Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Analysis of the Resource Productivity of New Members of the European Union

Lembo Tanning*, Toivo Tanning

TTK University of Applied Sciences, Tallinn, Estonia, EU

Abstract: Resources underpin the functioning of global economy and our quality of life. The objective of this article is to analyse the resource productivity, or material flow efficiency of new European Union (EU) states, with emphasis on Baltic countries, and to compare them on the EU level. All economic systems utilize a variety of resources. The scarcity of resources forces countries, companies and people make a variety of choices. How far is the use of these lands resource, including the 2009th economic crisis? The analysis showed that the greater use of resources does not always lead to economic growth. Effective use of resources is different from country to country. When sustainably new EU member states, but also the total use of resources? What are the lessons from the resource productivity? That's what we look at on the basis of the Baltic countries. The small are part of the former Soviet bloc countries. With regard to acute political and economic situation in is very topical, what is the position of small states in a resource productivity, or material flow efficiency.

Keywords: resource productivity, resource efficient Europe, resource-sparing or resource saving, material flow efficiency, Baltic countries

Received October 30, 2014; Revised February 02, 2015; Accepted February 11, 2015

Citation: Lembo Tanning, Toivo Tanning, Analysis of the Resource Productivity of New Members of the European Union. Journal of Behavioural Economics Finance Entrepreneurship Accounting and Transport, 3 (1). 21-31. January 2015. doi:10.12691/jbe-3-1-3

1. Introduction

Why is resource efficiency important? Natural resources underpin the functioning of the European and global economy and our quality of life. Our present use of resources in the future is not possible. Increasing resource efficiency will ensure economic and employment growth in . It will bring major economic opportunities, improve productivity, reduce costs and increase competitiveness. Resource-efficient Europe will provide a long-term framework for actions in many policy areas, supporting political agendas for climate change, energy, transport, industry, raw materials, agriculture and regional development. Resource efficiency strategy will support the transition to low-carbon economy to achieve sustainable growth. These resources include raw materials such as fuels, minerals and metals, but also food, soil, water, air, biomass and ecosystems. The pressure on the resources increases. Intensive use of the world's resources puts pressure on our planet and threatens the security of supply. Continuing our current patterns of resource use is not an option. In response to these changes, increasing resource efficiency will be key to securing growth and jobs for Europe. It will bring major economic opportunities, improve productivity, drive down costs and boost competitiveness. [1]

Based on projections the world population grow over 40 years while by 2510 million, an increase of 9,376 million people in 2050. [2] Growth occurs mainly in developing and emerging economies countries, where people aspire to wealth and consumption growth. Intensive use of world resources exerts pressure on our planet and threatens the security of supply.

A resource-efficient Europe is one of the main objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy [3], which aims at guiding the effective use of resources to achieve sustainable economic growth. [1,3]

In absolute terms (thousand tones) allows you to view an analysis of indicators corresponding changes in the country, the development of stability. [4,5] In relative terms (here tonnes per capita) analysis allows you to compare countries with each other, however, the respective indices.

Material flow efficiency in new EU states, in eleven Central and East European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia) has been analysed. It is CEE-8 and Baltic States. Former post-communist countries were selected for observation; new EU member states, Malta and Cyprus, have been excluded.

The history and economic background of his country's is more detail in previous earlier publications of authors. [4-15].

The theoretical foundations are given in more detail the works of other authors [16-21], in previous earlier publications of authors [22,23,24,25] and of Eurostat [3].

2. Methodology

Resource productivity and resource intensity are key concepts used in sustainability metering as they attempt to decouple the direct connection between resource use and environmental deterioration. The leading indicator assigned to this policy initiative is termed resource productivity.

Resource productivity is GDP divided by domestic material consumption (DMC). DMC measures the total amount of materials directly used by an economy. It is defined as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory of the focal economy, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. It is important to note that the term "consumption" as used in DMC denotes apparent consumption and not final consumption. DMC does not include upstream flows related to imports and exports of raw materials and products originating outside of the focal economy. The trend in the development of resource productivity over time is presented as an index, with 2000 as the base year [26].

Resource productivity is the ratio of the volume of GDP in market prices over DMC [3].

