 8. Unit Root Test at 1st difference including trend and intercept
|
Null Hypothesis: D (AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS) has a unit root |
||||
|
Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend |
||||
|
Lag Length: 1 (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=7) |
||||
|
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic |
t-Statistic |
Prob.* |
||
|
-4.315427 |
0.0102 |
|||
|
Test critical values: |
1% |
-4.323979 |
||
|
5% |
-3.580623 |
|||
|
10% |
-3.225334 |
|||
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Table 9. Unit Root Test at 1st difference including trend and intercept
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
D(AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS (-1)) |
-1.053353 |
0.244090 |
-4.315427 |
0.0002 |
|
D(AGRICULTURE_ CO2_EMISSIONS (-1),2) |
0.301592 |
0.192266 |
1.568620 |
0.1298 |
|
C |
-2.057140 |
0.856643 |
-2.401398 |
0.0244 |
|
@TREND ("1990") |
0.182589 |
0.054183 |
3.369882 |
0.0025 |
|
R-squared |
0.465382 |
Mean dependent var |
0.181500 |
|
|
Adjusted R-squared |
0.398555 |
S.D. dependent var |
2.260112 |
|
|
S.E. of regression |
1.752783 |
Akaike info criterion |
4.091850 |
|
|
Sum squared resid |
73.73393 |
Schwarz criterion |
4.282165 |
|
|
Log likelihood |
-53.28590 |
Hannan-Quinn criter. |
4.150031 |
|
|
F-statistic |
6.963954 |
Durbin-Watson stat |
2.039339 |
|
|
Prob(F-statistic) |
0.001562 |
|||
4.3 Ordinary Least Square Test
Applied Ordinary Least Square Test on the data series. We took Agriculture CO2 emissions as the dependent variable and the EGD as the independent variable. The results show that EGD significantly impacts the Agricultural carbon emissions in Turkey as the Prob. is less than 0.05. However, the value of R-squared and adjusted R-squared is less than 0.5, which depicts that the prediction rate is lower in this case. However, one of the reasons behind the lower values of the R-squared and the adjusted R- squared can be that EGD is in its infancy stage right now (Table 10).
Table 10. Statistics of ordinary least square test
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
C |
47.10661 |
1.305294 |
36.08888 |
0 |
|
EGD |
23.48233 |
5.138949 |
4.569481 |
0.0001 |
|
R2 |
0.418607 |
Mean dependent var |
48.6216 |
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.398558 |
S.D. dependent var |
9.06381 |
|
S.E. of regression |
7.029226 |
Akaike info criterion |
6.800371 |
|
∑resid2 |
1432.89 |
Schwarz criterion |
6.892886 |
|
Log likelihood |
-103.4058 |
Hannan-Quinn criter. |
6.830529 |
|
F statistic |
20.88016 |
Durbin-Watson stat |
0.414079 |
|
Prob (F-statistic) |
0.000084 |
||
Figure 7. Agriculture CO2 emissions residual, actual, fitted
Figure 8. Agriculture CO2 emissions residuals
Figure 9. Agriculture CO2 emissions standardised residuals
Figure 10. Forecasting of carbon emissions with and without EGD
Figure 11. Carbon emissions with EGD
Here an attempt is made to forecast the agriculture carbon emissions in Turkey after the implementation of the EGD. The actual emissions are 68 million tonnes and 73.2 million tonnes for 2019 and 2020, respectively. Our forecast is that CO2 emissions may reduce to 71.9 million tonnes, with lower confidence bound of 66.07 million tonnes and upper confidence bound of 77.74 million tonnes for the year 2020 (Figures 7-11).
In this study, we have sought to investigate the expected impacts of the EGD on the Carbon emissions in Turkey. We specifically choose Agriculture Sector for the purpose of the study because of its significant contribution to the Turkish economy. The EGD announced in December 2019 will affect the Turkish economy as a significant portion of Turkey's foreign trade is with the European Union. This fact made it compulsory for Turkey to fulfill the requirements of the EGD; otherwise, Turkey would have to face adverse effects on its foreign trade with the EU. Turkey formulated the EGD action plan to implement the regulations mentioned in the EGD.
