|
«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»
FUNDING OF RUSSIAN NATIONAL PARKS IN
2002 AND 2003: A SUMMARY
The total budget of the national park framework in 2002
was 414,071 thousand roubles, in 2003 – 508,075 thousand roubles. Its
structure is provided in the Table 1.*
Table 1. Funding sources of national parks of Russia
in 2002 and 2003
|
Funding sources
|
2003
|
2002
|
Changes in the funding source percentage, %
|
Changes in the funding source amount, %
|
|
Total, thousand roubles
|
Funding source percentage, %
|
Total, thousand roubles.
|
Funding source percentage, %
|
|
Federal budget
|
228,987
|
45.1
|
191,232
|
46.2
|
– 1.1
|
+ 19.7
|
|
Regional and local budgets, non-budget funds (without the Moscow
City budget)
|
19,548
|
3.8
|
13,743
|
3.3
|
+ 0.5
|
+ 42.2
|
|
The Moscow City budget (funding of Losiny Ostrov NP)
|
57,415
|
11.3
|
48,800
|
11.8
|
– 0.5
|
+ 17.7
|
|
Foreign grants
|
10,528
|
2.1
|
14,271
|
3.4
|
– 2.3
|
– 26.2
|
|
Own revenues
|
179,201
|
35.3
|
141,296
|
34.1
|
+ 1.2
|
+ 26.8
|
|
Funds from domestic sponsors
|
12,396
|
2.4
|
4,729
|
1.1
|
+ 1.3
|
+ 162.1
|
|
Total
|
508,075
|
100
|
414,071
|
100
|
|
+ 22.5
|
In 2002, the average annual budget of a national park was 11,831 thousand
roubles, while in 2003 it was 14,516 thousand roubles. However, similarly,
with zapovedniks (see the article), these funds
were distributed irregularly: more than 2/3 of national parks in 2003
(24 out of 35) and almost 3/4 in 2003 (26) had budgets below average.
Parks that had highest and lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003 are listed
in the Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. National parks with highest budgets in 2002
and 2003
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Title
|
Budget, thousand roubles
|
Percentage of federal funds, %
|
Title
|
Budget, thousand roubles
|
Percentage of federal funds, %
|
|
Sochinsky
|
81,242
|
15
|
Sochinsky
|
99,774
|
12
|
|
Losiny Ostrov
|
51,292
|
0
|
Losiny Ostrov
|
83,109
|
7
|
|
Kenozersky
|
22,616
|
54
|
Nizhnyaya Kama
|
27,788
|
24
|
|
Kurshskaya Kosa
|
20,415
|
19
|
Kurshskaya Kosa
|
20,500
|
21
|
|
Samarskaya Luka
|
15,639
|
66
|
Kenozersky
|
19,740
|
54
|
|
Orlovskoe Polesie
|
13,916
|
70
|
Samarskaya Luka
|
18,224
|
61
|
|
Pribaikalsky
|
13,358
|
72
|
Pribaikalsky
|
18,160
|
69
|
|
Vodlozersky
|
12,857
|
94
|
Meshera
|
14,740
|
68
|
|
Mari Chodra
|
12,100
|
59
|
Orlovskoe Polesie
|
14,549
|
73
|
|
Nizhnyaya Kama
|
11,458
|
45
|
Vodlozersky
|
14,191
|
90
|
Table 2. National parks with lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Title
|
Budget, thousand roubles
|
Percentage of federal funds, %
|
Title
|
Budget, thousand roubles
|
Percentage of federal funds, %
|
|
Alania
|
2,398
|
92
|
Shorsky
|
3,716
|
88
|
|
Shorsky
|
3,103
|
85
|
Nechkinsky
|
4,093
|
95
|
|
Prielbrusie
|
3,257
|
87
|
Chavash Varmane
|
4,144
|
88
|
|
Nechkinsky
|
3,761
|
86
|
Smolny
|
4,194
|
77
|
|
Smolny
|
3,814
|
76
|
Alania
|
4,947
|
92
|
|
Russky Sever
|
3,816
|
83
|
Meshersky
|
5,055
|
77
|
|
Chavash Varmane
|
4,027
|
88
|
Prielbrusie
|
5,343
|
74
|
|
Taganay
|
4,847
|
91
|
Taganay
|
5,656
|
93
|
|
Pripishminskie Bori
|
5,024
|
59
|
Yugid Va
|
5,664
|
67
|
|
Meshersky
|
5,201
|
67
|
Pripishminskie Bori
|
5,685
|
60
|
Most national parks received funding from regional budgets and non-budget
funds although in 2003 the number of regions that opted out of financial
assistance to national parks has grown significantly in comparison with
2002: Republics Bashkortostan, Komi, Mari El, and Udmurtia, Krasnodar
Krai, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Irkutsk, Kemerovo, and Ryazan regions joined
the Republic of Chuvashia; the Republic of Tatarstan has left this “company”.