Resource productivity is a measure of the output per unit of resource input [21].

Resource intensity is a measure of the resources (e.g. materials, energy and water) required for the provision of a unit of a good or service. It is usually expressed as a ratio of materials used to value (expressed, for example, in money, mass, volume). Resource intensity is determined by two factors: changes in the mix of materials used to produce individual goods and services, and the product composition of output. [21]

Resource productivity and resource intensity are essential concepts for measuring the progress of dematerialisation and other efficiency-led strategies. [21]

The indicator DMC is defined as the total amount of material directly used in an economy. DMC equals Direct Material Input (DMI) minus exports. DMI measures the direct input of materials for the use in the economy. DMI equals Domestic Extraction (DE) plus imports [27]

Domestic material consumption by material of Eurostat is in environmental accounts [28].

Material flow accounts data description: material flow accounts and resource productivity [29].

Economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFA) compile material flow inputs into national economies. EW-MFA cover all solid, gaseous, and liquid material inputs, except for water and air, measured in mass units per year. Like the system of national accounts, EW-MFA constitute a multi-purpose information system. The detailed material flows provide a rich empirical database for numerous analytical purposes. Further, EW-MFA are used to derive various material flow indicators such as:

Domestic extraction (DEU): total amount of material extracted for further processing in the economy, by resident units from the natural environment;

Imports (IMP): imports of products in their simple mass weight;

Direct material input (DMI): measures the direct input of material into the economy; it includes all materials which are of economic value and which are availble for use in production and consumption activities (=DEU+IMP);

Exports (EXP): exports of products in their simple mass weight;

Domestic material consumption (DMC): measures the total amount of material actually consumed domestically by resident units (=DEU+IMP-EXP). Note: IMP and EXP are distinguished into extra-EU-trade and total trade.

Resource productivity (GDP/DMC) is defined as the ratio of GDP over DMC and commonly expressed in Euro per kilogramm material. The data set env_ac_rp employs different types of GDP for calculating this ratio - depending on the analytical perspective:

GDP in current prices over DMC (unit = 'Euro per Kilogram'): to be used to analyse a single country at one point in time (for one particular year);

GDP in chain linked volumes over DMC (unit = 'Euro per kilogram, chain linked volumes (2005)'): eliminates price inflation over time; to be used when comparing over time (various years) one single country;

GDP in purchasing power standard (unit = 'Purchasing Power Standard per Kilopgram'): eliminates differences in price levels across countries; to be used when comparing across countries at one point in time (for one particular year).

In order to compare the performance over time and across various countries the second resource productivity ratio employing GDP in chain-linked volumes has been indexed to the year 2000 (unit = 'Index, 2000=100'). This index allows a comparison of countries' resource productivity performance [29].

This can be expressed in monetary terms, as monetary return per unit of resource. Here in tonnes per capita.

Material resources are divided: biomass (MF1), metal ores (gross ores) (MF2), non-metallic minerals (MF3), fossil energy materials/carriers (MF4), other products (MF5) and waste for final treatment and disposal (MF6). Here we look also subgroups of MF4: liquid and gaseous energy materials/carriers (MF42); crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids [NGL] (MF421) and natural gas (MF422) [30,31].

In summary, the main indicators are: Domestic Extraction Used (DEU). Domestic Material Consumption (DMC). Exports (EXP). Imports (IMP). Direct Material Inputs (DMI).

[picture] | (1)

[picture] | (2)

[7]

National accounts (including GDP) was from Eurostat methodology. [32]

3. Analysis of Resource Productivity

Next we analized resource productivity, or material flow efficiency of new European Union (EU) states, with emphasis on Baltic countries; and to compare them on the EU level.

3.1. Material Flow Analyses by DMC per Capita

Table 1. Res Prod GDP and DMC 2012 [30]

Figure 1. DMC per capita of EU countries [30]

The highest DMC per capita (tonnes per capita) in the Baltic countries had Estonia. levels were almost the same as the EU-27 average. level was between them.

EU countries in 2012 had the highest per capita DMC Finland (33.4), Estonia (28.7) in front. This was followed by Ireland (24.2) and Sweden (22.2). Fewer DMC per capita was Spain (8.8), Hungary (8.9), UK (9.3) and Croatia (9.8) [30].

