« DECISION-MAKING ISSUES »

NATIONAL PARKS FINANCING IN 2000: SUMMARY

The Russian national parks budget for 2000 (excluding Losiny Ostrov) came to 175,000,000 rubles. The structure of the sources of financing is shown in Table 1.

[Because Losiny Ostrov was under the Moscow government in 2000, it was financed by the city budget (34,676, 000 rubles); the park’s own earnings came to 792,000 rubles].

Table 1. Sources of financing for Russian national parks in 2000.

Federal budget funds comprised 72,000,000 rubles (41% of the national parks’ annual budget). A total of 18,000,000 rubles (10%) was allocated to national parks from regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds. The national parks' own earnings totalled 73,000,000 rubles (41%); 46,6% of those earnings came from woodcutting and the sale of timber and wood products. The national parks’ earnings are itemized in Table 2.

Table 2. National parks earnings in 2000.

In 2000, Russia’s national parks received 12,800,000 rubles in foreign grants (nearly 7% of the parks’ annual budget), mainly from the Global Environmental Facility (65% of all the grants) and the TACIS program (11%). Approximately 1,000,000 rubles (0,6% of the total NP budget) came from Russian sponsors.

The average annual budget for a Russian national park in 2000 was 5,157,000 rubles. The national parks with the largest and the smallest budgets are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. National parks with the largest and smallest budgets in 2000.

Of the 35 national parks that functioned throughout 2000, 21 had budgets below average.

Most national parks received money from regional and municipal budgets and non-budgetary funds. The regions that provided most and least support to national parks are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Regions that provided the most and least support to Russian national parks in 2000
(not counting the city of Moscow).

All national parks, except for Alkhanai, earned money independently in 2000. The national parks that earned the most are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. National parks with highest independent earnings for 2000.

Twenty national parks received foreign grants in 2000. The national parks with the largest foreign grants are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. National parks that received the most in foreign grants in 2000.

In order to improve the financing of Russia’s national parks, we must:

• Increase the federal budget’s contribution to national parks. Though this won’t be easy to do, it certainly isn’t impossible. During the adoption of the federal budget for 2001, the original funds allocated for state nature reserves were increased by 30%, while the funds allocated for national parks remained unchanged.
• Significantly increase capital investments. This will be possible within the framework of a new support program for nature reserves and national parks now being developed as part of the federal project Russia’s Ecology and Natural Resources.
• Allocate federal financing to support scientific research in national parks (the monies should go to the parks themselves, not the research institutes involved).
• Initiate special projects to attract foreign investment.
• Restructure the national parks’ economic activities so that their own earnings derive mainly from tourism and recreational services rather than cuttings. The cuttings problem cannot be solved simply with directives from above. We will have to feel our way. The current situation – with half the parks’ own earnings coming from cuttings – may be the result of forest scheduling projects and good intentions. However, it devalues the very concept of national parks and therefore can no longer be tolerated.

V. B. Stepanitsky,
Deputy Head
Department of Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources

<< | contents | top | >>