|
«
DECISION-MAKING ISSUES »
STATE NATURE RESERVE FINANCING IN 2000: SUMMARY
According to the records of state nature reserves under the Russian Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR), the total budget in 2000 for the entire system of
reserves amounted to 265,223,000 rubles (versus 169,149,000 rubles in 1999)
and came from various sources (see Table 1).
Table 1. Sources of financing for MNR state nature reserves
in 1999 and 2000.
|
Sources
of Financing
|
2000
|
1999
|
Change
in Share
of Financing Source
|
Growth
of Financing Source,
%
|
|
Total,
thousand rubles
|
Share
of Source,
%
|
Total,
thousand rubles
|
Share
of Source,
%
|
|
Federal budget, including State Ecology Fund
|
130, 281
|
49.1
|
88,729
|
52.4
|
– 3.3
|
+ 47
|
|
Regional & local budgets; non- budgetary funds
|
40,036
|
15.1
|
22,262
|
13.2
|
+ 1.9
|
+ 80
|
|
Reserve earnings
|
21,004
|
8.0
|
19,509
|
11.5
|
– 3.5
|
+ 8
|
|
Foreign grants
|
66,120
|
24.9
|
33,952
|
20.1
|
+ 4.8
|
+ 95
|
|
Russian grants
|
7,782
|
2.9
|
4,697
|
2.8
|
+ 0,1
|
+ 66
|
| TOTAL |
265 223
|
100
|
169 149
|
100
|
0
|
+ 57
|
Monies from the federal budget, including the state Ecology Fund, totalled 130,281,000 rubles and accounted for 49.1% of the reserves’ combined budget (versus 88,729,000 rubles, or 52.4%, in 1999).
A total of 40,036,000 rubles (15,1%) was allocated to reserves from regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds (versus 22,262,000 rubles, or 13,2%, in 1999).
The reserves’ own earnings amounted to 20,004,000 rubles (8,0% of the annual
budget), as opposed to 19,509,000 rubles, or 11,5%, in 1999. For the structure
of the reserves’ earnings, see Table 2.
Table 2. Structure of state nature reserves’ own earnings
in 2000.
|
Item of Income
|
Sum
|
|
Revenues from visitor services
|
5,688,000
|
|
Revenues from exploitation permissible in reserves and their buffer
zones
|
2,337,000
|
|
Collected fines, claims, realization of property forfeited to the
State
|
2,960,000
|
|
Contractual research work (not paid for out of the federal budget)
|
5,643,000
|
|
Other activities
|
4,376,000
|
| TOTAL |
21,004,000
|
In 2000 Russian state nature reserves received a total of 66,120,000 rubles in foreign grants, or 24,9% of the overall budget (versus 33,952,000 rubles, or 20,1%, in 1999). The main grants came from the Global Environmental Facility (65% of all the grants), the U.S. Agency for International Development (12%), and the World Wildlife Fund (9,5%).
Grants received from Russian sponsors amounted to 7,782,000 rubles, or 2,9%
of the total budget (versus 4,697,000 rubles, or 2,8%, in 1999). The involvement
of various types of sponsors is outlined in Table 3.
Table 3. Russian sponsors’ involvement
in financing state nature reserves in 2000.
|
Organization
|
Sum
|
|
Industrial organizations
|
4,810,900
|
|
Banks
|
483,800
|
|
Transport enterprises
|
34,800
|
|
Firms
|
32,600
|
|
Other commercial structures
|
822,300
|
|
Non-profit organizations
|
1,304,200
|
|
Individuals
|
293,000
|
| TOTAL |
7,781,600
|
There is no “typical” nature reserve in Russia since each reserve has its own profile and specifics. The indices given here are simply to satisfy our statistical curiosity.
In 2000, the average annual budget of a reserve was around 2,949,000 rubles
(versus 1,900,000 rubles in 1999). The reserves with the largest and smallest
budgets in 2000 (excluding new reserves whose financing started after early
1999) are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Reserves with largest and smallest budgets
in 2000.
|
Reserves with Largest Budgets
|
Reserves with Smallest Budgets
|
|
Name
|
Budget,
thousand roubles
|
Share
of Federal Funds,
%
|
Name
|
Budget,
thousand roubles
|
Share
of Federal Funds,
%
|
|
Kavkazsky
|
12,094
|
34
|
Rdeisky
|
725
|
70
|
|
Sikhote-Alinsky
|
10,610
|
33
|
Belogorye
|
737
|
69
|
|
Tevberdinsky
|
8,399
|
43
|
Polistovsky
|
799
|
81
|
|
Voronezhsky
|
7,077
|
44
|
Basegi
|
872
|
78
|
|
Laplandsky
|
6,962
|
34
|
Dzhugdzhurgsky
|
880
|
91
|
|
Yugansky
|
6,394
|
26
|
Denezh. Kamen'
|
890
|
51
|
|
Malaya Sos'va
|
6,185
|
30
|
Kaluzh. Zaseki
|
948
|
58
|
|
Baikalsky
|
5,776
|
35
|
Prisursky
|
961
|
51
|
|
Kronotsky
|
5,661
|
35
|
Poronaisky
|
1,072
|
78
|
|
Sayano-Sushen.
|
5,655
|
33
|
Dzherginsky
|
1,125
|
91
|
Of the 90 reserves that functioned throughout 2000, 54 had budgets below average.