The smallest resource productivity (GDP PPS / DMC, PPS per kilogram), in the Baltic countries was Estonia, which was three times less than the EU-27 average. Even here the level of was almost the same as of EU-27 average and level of was between them.

EU countries in 2012 had the largest resource productivity Luxembourg (3.52). Followed by the (3.11), (2.85) and (2.74). Smaller resource productivity was (0.63), (0.64), (0.67) and (0.98). [30]

Figure 2. Resource productivity of EU countries [30]

3.2. Material Flow Analyses by Thousand Tones

Figure 3. Resource productivity. Index, 2000=100 [26]

Table 2. Resource productivity. Index, 2000=100 [26]

Table 3. Resource productivity. Euro per kilogram, chain linked volumes (2005) [26]

Figure 4. Resource productivity. Euro per kilogram [26]

Resource productivity in EU-27 grew 31.5% in 13 years. In a few years, however, was a step backwards.

Nearly the same large was the increase in Lithuania. Latvia resource productivity grew strongly, then fell for two years and rose sharply again in 2012th. In total it increased to 1.5 times. Estonia it declined steadily.

Trend of resource productivity by euro per kilogram has slowly grown in the EU-27 and the Latvia and Lithuania. trend was reversed. This indicator while the EU-27 from 3 to 5 times higher than in the Baltic countries.

Resource productivity trend lines:

[picture] | (3)

[picture] | (4)

[picture] | (5)

[picture] | (6)

[picture] | (7)

[picture] | (8)

[picture] | (9)

[picture] | (10)

Estonia and Latvia R² was very high, Lithuania smaller. Correlations of theoretical relationship is characterized by complex, as a rule, a 5-grade polynomials. In general there was a strong relationship between correlations.

3.3. Material Flow Analyses per Capita

In absolute terms (thousand tones here) allows you to view an analysis of indicators corresponding changes in the country, the development of stability. In relative terms (here tonnes per capita) analysis allows you to compare countries with each other, however, the respective indices.

3.3.1. Resource Analyses per Capita

Here we look total dynamics domestic extraction used (DEU), domestic material consumption (DMC), direct material inputs (DMI), exports (EXP) and imports (IMP) of resource.

Figure 5. DMC tonnes per capita [31]

DMC per capita growth was in Estonia double, in Latvia 26% and in Lithuania 54%. In 2013. was the DMC more than double in Estonia and more than 1.5 times in Latvia higher than the EU average.

Table 4. Domestic material consumption, tonnes per capita [31]

Table 5. Total exports resource, tonnes per capita [31]

Resource exports shows that the EU and the Baltic countries are not very poor in terms of material or natural resources.

Total exports resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries in 2003 - 2012: in Estonia - growth of 1.4 times, in Latvia and in Lithuania – growth of two times.

Table 6. Total imports resource, tonnes per capita [31]

Total imports resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries. Resource exports of and have higher their imports. Lithuania has slightly exceeded imports for export.

Table 7. Total extra EU27 imports resource, tonnes per capita [31]

In 2012 was extra EU27 imports the percentage of total imports resource in Estonia 35%, in Latvia 38% and in Lithuania 67%. Thus, and , dependent two times less of extra EU27 imports when .

Figure 6. Total extra EU27 imports resource, tonnes per capita [31]

Before the crisis grew in all extra EU-27 imports resource per capita. However, already before the crisis began and this decrease. , it decreased between 2006 - 2008 1.8 times and in 2009th continued to decrease. decreased from 2007 - 2009 1.55 times, but it is still follows trend. At the same time in 2012 was more than two times higher than and .

Lithuania trend was a intermittent growing:

[picture] | (11)

[picture] | (12)

[picture] | (13)

In summary, total extra EU27 imports resource per capita trend: Lithuania intermittent growing, Estonia decrease and Latvia was stable.

This shows that and should be much better than to live in an economic blockade when . The final assessment should be analyzed in more detail product groups and countries.

Figure 7. DMI tonnes per capita [31]

Total direct material inputs (DMI) resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries, in Estonia and Latvia to 2007, in Lithuania to 2008. During the economic crisis it decreased, but later, together with improvements in the economy growth continued.

