**4. Results**

Taking into account weight coe fficients (Table 3), the FSI was constructed with the PCA approach. It is also worth noting that the calculated FSI is quite representative. Its comparison with the Global Food Security Index for those 13 countries, which are matched in both samples (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Poland, Hungary, Poland, Hungary, Poland, Hungary, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) for the years 2012–2016, revealed a correlation of 90.20%. Consequently, the FSI allows the characterization of the same trends as those displayed by the Global Food Security Index.


**Table 3.** Weight coe fficients of indicators of Food Security Index.

Analysis of the FSI level in 2016 shows that the highest level of food security is in the Czech Republic (2.25 from 2.39), and the lowest is in Tajikistan (0.16). It is also worth noting that such countries as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan have less-than-average levels of national food security. The rest of the countries have higher-than-average levels of national food security. In terms of the characteristics of the dynamics of the FSI level, it might be highlighted that Azerbaijan (566.19%), Tajikistan (520.97%), Uzbekistan (182.79%), Armenia (178.68%), Turkmenistan (97.80%), Georgia (83.93%), and Albania (74.63%) have the best growth dynamics in comparison with 2001, while for the other countries, the growth rate fluctuates in almost the same range (about 31.66%).

The next step is the identification of the relationship between the relevant environmental determinants and the FSI. It is based on the panel data regression analysis (PMG estimator). Practically, it was implemented with the help of the "xtpmg" add-on of the Stata software. The results of the regression analysis are given in Table 4.

Therefore, the following conclusions can be made. The vast majority of the environmental factors have a statistically significant long-term impact on countries' food security (significant at the 10%, 5%, or 1% level). Environmental determinants that have no statistically significant impact on the FSI level in the long-term perspective are as follows: Agricultural methane emissions (% of total emissions) (X3); agricultural nitrous oxide emissions (% of total emissions) (X4); cereal yield (kg per hectare) (X6); electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output) (X8). Thus, the absence of a statistically significant impact of the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by agricultural enterprises on the level of countries' food security is mostly explained by the intensified e fforts of the world community on the reduction of such emissions (according to the Kyoto Protocol, countries are obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2100). Additionally, agro-industrial enterprises provide only 10%–12% of the total emissions, while transport, industrial, construction, and energy enterprises have a greater impact on the ecosystem. The reduction in the net carbon dioxide emissions of the agro-industrial sector was largely explained by the decline of deforestation and the increase in forest plantations.

However, the increase of carbon dioxide emissions per capita from all sources of pollution (X7) remains a strong factor of the negative impact on countries' food security in the long-run perspective. Namely, an increase of this independent variable by a point results in a decrease of country food security level by 0.0886 (or 3.71% of the maximum possible FSI value).


**Table 4.** Results of identifying short- and long-run coefficients of environmental factors' influence on the FSI.

Notes: X1—access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking (% of population); X2—access to electricity in rural areas (% of rural population); X3—agricultural methane emissions (% of total); X4—agricultural nitrous oxide emissions (% of total); X5—arable land (% of land area); X6—cereal yield (kg per hectare); X7—CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita); X8—electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output); X9—electricity production from renewable sources, excluding hydroelectric (% of total); X10—fertilizer consumption (kilograms per hectare of arable land); X11—forest area (% of land area); X12—renewable electricity output (% of total electricity output); \*—significance at 10% level; \*\*—significance at 5% level; \*\*\*—significance at 1% level.

In turn, some factors have a positive impact on the countries' food security, such as:


This statement is also confirmed by a positive and statistically significant impact of expanding renewable electricity output (% of total electricity output) (X12) on the country's food security in the long-run perspective. Namely, its increase by a point leads to strengthening of a country's food security by 0.0154 (or 0.64% of the maximum possible FSI value). Experts note [67–69] that the expansion of land for growing biofuel plants might have some negative consequences. It leads to the elimination of the land from the process of food production and may harm a country's food security. Consequently, this damage might not be o ffset by the positive environmental impact of using biofuels instead of traditional fuels.

In addition, the statistical significance of the long-term e ffects of arable land growth (X5) and forest area growth (X11) was confirmed at the 10% level. Particularly, an increase by a point of one of these particular environmental factors (X5 and X11) results in an increase in a country's food security by 0.0285 and 0.0948, respectively. Such a trend is quite natural, since the expansion of arable land will increase the volume of food products. However, such a scenario can have negative consequences and requires a well-thought-out and scientifically grounded approach. In particular, an intensive approach to the agricultural sector's development is preferable. It helps to ensure an increase of agricultural production without large-scale use of additional land resources. It is also equally important to use the most environmentally friendly tools for increasing agribusiness productivity and yields. While there is no widespread expansion of an intensive model of agricultural management, extensive technologies still do not lose their relevance. This is also confirmed by the statistically significant impact of the indicator "fertilizer consumption (kilograms per hectare of arable land)" (X10) on a country's food security (at the 5% level). Its increase by a point results in the FSI increase by 0.0020 (0.08% of maximum FSI value).

It is worth noting that most of the short-run coe fficients are not statistically significant. However, the variables "agricultural methane emissions (% of total)" (X3) and "CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)" (X7) have a statistically significant negative impact on the food security index at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively. In addition, the positive impact of growth in electricity production from renewable sources is confirmed (both without hydroelectric power—variable X9 and with hydroelectric power—variable X12).

However, in most cases, the particular environmental factors are statistically significant only in short or long run. Consequently, we cannot compare statistically significant results with insignificant ones. Hence, we mainly focused only on the analysis and practical implications of only statistically significant research results. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the increase in renewable electricity output (% of total electricity output) (X12) has a positive long-term but negative short-term influence on a country's food security. These findings might be partially explained by the specificity of the sample of countries. Namely, most of 28 post-socialistic countries have triggered more intensive economic, environmental, and technological development only for the last three decades. That is the main reason for the absence of a highly productive network of renewable energy stations. Consequently, the expansion of renewable electricity output leads to an immediate negative impact on a country's food security because of the partial elimination of land and water resources from foodstu ff production and the worsening of its quality. Otherwise, in the long run, renewable energy outcompetes traditional energy production, which is more harmful to the environment and countries' food security. Familiar trends were also mentioned in the FAO report "Impacts of Bioenergy on Food Security" [70].

In turn, the increase of CO2 emissions negatively influences a country's food security both in the short and long run. However, the scale and significance of this factor's e ffect become more influential in the long-term perspective.