An attempt is made to analyze the impact of the EGD on Agriculture carbon emissions; conducted pre-implementation and post-implementation analyses to study the impact of carbon emissions. We took dummy variables for the EGD and applied the Ordinary Least Square Test [120]. The result of our study shows that EGD significantly impacts agriculture carbon emissions. However, the results are significant Turkey [121, 122]; the prediction rate could be more promising; it is just 41.8% in this case. Although, the carbon emissions from the agriculture sector are also showing an increasing trend even after the implementation of the EGD. It might take a few more years of implementation to analyze the EGD's impact on carbon emissions significantly. As of now, Turkey is trying to reduce its emissions, also implemented the EGD action plan to adhere to the regulations of the EGD [119], but it will take some years to make the results of the policies visible.
The limitation of the present study is that it considers only the agriculture sector's carbon emissions to study the impact on the EGD; further studies can be undertaken with the coverage of other sectors of the economy. The present study is based on secondary data; future studies can also be conducted based on the primary data to explore the challenges faced by the exporters in adopting environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Moreover, this study analyzed the impact of EGD only in Turkey; other economies can also be considered for a more precise and extensive analysis.
[1] Domorenok, E., Graziano, P. (2023). Understanding the European Green Deal: A narrative policy framework approach. European Policy Analysis, 9(1): 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1168
[2] Ataseven, Y. (2023). Evaluation of the possible effects of the European Green Deal Process on Agricultural Policies in Türkiye. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29(1): 13-25. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1108754
[3] Cassetti, G., Longa, F.D., Zanatta, M., Zambelli, P. (2023). The interplay among COVID-19 economic recovery, behavioural changes, and the European Green Deal: An energy-economic modelling perspective. Energy, 263: 125798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125798
[4] Di Stefano, C., Nicosia, A., Pampalone, V., Ferro, V. (2023). Soil loss tolerance in the context of the European Green Deal. Heliyon, 9(1): E12869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12869
[5] Tantau, A., Negrea, A., Ion, R., Gheorghe, G. (2023). A deep understanding of romanian attitude and perception regarding nuclear energy as green investment promoted by the European Green Deal. Energies, 16(1): 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010272
[6] Ferreira, I., Corrêa, A., Cruz, C. (2023). Sustainable production of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the mediterranean region to support the European Green Deal. Plants People Planet, 5(1): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10265
[7] Oberthür, S., von Homeyer, I. (2023). From emissions trading to the European Green Deal: the evolution of the climate policy mix and climate policy integration in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(3): 445-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2120528
[8] Pilvere, I., Nipers, A., Pilvere, A. (2022). Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the context of agricultural support payments in Latvia. Agriculture, 12(12): 2028. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122028
[9] Jaržemskis, A., Jaržemskiene, I. (2022). European Green Deal implications on country level energy consumption. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 22(2): 97-122. https://doi.org/10.2478/foli-2022-0021
[10] Szczepaniak, I., Szajner, P. (2022). Challenges of energy management in the food industry in Poland in the context of the objectives of the European Green Deal and the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy. Energies, 15(23): 9090. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15239090
[11] Beckman, J., Ivanic, M., Jelliffe, J., Arita, S. (2022). Adopt or not adopt? Mirror clauses and the European Green Deal. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44(4): 2014-2033. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13317
[12] Steininger, K.W., Williges, K., Meyer, L.H., Maczek, F., Riahi, K. (2022). Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries. Nature Communications, 13(1): 3673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31204-8
[13] Tryhuba, A., Kowalik, M., Kowalik-Klimczak, A. (2022). Assessment of the condition of the project environment for the implementation of technologically integrated projects of the ‘European Green Deal’ using maize waste. Energies, 15(21): 8220. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218220
[14] Zieliński, M., Jadczyszyn, J. (2022). Importance and challenges for agriculture from high nature value farmlands (HNVf) in Poland in the context of the provision of public goods under the European Green Deal. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 81(3): 194-219. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.82.3.494