Table 8. Total direct material inputs resource, tonnes per capita [31]

Table 9. Total domestic extraction used resource, tonnes per capita [30]

Total domestic extraction used (DEU) resource per capita grew also in all Baltic countries, in Estonia and Latvia to 2007, in Lithuania to 2008. During the economic crisis it also decreased, but later, together with improvements in the economy growth continued. When Estonian DEU record levels in 2012, when and it were the pre-crisis years.

Table 10. Total resource of Estonia, tonnes per capita [30]

Here is a consolidated table of the development and distribution of resources in Estonian. All of these indicators have grown.

3.3.2. Resource Productivity of Fossil Energy Materials/Carriers Tonnes per Capita

This section is focused on the third (non-EU Member States) countries on imported fossil fuels, especially crude oil imports, and in particular for the purchase of natural gas from Russia.

Table 11. Domestic material consumption of fossil energy materials/carriers tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries was greatest in Czech Rep. and Bulgaria [31]

Domestic material consumption and extraction used of fossil energy materials/carriers per capita of CEE-8 countries was greatest in Czech Rep. and Bulgaria, even though their economic level is different a great deal.

Domestic material consumption and extraction used of fossil energy materials/carriers per capita was in Estonia is very high, thanks to its oil shale. has it the lowest.

Table 12. Domestic material consumption of fossil energy materials/carriers tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Table 13. Domestic extraction used of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Table 14. Domestic extraction used of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Of the European was the largest DEU fossil energy materials/carriers than in Norway: 2004th it was 61.845 and of the EU in Estonia: 2013th it was 14.126 tonnes per capita. Of the EU was smaller DEU in Belgium and Sweden - near zero.

Table 15. Direct material inputs of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Table 16. Direct material inputs of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Of the EU was the largest DMI of fossil energy materials/carriers in Estonia: 2013th it was 16.39 and of CEE-8 countries in Czech Republic 6.925 tonnes per capita.

Of CEE-8 countries was the largest fossil energy materials import in Slovakia and smallest in Romania.

Table 17. Total imports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Table 18. Total imports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Of Baltic countries was the largest fossil energy materials total import and extra EU-27 import in Lithuania. Latvia and Estonia import was lower than in EU-27 and Germany.

Table 19. Extra EU-27 imports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Of CEE-8 countries was the largest fossil energy materials extra EU-27 import in Slovakia and smallest in Poland. It was in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia slightly increased, the other was a loss.

Table 20. Extra EU-27 imports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Extra EU-27 imports of fossil energy materials/carriers per capita was in the EU-27, Germany, and Latvia slightly increased, in Estonia markedly decreased and in Lithuania increased by 2.2 times over the analysis period.

Table 21. Total exports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Table 22. Total exports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Table 23. Extra EU-27 exports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of CEE-8 countries [31]

Table 24. Extra EU-27 exports of fossil energy materials tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Table 25. Domestic material consumption of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL) tonnes per capita of EU-27 and Baltic countries [31]

Table 26. Total imports of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL) tonnes per capita of EU-27, Germany and Baltic countries [31]

Table 27. Extra EU-27 imports of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL) (MF421) tonnes per capita of EU-27, Germany and Baltic countries [31]

All EU countries total and extra EU-27 exporting fossil energy materials, including the Baltic States and CEE-8 countries.

EU-27 – stable or small growth, Germany and Latvia - small decrease, Lithuania – growth of 1.5 times, Estonia - growth of 2 times.

Table 28. Extra EU-27 imports of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL) (MF421) tonnes per capita of EU-27, Germany and Baltic countries [31]

Domestic material consumption and total imports of fuels bunkered of fossil energy in Estonia and Latvia were between 2000 and 2012 is very small. These imports (Imports: by resident units abroad) were from 0.104 to 0.029 tonnes per capita. [31]

3.3.3. Natural Gas Analyses per Capita

Next we look gas trade movements by world energy review in 2013th. [33]

Trade movements in 2013th by pipeline total world imports- exports of natural gas was 710.6 billion cubic metres and Russian Fed. total exports 211.3 billion cubic metres (30%).