Regions that had assisted national parks located within them best of
all are listed in the Table 4.
Table 4. Regions where regional and local budgets
and non-budget funds had assisted national parks best of all in 2002
and 2003
|
Region
|
Funding, thousand roubles
|
|
2002
|
2003 (percentage in the budget)
|
|
Moscow City
|
48,800
|
57,415 (69%)
|
|
Aginsky Buryatsky Autonomous District
|
3,149
|
2,864 (37%)
|
|
Yaroslavl Region
|
1,970
|
1,792 (19%)
|
|
Samara Region
|
1,046
|
1,603 (9%)
|
|
Orel Region
|
680
|
|
|
Saratov Region
|
663
|
|
|
Sverdlovsk Region
|
651
|
1,094 (19%)
|
|
Kaliningrad Region
|
613
|
825 (4%)
|
|
Archangelsk Region
|
548
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Region
|
519
|
|
|
Republic of Tatarstan
|
|
6,535 (24%)
|
|
Republic of Karelia
|
|
675 (3%)
|
|
Novgorod Region
|
|
630 (5%)
|
|
Smolensk Region
|
|
541 (7%)
|
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the region
was not in the top ten in this year.
In 2003, the number of national parks that had received foreign charitable
grants has reduced to 7 (in 2002, it was 16); the total amount of the
charitable funding has reduced by almost 1.5 times (from 14.3 to 10.5
million roubles). We tried to identify possible reasons for this trend
in the previous article. Main beneficiaries are
listed in the Table 5. Main benefactors are the Global Environmental
Facility, the National Parks Fund, and governmental institutions of
the USA (2002), Norway, and Denmark (2003).
Table 5. National parks that had highest funding
in the form of foreign grants in 2002 and 2003
|
National park
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Funding, thousand roubles
|
Percentage in the budget, %
|
Funding, thousand roubles
|
Percentage in the budget, %
|
|
Kenozersky
|
8,836
|
39
|
5,879
|
30
|
|
Sebezhsky
|
1,881
|
21
|
|
|
|
Plesheevo Ozero
|
1,350
|
12
|
|
|
|
Valdaisky
|
899
|
9
|
2,953
|
23
|
|
Paanayarvi
|
789
|
12
|
|
|
|
Ugra
|
519
|
7
|
1,151
|
13
|
|
Zyuratkul
|
187
|
3
|
|
|
|
Meshera
|
187
|
2
|
|
|
|
Tunkinsky
|
174
|
2
|
|
|
|
Losiny Ostrov
|
153
|
0,3
|
|
|
|
Bashkiria
|
|
|
185
|
3
|
|
Alania
|
|
|
155
|
3
|
|
Kurshskaya Kosa
|
|
|
152
|
0,7
|
|
Pribaikalsky
|
|
|
126
|
0,7
|
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the national
park was not in the top ten in this year.
In 2002, all the national parks of Russia have earned 141,296 thousand
roubles; in 2003 this amount has grown to 179,201 thousand roubles.