Eighty-eight reserves (versus 83 in 1999) got money from the budgets and non-budgetary
funds of federal bodies and municipal funds. The reserves with the most income
from these sources are shown in Table 5. The regions that assisted their
local nature reserves the most and least are shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Reserves with the most income from regional
and local budgets and non-budgetary funds in 2000.
|
Reserve
|
Financing,
in thousand roubles
|
Share of the Budget,
%
|
|
Yugansky
|
4,641
|
73
|
|
Malaya Sos'va
|
4,246
|
69
|
|
Verhne-Tazovsky
|
1,869
|
53
|
|
Putoransky
|
1,836
|
61
|
|
Voronezhsky
|
1,791
|
25
|
|
Pasvik
|
1,542
|
41
|
|
Volzhsko-Kamsky
|
1,327
|
51
|
|
Bogdinsko-Baskunchaksky
|
1,207
|
89
|
|
Nenetsky
|
1,150
|
46
|
|
Astrakhansky
|
1,000
|
19
|
Table 6. Regions that provided the most and least financial
support to MNR state reserves
from regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds.
|
Regions that Provided the most Support
|
Regions that Provided the Least
|
|
Region
|
Sum,
thousand rubles
|
Share of Total Budget Region’s Reserves,
%
|
Region
|
Sum,
thousand
rubles
|
|
Khanty-Mansi
Aut. Okrug
|
8,887
|
71
|
Republic of Adygei
|
0
|
|
Krasnoyarsk Territory
|
2,752
|
n/d
|
Republic of Mariy-El
|
0
|
|
Murmansk Region.
|
2,553
|
n/d
|
Pskov Region
|
0
|
|
Voronezh Region
|
2,370
|
24
|
Chukot Aut. Okrug
|
0
|
|
Astrakhan Region
|
2,207
|
33
|
Republic of Kalmykia
|
6
|
|
Yamalo-Nenets
Aut. Okrug
|
1,869
|
n/d
|
Koryak Aut. Okrug
|
10
|
|
Republic of Tatarstan
|
1,327
|
51
|
Republic of Dagestan
|
59
|
|
Khabarovsk Territory
|
1,299
|
n/d
|
Rep. Sakha- Yakutia
|
75
|
|
Nenets Autonomous Area
|
1,150
|
46
|
Republic of Tuva
|
86
|
|
Irkutsk Region
|
1,100
|
n/d
|
Jewish Aut. Okrug
|
88
|
In 2000, 85 reserves (versus 84 in 1999) earned income independently. The reserves
that earned the most are listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Reserves that earned the most independently in 2000.
|
Reserves
|
Earnings
|
Budget Share,
%
|
|
Kronotsky
|
3,417,000
|
60
|
|
Laplandsky
|
2,631,000
|
38
|
|
Astrakhansky
|
1,950,000
|
37
|
|
Kavkazsky
|
1,248,000
|
10
|
|
Chernye Zemli
|
1,229,000
|
60
|
|
Sayano-Shushensky
|
712,000
|
13
|
|
Kurilsky
|
627,000
|
13
|
|
Ostrov Vrangelya
|
609,000
|
18
|
|
Stolby
|
607,000
|
25
|
|
Yuzhno-Uralsky
|
558,000
|
17
|
In 2000, 74 reserves received foreign grants (versus 63 in 1999). The reserves
with the highest income from foreign grants are listed in Table 8.
Table 8. Reserves that received the most support from foreign grants
in 2000.
|
Reserves
|
Foreign Grant Money,
thousand rubles
|
Budget Share,
%
|
|
Sikhote-Alinsky
|
7,012
|
66
|
|
Kavkazsky
|
4,741
|
39
|
|
Teberdinsky
|
3,735
|
44
|
|
Baikalsky
|
3,389
|
59
|
|
Sayano-Shushensky
|
2,897
|
52
|
|
Nizhnesvirsky
|
2,844
|
77
|
|
Lazovsky
|
2,607
|
53
|
|
Khingansky
|
2,476
|
62
|
|
Bolshaya Kokshaga
|
2,308
|
67
|
|
Voroninsky
|
2,297
|
68
|
In 2000, 56 reserves received financial support from Russian sponsors (versus
49 in 1999). See Table 9.
Table 9. Reserves that received the most support
from Russian sponsors in 2000.
|
Reserves
|
Russian Grant Money,
thousand rubles
|
Budget Share,
%
|
|
Laplandsky
|
1,224
|
18
|
|
Kavkazsky
|
1,101
|
9
|
|
Pechoro-Ilychsky
|
862
|
19
|
|
Vitimsky
|
684
|
23
|
|
Oksksy
|
491
|
12
|
|
Astrakhansky
|
341
|
6
|
|
Putoransky
|
301
|
10
|
|
Darvinsky
|
295
|
8
|
|
Khopersky
|
219
|
9
|
|
Kuzhnetsky Alatau
|
203
|
20
|
The total budget of state nature reserves in 2000 was considerably larger than
in 1999 thanks to various sources of financing (see Table 1), including:
- the federal budget (49,1%),
- regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds (15,1%),
- reserves’ own earnings (8%),
- foreign grants (24,9%),
- Russian sponsors (2,9%).
Changes that occurred in the proportion of various sources of financing in
the total budget of state nature reserves are also given in Table 1.
V. B. Stepanitsky,
Deputy Head
Department of Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources
<< | contents
| top | >>
| |
|