To Europe was imports from Netherlands 53.2, Norway 102.4, Russian Fed. 162.4 and total 397.1 billion cubic metres. To Germany was imports from Netherlands 22.4, Norway 33.5, Russian Fed. 39.8 and total 95.8 billion cubic metres. In 2012th was imports by pipeline imports of natural gas to Germany 83.5 billion cubic metres.

Trade movements in 2013th as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Total world imports- exports 325.3 billion cubic metres. To Japan was imports from Qatar 21.8, Russian Fed. 11.6, total 119.0 billion cubic metres.

To was imports South Korea from Qatar 18.3, total 54.2 billion cubic metres [33].

Table 29. Domestic material consumption, total imports and extra EU-27 imports of natural gas tonnes per capita, top-6, 2012 [31]

Table 30. Total imports and extra EU-27 imports of natural gas tonnes per capita of EU-27 [31]

Figure 8. DMC, total and extra EU-27 imports of natural gas tonnes per capita of EU-27 and [31]

Table 31. DMC, total imports and extra EU-27 imports of natural gas tonnes per capita of Germany [31]

Table 32. DMC, total imports and extra EU-27 imports of natural gas tonnes per capita of Baltic countries [31]

Table 33. Total extra EU-27 imports liquid and gaseous energy materials (MF42) tonnes per capita of EU-27, and Baltic countries [31]

Extra EU-27 imports liquid and gaseous energy materials/carriers: EU (27) – stable or small decrease, Germany and Latvia - small decrease, Lithuania – growth, Estonia - growth of 2.5 times.

Table 34. Extra EU-27 imports natural gas (MF422) tonnes per capita of Baltic countries [31]

In the EU-27 in 2012 was extra EU-27 imports natural gas 0,381 tonnes per capita. From EU countries were the largest importers (1.022), (0.877), (0.821), (0.799), (0.785) and (0.778). At the same time, some countries, it was close to zero. In (0.346) was it a bit smaller and (0.576) higher than the EU average. For 10 years extra EU-27 imports has been very stable in most countries. In 2003 - 2012 only in and was strong growth and in in a big loss.

Estonia extra EU-27 imports natural gas grew strongly until 2007. Next, it decreased and stabilized in the next four years. and are much bigger than , in 2012, even 2.2 times. When Latvia extra EU-27 imports natural gas per capita was stable, then the Lithuanian imports small rose. Extra EU-27 imports natural gas per capita in and is much greater than in .

Therefore, we should analyze the resource productivity in depth below. This, however, is strongly correlated with labor productivity analysis [4-15].

Taking into account this publication and the previous work of the authors [4-15,22,23,24,25] and other authors' works [16-21] have made the following conclusions and suggestions.

4. Conclusions

•  In relative terms (here tonnes per capita) analysis allows you to compare countries with each other, however, the respective indices.

•  The development of Baltic and CEE-8 economies (GDP) has been cyclical, characterized by a well theoretically complicated polynomial.

•  Development of the Baltic economies was before and after the economic crisis, the EU's largest.

•  DMC per capita growth was in Estonia double, in Latvia 26% and in Lithuania 54%. In 2013. was the DMC more than double in Estonia and more than 1.5 times in Latvia higher than the EU average.

•  Trend of resource productivity by euro per kilogram has slowly grown in the EU-27 and the Latvia and Lithuania. Estonia trend was reversed. This indicator while the EU-27 from 3 to 5 times higher than in the Baltic countries. Resource productivity in EU-27 grew 31.5% in 13 years. In a few years, however, was a step backwards. Almost as large was the increase in Lithuania. Latvia resource productivity grew strongly, then fell for two years and rose sharply again in 2012. In total, it increased by 1.5 times. Estonia decreased steadily.

•  Of the European was the largest DEU fossil energy materials/carriers than in Norway: 2004th it was 61.845 and of the EU in Estonia: 2013th it was 14.126 tonnes per capita. Of the EU was smaller it in Belgium and Sweden - near zero.

•  Extra EU-27 imports liquid and gaseous energy materials/carriers and crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids per capita: EU-27– stable or small decrease, Latvia - small decrease, Lithuania – growth, Estonia - growth over 2 times.