[15] Zieliński, M., Koza, P., Łopatka, A. (2022). Agriculture from areas facing natural or other specific constraints (ANCs) in Poland, its characteristics, directions of changes and challenges in the context of the European Green Deal. Sustainability, 14(19): 11828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911828
[16] Lankauskienė, R., Simonaitytė, V., Gedminaitė-Raudonė, Ž., Johnson, J. (2022). Addressing the European Green Deal with smart specialization strategies in the baltic sea region. Sustainability, 14(19): 11912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911912
[17] Bogoslov, I.A., Lungu, A.E., Stoica, E. A., Georgescu, M.R. (2022). European Green Deal impact on entrepreneurship and competition: A free market approach. Sustainability, 14(19): 12335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912335
[18] Fišer, C., Pevere, I., Bragalanti, N., Gautier, L., Culverwell, C.L. (2022). The European Green Deal misses Europe’s subterranean biodiversity hotspots. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(10): 1403-1404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01859-z
[19] Kowalska, A., Bieniek, M. (2022). Meeting the European green deal objective of expanding organic farming. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(3): 607-633. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2022.021.
[20] Peyravi, B., Peleckienė, V., Vaičiūtė, K. (2022). Research on the impact of motorization rate and technological development on climate change in Lithuania in the context of the European Green Deal. Sustainability, 14(18): 11610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811610
[21] Tryhuba, A., Shandruk, R., Kryvobok, O. (2022). Coordination of configurations of technologically integrated ‘European Green Deal’ projects. Processes, 10(9): 1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091768
[22] Borghesi, S., Vergalli, S. (2022). The European Green Deal, energy transition and decarbonization. Environmental and Resource Economics, 83(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00726-6
[23] Čavoški, A. (2022). The European Green Deal and technological determinism. Environmental Law Review, 24(3): 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221104558
[24] von Homeyer, I., Oberthür, S., Dupont, C. (2022). Implementing the European Green Deal during the Evolving Energy Crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(S1): 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13397
[25] Yapıcıoğlu, P., Yeşilnacar, M.I. (2022). Economic performance index assessment of an industrial wastewater treatment plant in terms of the European Green Deal: Effect of greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 13(8): 3100-3118. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.146
[26] Miłek, D., Nowak, P., Latosińska, J. (2022). The development of renewable energy sources in the european union in the light of the European Green Deal. Energies, 15(15): 5576. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155576
[27] Dunlap, A., Laratte, L. (2022). European Green Deal necropolitics: Exploring ‘green’ energy transition, degrowth & infrastructural colonization. Political Geography, 97: 102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102640
[28] Labenko, O., Vovk, V., Kovalenko, V., Hryshchuk, O. (2022). Project environment and outlook within the scope of technologically integrated European Green Deal in EU and Ukraine. Sustainability, 14(14): 8759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148759
[29] Rybak, A., Rybak, A., Joostberens, J., Kolev, S.D. (2022). Cluster analysis of the EU-27 countries in light of the guiding principles of the European Green Deal, with particular emphasis on Poland. Energies, 15(14): 5082. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145082
[30] Oanta, G. A. (2022). Blue Dimensions of The European Green Deal: Climate Action at Sea. Taylor and Francis Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/97813151497458
[31] Samborski, A. (2022). The energy company business model and the European Green Deal. Energies, 15(11): 4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15114059
[32] Bhatnagar, M., Özen, E., Taneja, S., Grima, S., Rupeika-Apoga, R. (2022). The dynamic connectedness between risk and return in the fintech market of India: Evidence using the GARCH-M approach. Risks, 10(11): 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10110209
[33] Dangwal, A., Taneja, S., Özen, E., Todorovic, I., Grima, S. (2022). Abridgement of renewables: Its potential and contribution to India’s GDP. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(8): 2357-2363. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170802
[34] Taneja, S., Jaggi, P., Jewandah, S., Ozen, E. (2022). Role of social inclusion in sustainable urban developments: An analyse by PRISMA technique. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 17(6): 937-942. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.170615
[35] Jangir, K., Sharma, V., Taneja, S., Rupeika-Apoga, R. (2023). The moderating effect of perceived risk on users’ continuance intention for fintech services. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(1): 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010021
[36] Taneja, S., Bhatnagar, M., Kumar, P., Rupeika-apoga, R. (2023). India’s total natural resource rents (NRR) and GDP: An augmented autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bound test. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(2): 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020091
[37] Bhatnagar, M., Taneja, S., Özen, E. (2022). A wave of green start-ups in India—The study of green finance as a support system for sustainable entrepreneurship. Green Finance, 4(2): 253-273. https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2022012
[38] Mukul, Pathak, N. (2021). Are the financial inclusion schemes of India developing the nation sustainably? In 1st International Conference on Environmental Sustainability Management and Green Technologies, vol. 296, pp. 06011. https://doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202129606011
[39] Paleari, S. (2022). The impact of the European Green Deal on EU environmental policy. Journal of Environment and Development, 31(2): 196-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965221082222
[40] Fry, J.J., Schleiss, A.J., Morris, M. (2022). Hydropower as a catalyst for the energy transition within the European Green Deal Part II: The complex environment for hydropower, biodiversity challenges and the main innovation and research directions [L’hydro-électricité catalyseur de la transition éne]. In E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 346. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234604016
[41] Fry, J. J., Schleiss, A.J., Morris, M. (2022). Hydropower as a catalyst for the energy transition within the European Green Deal Part I: Urgency of the Green Deal and the role of Hydropower [L’hydro-électricité catalyseur de la transition énergétique du Pacte Vert européen Partie I : l’urgence du Pact]. E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 346. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234604015
[42] Sapir, A., Schraepen, T., Tagliapietra, S. (2022). Green public procurement: A neglected tool in the European Green Deal toolbox? Intereconomics, 57(3): 175-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-022-1044-7
[43] Sztorc, M. (2022). The implementation of the European Green Deal strategy as a challenge for energy management in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Energies, 15(7): 2662. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072662
[44] Ciot, M.G. (2022). Implementation perspectives for the European Green Deal in central and eastern Europe. Sustainability, 14(7): 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073947.
[45] Faichuk, O., Fofanov, O., Tishechko, O., Bugaets, N. (2022). European Green Deal: Threats assessment for agri-food exporting countries to the EU. Sustainability, 14(7): 3712. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073712
[46] Tryhuba, A., Zhyvko, Z., Wlasenko, O. (2022). Taxonomy and stakeholder risk management in integrated projects of the European Green Deal. Energies, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062015
[47] Emiliano, M., Piscitelli, P., Stefanazzi, C., Miani, A. (2022). Health benefits of decarbonization: The transition of Carbon intensive regions in the frame of European Green Deal. Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 14: 100335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100335
[48] Sharma, R., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Jain, V., Shishodia, A. (2022). The role of digital technologies to unleash a green recovery: Pathways and pitfalls to achieve the European Green Deal. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(1): 266-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2021-0293
[49] Skydan, O.V., Dankevych, V.Y., Fedoniuk, T.P., Dankevych, Y.M., Yaremova, M.I. (2022). European Green Deal: Experience of food safety for Ukraine. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(2): 63-71. https://doi.org/10.21833/IJAAS.2022.02.007
[50] Auer, H., Patt, A., del Granado, P.C., Peiró, L.T., Fambri, G. (2022). Modelling climate neutrality for the European Green Deal. Energy, 239: 122249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122249
[51] Ginter, A. (2022). Plant protection within the European Green Deal on the example starch potato cultivation [Ochrona roślin w ramach Europejskiego Zielonego Ładu na przykładzie uprawy ziemniaka skrobiowego]. Progress in Plant Protection, 62(4): 208-215. https://doi.org/10.14199/ppp-2022-023
[52] Heuser, I.L., Itey, J. (2022). The European Green Deal: Progress for soil protection? International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, 2020: 263-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96347-7_12
[53] Lewandowski, M., Kądzielawski, G. (2022). Green competencies of cement industry employees in the context of the assumptions of the European Green Deal [„Zielone kompetencje” pracowników przemysłu cementowego w kontekście założeń Europejskiego Zielonego Ładu]. Cement, Lime, Concrete, 27(4): 265-274. https://doi.org/10.32047/CWB.2022.27.4.3
[54] Gengnagel, V., Zimmermann, K. (2022). The European Green Deal as a moonshot - caring for a climate-neutral yet prospering continent? Historical Social Research, 47(4): 267-302. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.47.2022.47
[55] Polishchuk, V., Kelemen, M., Włoch, I., Tymoshenko, O., Mlavets, Y. (2022). The hybrid mathematical model for the evaluation and selection of iron ore raw materials in the context of the European Green Deal. Acta Montan. Slovaca, 27(3): 569-580. https://doi.org/10.46544/AMS.v27i3.01
[56] Jager-Waldau, A., Kakoulaki, G., Taylor, N., Szabo, S. (2022). The role of the European Green Deal for the photovoltaic market growth in the European Union. In Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2022, vol. 2022, pp. 508-511. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC48317.2022.9938529
[57] Cordella, M., Sala, S. (2022). The European Green Deal in the global sustainability context. Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability, 2022: 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85851-9.00019-5
[58] Beltrán, J.P., Berbel, J., Berdaji, I et al. (2022). The impact of the European Green Deal from a sustainable global food system approach. European Food Feed Law Review, 17(1): 2-38. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/effl2022&div=6&id=&page=.
[59] Machin, A., Tan, E. (2022). Green European citizenship? Rights, duties, virtues, practices and the European Green Deal. European Politics and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2022.2118984
[60] Dinçer, H., Uluer, G.S., Lisin, A. (2022). The role of European Green Deal for carbon emission reduction. Contributions to Management Science, 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12958-2_4
[61] Dănilă, A., Horga, M.-G., Oprișan, O., Stamule, T. (2022). Good practices on esg reporting in the context of the European Green Deal. Amfiteatru Economic, 24(61): 847-860. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2022/61/847
[62] Kimberly, P., Grima, S., Özen, E. (2022). Perceived effectiveness of digital transformation and insurtech use in Malta: A study in the context of the European Union’s Green Deal. Big Data A Game Changing in Insurance Industry, 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80262-605-620221016
[63] Özen, E., Grima, S. (2020). The Turkish life insurance market: An evaluation of the current situation and future challenges. In Life Insurance in Europe, pp. 45-58. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49655-5_4
[64] Kaur, A., Kumar, P., Taneja, S. (2023). Fintech emergance-An oppourtunity or threat to banking. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 12(3): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEF.2024.10054469
[65] Baicu, C.G., State, O., Gârdan, D.A., Gârdan, I.P., Țicău, I.R. (2022). Financial and competitive implications of the European Green Deal - Perceptions of retail managers. Amfiteatru Economic, 24(61): 683-700. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2022/61/683
[66] Kociszewski, K. (2022). Perspectives of polish organic farming development in the aspect of The European Green Deal. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 81(2): 154-167. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.461
[67] Szpilko, D., Ejdys, J. (2022). European Green Deal — Research directions. A systematic literature review. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 81(2): 8-38. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.455
[68] Rządkowska, A.E. (2022). Quantitatively estimating the impact of the European Green Deal on the clean energy transformation in the European Union with a focus on the breakthrough of the share of renewable energy in the electricity generation sector. olityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal, 25(2): 45-66. https://doi.org/10.33223/epj/150372
[69] Wendler, F. (2022). Climate change policy in the EU: From the paris agreement to the European Green Deal. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, 65-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04059-7_3
[70] Schunz, S. (2022). The ‘European Green Deal’-a paradigm shift? Transformations in the European Union’s sustainability meta-discourse. Political Research Exchange, 4(1): 2085121. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2085121
[71] Sharma, M., Kumar, P. (2021). Adoption of blockchain technology: A case study of Walmart. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8081-3.ch013
[72] Kumar, P., Khurana, A., Sharma, S. (2021). Performance evaluation of public and private sector banks. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(2-3): 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2021.114436
[73] Kaur, H., Singh, K., Kumar, P., Kaur, A. (2022). Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor : An empirical study of Renewable energy consumption in BRICS nation Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor : An empirical study of Renewable energy consumption in BRICS nation. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1110(1): 012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012053
[74] Kumar, P., Bhatnagar, M., Kaur, D., Kaur, A. (2023). Green infrastructure- a roadmap towards sustainable development green infrastructure- A roadmap towards Sustainable development. In IOP Conference Series, 1110(1): 012060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012060
[75] Prandecki, K., Wrzaszcz, W., Zieliński, M. (2021). Environmental and climate challenges to agriculture in poland in the context of objectives adopted in the european green deal strategy. Sustainability, 13(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810318
[76] Thormann, L., Neuling, U., Kaltschmitt, M. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of the european green deal for the chemical industry: An approach measuring innovations in bioeconomy. Resources, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10090091
[77] Vegheș, C., Strâmbu-Dima, A. (2022). Romanian agri-food businesses and the European Green Deal: An exploratory approach. Amfiteatru Economic, 24(60): 508-524. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2022/60/508
[78] Monti, A. (2022). Urban cycling mobility in the European Green Deal. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 19(1-2): 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-19010005
[79] Brătucu, G., Nichifor, E., Sumedrea, S., Chițu, I.B., Lixăndroiu, R.C. (2022). Avoiding digital divide in European Union through European Green Deal. Amfiteatru Economic, 24(59): 71-93. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2022/59/77
[80] Alloisio, I., Galeotti, M. (2022). Carbon pricing from the origin to the European Green Deal. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Climate Change for Sustainable Growth, 47: 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87564-0_9
[81] Gasparini, A. (2022). Norway’s opportunities via the Sovereign Wealth Fund and the European Green Deal. International Journal of Environmental Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2022.2037335
[82] Zglinicki, K., Małek, R., Szamałek, K., Wołkowicz, S. (2022). Mining waste as a potential additional source of hree and u for the european green deal. A case study of bangka island (Indonesia). Minerals, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/min12010044
[83] Bongardt, A., Torres, F. (2022). The European Green Deal: More than an exit strategy to the pandemic crisis, a building block of a sustainable european economic model*. Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(1): 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13264
[84] Polko, P. (2021). European Green Deal as a matter of security. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 900, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012035
[85] Yasnolob, I., et al. (2021). Conceptual bases of business activities’ management grounded on sustainable development and energy self-sufficiency of united territorial communities in the context of the European green deal implementation in Ukraine. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 12(7): 1838-1849. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v12.7(55).09
[86] Long, T. B., & Blok, V. (2021). Niche level investment challenges for European Green Deal financing in Europe: lessons from and for the agri-food climate transition. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1): 269. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00945-0
[87] Tagliapietra, S., Veugelers, R. (2021). Fostering the industrial component of the European Green Deal: Key principles and policy options. Intereconomics, 56(6): 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1006-5
[88] Furfari, S., Mund, E. (2021). Is the European Green Deal achievable? The European Physical Journal Plus, 136(11). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02075-7
[89] Ciot, M.G. (2021). On european green deal and sustainable development policy (The case of romania). Sustainability, 13(21): 12233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112233
[90] Rudnicki, R., Wiśniewski, Ł., Biczkowski, M. (2021). A spatial typography of environmentally friendly common agricultural policy support relevant to European green deal objectives. Land, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10101092
[91] Ortega-gil, M., Cortés-sierra, G., Elhichou-ahmed, C. (2021). The effect of environmental degradation, climate change, and the European Green Deal tools on life satisfaction. Energies, 14(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185839
[92] Tátrai, T., Diófási-Kovács, O. (2021). European Green Deal - the way to circular public procurement. ERA Forum, 22(3): 523-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00678-2
[93] Eckert, S. (2021). The European Green Deal and the EU’s regulatory power in times of crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(S1): 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13241
[94] Ortega-Cabezas, P M., Colmenar-Santos, A., Borge-Diez, D., Blanes-Peiró, J.J. (2021). Can eco-routing, eco-driving and eco-charging contribute to the European Green Deal? Case Study: The City of Alcalá de Henares (Madrid, Spain). Energy, 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120532
[95] Błaszczuk-Zawiła, M. (2021). Poland and the European Green Deal amidst the pandemic. Taylor and Francis Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003144434-8
[96] Vaquero, M.G., Sánchez-Bayón, A., Lominchar, J. (2021). European green deal and recovery plan: Green jobs, skills and wellbeing economics in Spain. Energies, 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144145
[97] Ringel, M., Bruch, N., Knodt, M. (2021). Is clean energy contested? Exploring which issues matter to stakeholders in the European Green Deal. Energy Research & Social Science, 77: 102083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102083
[98] Pietzcker, R.C., Osorio, S., Rodrigues, R. (2021). Tightening EU ETS targets in line with the European Green Deal: Impacts on the decarbonization of the EU power sector. Applied Energy, 293: 116914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116914
[99] Kougias, I., Taylor, N., Kakoulaki, G., Jäger-Waldau, A. (2021). The role of photovoltaics for the European Green Deal and the recovery plan. Renew. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111017.
[100] Jager-Waldau, A., Kakoulaki, G., Taylor, N. (2021). The Role of photovoltaics in the response of the european member states to the European Green Deal. In Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, pp. 1106-1110. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC43889.2021.9518555
[101] Tutak, M., Brodny, J., Bindzár, P. (2021). Assessing the level of energy and climate sustainability in the European Union countries in the context of the European green deal strategy and agenda 2030. Energies, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061767
[102] Becchetti, L., Piscitelli, P., Distante, A., Miani, A., Uricchio, A.F. (2021). European Green Deal as social vaccine to overcome COVID-19 health & economic crisis. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2: 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100032
[103] Wolf, S., Teitge, J., Mielke, J., Schütze, F., Jaeger, C. (2021). The European Green Deal — More than climate neutrality. Intereconomics, 56(2): 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-0963-z
[104] Skjærseth, J.B. (2021). Towards a European Green Deal: The evolution of EU climate and energy policy mixes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 21(1): 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09529-4
[105] Gargano, G., Licciardo, F., Verrascina, M., Zanetti, B. (2021). The agroecological approach as a model for multifunctional agriculture and farming towards the European green deal 2030 — Some evidence from the Italian experience. Sustainability, 13(4): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042215
[106] Kotlán, I., Němec, D., Kotlánová, E., Skalka, P., Macek, R., Machová, Z. (2021). European Green Deal: Environmental taxation and its sustainability in conditions of high levels of corruption. Sustainability, 13(4): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041981
[107] Shevchenko, H., Petrushenko, M., Burkynskyi, B., Khumarova, N. (2021). SDGs and the ability to manage change within the European green deal: The case of Ukraine. Probl. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(1): 53-67. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.05
[108] Rządkowska, A. (2021). The EU Clean Energy Policy under the European Green Deal and COVID-19 pandemics - how the renewables historically won the majority share in the EU’s electrical energy mix. Proceedings - ISES Solar World Congress, pp. 43-56. https://doi.org/10.18086/swc.2021.02.01
[109] Kaufmane, D., Proskina, L., Paula, L., Naglis-Liepa, K. (2021). The european green deal in latvia in the context of the sustainability of local food and rural communities. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, 21(6.2): 19-28. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2021V/6.2/s25.07
[110] Czajkowski, A., Poranek, N., Remiorz, L. (2021). Renewable energy sources as an element of european green deal and sustainable developnemt goals (SDG). International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, 21(6.2): 197-204. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2021V/6.2/s27.30
[111] Poranek, N., Łaźniewska-Piekarczyk, B., Czajkowski, A., Zajusz-Zubek, E., Pikoń, K. (2021). Secondary waste management as a part of european green deal and sustainable development goals (SDG). International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, 21(6.2): 115-122. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2021V/6.2/s26.17
[112] Fredriksson, G., Zachmann, G. (2021). Assessing the distributional effects of the European Green Deal*. CESifo Forum, 22(5): 3-9.
[113] Trushkina, N., Pahlevanzade, A., Pahlevanzade, A., Maslennikov, Y. (2021). Conceptual provisions of the transformation of the national energy system of Ukraine in the context of the European Green Deal. Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal, 24(4): 121-138. https://doi.org/10.33223/epj/144861
[114] Dazzi, C. (2021). Importance of soil scienceinthe European Green Deal: Congress inauguration statement. Ecocycles, 7(2): 81-85. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v7i2.209
[115] Siddi, M. (2021). A green revolution? A tentative assessment of the European Green Deal. International Organisations Research Journal, 16(3): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-04
[116] Kamiński, M. (2021). Energy transition enhanced by the european green deal - how national competition authorities should tackle this challenge in central and eastern europe? Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulation Studies, Marcin Kamiński, 14(23): 101-121.
[117] Granat, A., Kozak, M. (2021). The implementation of the european green deal - tensions between a market-based approach and state aid for renewables. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulation Studies, Marcin Kamiński, 14(23): 69-100.
[118] Grmelová, N., Štěpánek, P. (2021). Promotion of organic farming in compliance with the European green deal. EFFL - European Food and Feed Law Review, 16(3): 227-231.
[119] Leonard, M., Pisani-Ferry, J., Shapiro, J., Tagliapietra, S., Wolf, G. (2021). The geopolitics of the European Green Deal. International Organisations Research Journal, 16(2): 204-235. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-02-10
[120] Verschuur, S., Sbrolli, C. (2021). The european green deal and state aid: Regions, state aid and the just transition. EStAL - European State Aid Law Quarterly, 20(1): 41-50. https://doi.org/10.21552/estal/2021/1/6
[121] Chuffart, R., Raspotnik, A., Stępień, A. (2021). Our common arctic? A more sustainable EU-arctic nexus in light of the European green deal. The Polar Journal, 11(2): 284-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978757
[122] Torney, D. (2021). Deliberative mini‐publics and the european green deal in turbulent times: The irish and french climate assemblies. Politics and Governance, 9(3): 380-390. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4382
[123] Biresselioglu, M.E., Limoncuoglu, S.A., Demir, M.H., Reichl, J., Burgstaller, K., Sciullo, A., Ferrero, E. (2021). Legal provisions and market conditions for energy communities in Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey: A comparative assessment. Sustainability, 13(20): 11212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011212
[124] Christou, O. (2021). Energy security in turbulent times towards the european green deal. Politics and Governance, 9(3): 360-369. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4336.
[125] Dupont, C., Torney, D. (2021). European union climate governance and the european green deal in turbulent times. Politics and Governance, 9(3), 312-315. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4896.
[126] Dobbs, M., Gravey, V., Petetin, L. (2021). Driving the european green deal in turbulent times. Politics and Governance, 9(3): 316-326. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4321.
[127] Rosamond, J., Dupont, C. (2021). The european council, the council, and the european green deal. Politics and Governance, 9(3): 348-359. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4326.
[128] Schoenefeld, J. J. (2021). The european green deal: What prospects for governing climate change with policy monitoring? Politics and Governance, 9(3): 370-379. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4306.
[129] Nae, T.-M., Panie, N.-A. (2021). European green deal: The recovery strategy addressing inequalities. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business and Economics. https://doi.org/10.5171/2021.887980