25% of the earnings in 2002 and 21% in 2003 were linked with forestry
activities and timber sales. The structure of national parks’ own revenues
and their dynamics are shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6. Structure of national parks’ own funds in
2003
(in comparison with 2002)
|
Revenues from
|
Amounts,
million roubles
|
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Visitors services
|
33.2
|
31.8
|
|
Rent of lands
|
10.4
|
15.8
|
|
Forestry, timber procurement and sales
|
35.0
|
37.6
|
|
Other allowed limited nature uses in national parks (including
fees for transit movement)
|
49.7
|
64.5
|
|
Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff
|
3.7
|
20.5
|
|
Other activities
|
9.3
|
8.9
|
|
Total
|
141.3
|
179.2
|
Table 7. Changes in the structure of national parks’
own funds in 2003 (in comparison with 2002)
|
Revenues from
|
Percentage in the total amount of own funds
in 2003
|
Percentage in the total amount of own funds
in 2002
|
|
Visitors services
|
18
|
24
|
|
Rent of lands
|
9
|
7
|
|
Forestry, timber procurement and sales
|
21
|
25
|
|
Other allowed limited nature uses in national parks (including
fees for transit movement)
|
35
|
35
|
|
Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff
|
12
|
3
|
|
Other activities
|
5
|
6
|
Most successful self-funding national parks are listed in the Table
8.
Table 8. National parks that had earned highest revenues
in 2002 and 2003
|
National park
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Earned, thousand roubles
|
Percentage in the budget, %
|
Earned, thousand roubles
|
Percentage in the budget, %
|
|
Sochinsky
|
68,796
|
85
|
87,917
|
88
|
|
Kurshskaya Kosa
|
18,570
|
91
|
15,218
|
74
|
|
Nizhnyaya Kama
|
5,262
|
46
|
5,094
|
18
|
|
Mari Chodra
|
4,955
|
41
|
4,791
|
34
|
|
Samarskaya Luka
|
4,242
|
27
|
5,450
|
30
|
|
Khvalinsky
|
3,482
|
44
|
4,554
|
47
|
|
Orlovskoe Polesie
|
3,472
|
25
|
3,805
|
26
|
|
Pribaikalsky
|
3,350
|
25
|
5,353
|
30
|
|
Sebezhsky
|
3,105
|
35
|
3,330
|
34
|
|
Tunkinsky
|
2,562
|
25
|
|
|
|
Losiny Ostrov
|
|
|
19,962
|
24
|
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the national
park was not in the top ten in this year.
Funding from domestic donors has almost tripled in 2002–2003 (from 4,729
to 12,396 thousand roubles) although the share of this funding source
in consolidated national park budgets remains very low. Possible reasons
for this are addressed in the previous article. Charitable donations
of various categories of domestic benefactors are shown in the Table
9.
Table 9. Participation of domestic benefactors
in the funding of national parks in 2002 and 2003
|
Types of organisations
|
Funding, thousand roubles
|
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
Industrial plants
|
2,536
|
10,821
|
|
Banks
|
400
|
–
|
|
Trade companies
|
15
|
22
|
|
Other commercial structures
|
1,346
|
245
|
|
Non-governmental organisations
|
101
|
351
|
|
Private persons
|
331
|
957
|
|
Total
|
11,442
|
12,609
|
In general, during the last 2 years, nominal and real (including inflation
adjustments) funding of national parks from almost all sources (except
foreign grants) is continuously growing.
It is necessary to note that the financial situation of Russian national
parks looks much more optimistic than that for zapovedniks (see the
article). Perhaps, this is because national parks
fit the market-based development strategy of the country better than
zapovedniks do. Financial investments into national parks (especially
into their tourism infrastructure) allow to create new jobs in depressive
regions and attract additional visitors’ funds – thus, improving the
situation with local and regional budgets. In addition, national parks
provide much more advertisement opportunities for domestic donors (including
hidden advertisement) rather than zapovedniks.
Review by A.V. Sherbakov,
on the basis of materials provided,
by the Deputy Director of the Department
of strictly protected natural areas,
objects, and biodiversity conservation,
V.B. Stepanitsky
*Note: Data on national
park framework funding in previous years are available in the Bulletin
“Zapovedniks and National Parks” (#31/2000,
#34/2001, and #39/2002).
<< | contents
| top | >>
| |
|
