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