•  The EU has a poor energy region, it is unexpected decrease in mineral fuels (sanctions) is very sensitive.

•  The great problems in the energy sector of EU is growing import of natural gas dependence on Russia and high import price level.

•  So far the mineral fuels imports from third countries progressed steadily.

•  Total imports resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries.

•  Resource exports shows that the EU and the Baltic countries are not very poor in terms of material or natural resources.

•  Total exports resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries in 2003 - 2012: in Estonia - of 1.4 times, in Latvia and in Lithuania –of two times.

•  Total exports; direct material inputs and domestic extraction used resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries in 2003 – 2012.

•  Total imports resource per capita grew in all Baltic countries.

•  Before the crisis grew in all extra EU-27 imports resource per capita. However, already before the crisis began Latvia and Estonia this decrease.

•  In summary, total extra EU27 imports resource per capita trend: Lithuania intermittent growing, Estonia decrease and Latvia was stable.

•  Total extra EU27 imports resource per capita trend: Lithuania intermittent growing, Estonia decrease and Latvia was stable. Extra EU27 imports per capita of Estonia and Latvia was two times less when in Lithuania. This shows that Latvia and Estonia should be much better over live an economic blockade when Lithuania. In summary, total DMC and DEU of Estonia growth. Lithuania and Latvia were large abrupt changes, peak was before the crisis, and the biggest drop one year after the crisis.

•  In the EU-27 in 2012 was extra EU-27 imports natural gas 0,381 tonnes per capita. From EU countries were the largest importers Belgium (1.022), Netherlands (0.877), Austria (0.821), Germany (0.799), Slovakia (0.785) and Lithuania (0.778). At the same time, some countries, it was close to zero. In Estonia (0.346) was it a bit smaller and Latvia (0.576) higher than the EU average. For 10 years extra EU-27 imports has been very stable in most countries. In 2003 - 2012 only in Estonia and United Kingdom was strong growth and in France in Hungary a big loss.

•  Extra EU27 imports natural gas per capita in Latvia and Lithuania are much greater than in Estonia.

•  Of the Baltic countries are more dependent of the imported resources Lithuania.

•  Of the Baltic countries are more advanced DMC in Estonia.

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

•  Material flow is generally decreased less so EU whole, but also in the Baltic States.

•  Resource productivity is generally has increased in the EU the whole, as well as in the Baltic countries.

References

[1]   | A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Eurostat. Last update: 24-10-2014 http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe
[2]   | Demographic Overview – World. US Census Bureau. International Data Base http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region.php?N=%20Results%20&T=13&A=aggregate&RT=0&Y=1950,1960,1970,1980,1990,2000,2010,2020,2030,2040, 2050&R=1&C= (30 Oct 2014)
[3]   | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 26.1.2011 COM (2011) 21. http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf
[4]   | Tanning, Toivo; Tanning, Lembo (2014). Material flow analyses of Baltic countries. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application. American Association for Science and Technology, USA, 1 (4), 43-55.
[5]   | Tanning, Lembo; Tanning, Toivo (2014). Analysis of the Material Flow of New Members of the European Union. Journal of Behavioural Economics, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Accounting and Transport. Science and Education Publishing. USA, 2 (5), 104-115.
[6]   | Tanning, Lembo; Tanning, Toivo (2014). An Analysis of the Quality of Life of CEE-8, Baltic and CIS-4 Countries. Management and Administrative Sciences Review, 3 (6), 930-943.
[7]   | Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). Central and Eastern European Countries before and after the 2008 Financial Crisis: Economic Overview and Transportation Companies. Journal of Business Theory and Practice. Scholink INC., United States, 2 (2), 221-246.
[8]   | Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). Gross Value Added per Person Analyses of Transportation Companies of new European Union countries in 2005 – 2011. SOP Transactions on Marketing Research, USA, 1 (2), 1-15.
[9]   | Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). How former post-socialist countries have been the economic crisis?. SOP Transactions on Economic Research, USA, 15-33.

[10]  
Tanning, T.; Tanning, L. (2014). Labour Productivity Analyses of Gross Value Added and Turnover Per Person Employed of Transportation Companies of European Countries in 2005 – 2011. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application: American Association for Science and Technology, 1 (1 March), 9-18.

[11]   | Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). Labour Productivity of Transportation Enterprises by Turnover per Person Employed Before and After the Economic Crisis: Economic Crisis Lessons from Europe. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(1), 52-76.
[12]   | Tanning, T.; Tanning, L. (2014). Labour productivity trends analyses in Baltic countries to 2014. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application. American Association for Science and Technology. USA, 1 (3), 35-42.
[13]   | Tanning, T.; Tanning, L. (2014). Lithuania-new economic leader of Baltic countries. Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management (SJEBM). India, 1 (9), 404-411.

[14]  
Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). The Economic Crisis Lessons of Transportation Companies by Labour Productivity in Baltic and Central and Eastern Europe Countries. Journal of Behavioural Economics, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Accounting and Transport. Science and Education Publishing. USA, 2 (4), 94-103.

[15]   | Tanning, L.; Tanning, T. (2014). The European Competitiveness The Economic Crisis Lessons of Transportation Enterprises in Poland and other Central and Eastern Europe Countries. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 3(4), 164-176.
[16]   | Stephan Moll, and Cristina Popescu (2012). In physical terms the EU-27 imports three times more than it exports-Statistics in Focus, Issue number 51/2012. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environmental_accounts/documents/KS-SF-12-051-EN.pdf
[17]   | Stephan Moll, Cristina Popescu, and Ramona Nickel (2012). EU's Resource Productivity on the increase-Number 22/2012. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environmental_accounts/documents/EU's_Resource_ Productivity_on_the_increase.pdf
[18]   | Julie Hass, and Cristina Popescu (2011). Economy-wide material flows: European countries required more materials between 2000 and 2007-Statistics in focus 9/2011. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-SF-11-009
[19]   | Nancy Steinbach, Ute Luksch, and Julio Cabeça (2006). Manufacturing industry 1995-2003-Economic activities and their pressure on the environment-Statistics in focus 16/2006. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-NQ-06-016
[20]   | Ute Luksch, Nancy, and Steinbach Katarina (2006). Markosova Economic activities and their pressure on the environment 1995-2001-Statistics in focus 2/2006. Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-NQ-06-002
[21]   | Resource intensity and productivity (2012). EJOLT http://www.ejolt.org/2012/12/resource-intensity-and-productivity/
[22]   | Tanning, L., and Tanning, T. (2009). Rahvusvaheline majandus II. (International Economy, Vol. II). Tallinn University of Technology. Tallinn, p. 244.
[23]   | Tanning, L. (2010), Maailma energia ülevaade. I osa. Nafta ja gaas. (World Energy Outlook. I part. Oil and Gas). Tallinn University of Technology. Tallinn, p. 240.
[24]   | Tanning, L. (2010). Maailma energia ülevaade. II osa. Tuumaenergia. (World Energy Outlook. II part. Nuclear energy). Tallinn University of Technology. Tallinn, p. 140.
[25]   | Tanning, L. (2010). Maailma energia ülevaade. III osa. Alternatiivsed kütused. (World Energy Outlook. III part. Alternative fuels). Tallinn University of Technology. Tallinn, p. 252.
[26]   | Resource productivity. Code: tsdpc100. Eurostat. Last update: 04.09.2014 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc100
[27]   | Domestic material consumption by material. Code: tsdpc230 Eurostat Last update: 04.09.2014 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc230
[28]   | Domestic material consumption by material. Environmental accounts (t_env_acc) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environmental_accounts/data/main_tables
[29]   | Material flow accounts. Code: env_ac_mfa. Explanatory texts (metadata). Eurostat. Last update: 01.09.2014 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/env_ac_mfa_esms.htm
[30]   | Material flow accounts. Code: env_ac_mfa. Eurostat. Last update: 01.09.2014 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_ac_mfa&lang=en
[31]   | Domestic material consumption. Code: t2020_rl110 Eurostat. Last update: 24.10.2014 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rl110
[32]   | Methodology. Annual accounts. National accounts (including GDP). Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/national_accounts/methodology/annual_accounts
[33]   | BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June 2014 http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf