FUNDING OF STATE NATURE RESERVES OF THE
RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN 2002 AND 2003: A SUMMARY
According to reports from state nature reserves (zapovedniks) of the
MNR of Russia, the total budget of the zapovednik framework in 2002
was 494,162 thousand roubles, in 2003 – 500,758 thousand roubles – i.e.
it has grown by 1.5% (taking into account the 12% inflation) and included
lots of articles (see the Table 1*).
The Table also shows that in 2003, in comparison with 2002, 2 articles
out of 5 have reduced nominally; 2 other articles (including those funded
from the legally-stated main funding source – the federal budget) have
reduced in real terms; and only own revenues have grown not only nominally
but also in real terms.
Table 1. Funding sources of zapovedniks of the MNR 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
410,966
82.1
384,087
77.7
+ 4.4
+ 7
Regional and local budgets, non-budget funds
32,877
6.6
34,997
7.1
– 0.5
– 6
Foreign grants
7,454
1.5
33,047
6.7
– 5.2
– 77
Own revenues
36,851
7.4
30,590
6.2
+ 1.2
+ 20
Funds from domestic sponsors
12,609
2.5
11,442
2.3
+ 0.2
+ 9
Total
500,758
100
494,162
100
+ 1.3
In 2002, the average annual budget of a Russian zapovednik was 5,202 thousand
roubles, while in 2003 it was 5,271 thousand roubles. Zapovedniks that had highest
and lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003 are listed in the Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. Zapovedniks with highest budgets in 2002 and 2003
Zapovedniks with highestbudgets in 2002
Zapovedniks with highest budgets in 2003
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Caucazsky
18,259
71
Kronotsky
24,943
78
Kronotsky
17,109
83
Caucazsky
18,765
74
Yuzhno-Uralsky
14,223
95
Laplandsky
14,277
52
Laplandsky
14,138
42
Yuzhno-Uralsky
13,319
92
Kandalakshsky
12,869
62
Sikhote-Alinsky
12,625
90
Sikhote-Alinsky
12,625
82
Taimirsky
12,623
81
Teberdinsky
12,614
86
Teberdinsky
12,596
75
Taimirsky
11,923
76
Voronezhsky
12,466
92
Voronezhsky
10,428
83
Sayano-Shushensky
11,262
70
Yugansky
8,567
55
Baikalsky
11,601
90
Table 3. Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003
Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2002
Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2003
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Visimsky
2,255
72
Polistovsky
2,176
99
Belogorie
2,232
76
Dagestansky
2,120
83
Tigireksky
2,101
43
Privolzhskaya Lesostep
2,116
88
Dagestansky
2,057
81
Belogorie
2,080
90
Basegi
1,873
89
Denezhkin Kamen
1,975
99
Denezhkin Kamen
1,852
92
Nurgush
1,849
100
Polistovsky
1,735
99
Visimsky
1,740
98
Rdeisky
1,713
85
Kaluzhskie Zaseki
1,622
89
Kaluzhskie Zaseki
1,645
86
Basegi
1,581
97
Bogdinsko-Baskunchaksky
1,286
91
Tigireksky
1,356
94
Generally, there is a disturbing trend in the zapovednik network: the number of zapovedniks with subaverage budgets is growing. In 2001, there were 57 such zapovedniks; in 2002 – 63; in 2003 – 64, i.e. almost 2/3 of the total number.
In 2001, 86 zapovedniks had received funding from regional and municipal budgets and non-budget sources; in 2002 – 73; and in 2003 – only 64. Perhaps, main reasons for this trend are current transition of the tax basis from regions to the federal centre (regarding both the consolidation taxation and collection degrees of various taxes) and limitations of regional authorities’ powers with regards to natural resource management – this discourages local authorities from assisting federal institutions.
Zapovedniks that have received highest funding from these sources are listed
in the Table 4, while regions that had assisted zapovedniks located within
them best of all are listed in the Table 5.
Table 4. Zapovedniks that had highest funding
from regional and local budgets and non-budget sources in 2002 and 2003
Zapovednik
2002
2003
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Malaya Sosva
3,867
48
5,086
56
Yugansky
3,797
44
3,802
44
Taimirsky
2,657
22
2,288
18
Volzhsko-Kamsky
2,587
51
Verkhne-Tazovsky
1,747
34
800
17
Teberdinsky
1,182
9
Voronezhsky
1,135
11
Rostovsky
1,000
37
1,000
44
Nenetsky
992
23
1,198
29
Pechoro-Ilichsky
940
17
990
17
Shulgan-Tash
1,427
21
Chernie Zemli
1,377
53
Kerzhensky
1,033
25
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was
not in the top ten in this year.
Table 5. Regions where regional and local budgets
and non-budget sources had assisted zapovedniks best of all in 2002
and 2003
Region
2002
2003
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in budgets of zapovedniks of the
region, %
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in budgets of zapovedniks of the
region, %
Hanti-Mansiysky Autonomous District
7,664
46
8,888
50
Taymir Autonomous District
3,170
17
2,960
17
Republic of Bashkortostan
1,486
6
Republic of Kamikia
1,377
53
Khabarovsk Krai
936
4
1,295
7
Nenetsky Autonomous District
992
23
1,198
29
Chita Region
1,140
12
Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous District
2385
30
1,084
16
Nizhny Novgorod Region
853
21
1,033
25
Voronoezh Region
1,703
11
1,026
6
Rostov Region
1,000
37
1,000
44
Republic of Komi
940
17
990
17
Republic of Tatarstan
2,587
51
768
26
Bryabsk Region
751
22
Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia
1,182
9
748
6
Murmansk Region
1,591
5
700
3
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the region was not
in the top ten in this year.
Republics Adigea, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Mariy-El, and Hakasia;
Kirov, Leningrad, Pskov, and Sakhalin regions opted out of financial
assistance to zapovedniks located within them both in 2002 and 2003;
Republic of Kalmikia and Koryaksky Autonomous District – only in 2002;
Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Altaisky Krai, Primorsky Krai, Tver Region,
Chukotsky and Evenkiysky Autonomous Districts – only in 2003.
In 2002, 63 zapovedniks have received foreign charitable grants; in the next
year – only 37. Since 2001, the amount of charitable aid has reduced
by more than 5 times (from 40,241 thousand roubles to 7,454 thousand
roubles). In 2003 this reduction was drastic (see the Table 1).
There are both objective and subjective reasons behind this trends.
The first ones include the fact that the state budget of Russia was
profitable for a number of years, and foreign donors reasonably think
that the state is able to increase funding of its institutions without
any donations. In addition, due to the growing terrorism threat, many
countries – international donors – reduced significantly financial aids
to other countries in many areas, including environmental conservation.
The last ones include the continuous mess in the power distribution
between various ministries and MNR departments as well as incompetence
and clumsiness of the former senior management of the Ministry that
have discouraged international donors from dealing with the MNR.
Main donors are the Global Environmental Facility (although its share has reduced
from 69% of total grants in 2002 to 27% in 2003) and US governmental
institutions (22% and 34% respectively). Zapovedniks that had highest
funding from these sources are listed in the Table 6.
Table 6. Zapovedniks that had highest funding in
the form of international grants in 2002 and 2003
Zapovednik
2002
2003
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Sikhote-Alinsky
2,286
18
995
10
Khingansky
2,286
36
Privolzhskaya Lesostep
2,037
48
Bolshekhekhtsirsky
1,657
32
Norsky
1,601
61
Khakassky
1,533
21
Bastak
1,519
38
Barguzinsky
1,421
20
Tungussky
1,395
29
Sokhondinsky
1,386
25
Bolshaya Kokshaga
1,781
47
Sayano-Shushensky
1,678
15
Pasvik
1,268
32
Teberdinsky
1,003
8
Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina
862
13
Kronotsky
755
3
Lazovsky
702
8
Baikalsky
678
6
Bryansky Les
592
17
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was not in the top ten in this year.
Zapovedniks have somewhat compensated the reduction of real and nominal
funding in 2003 by own revenue-generating activities. Almost all zapovedniks
(87 in 2002 and 88 and 2003) were earning own funds. Most successful
zapovedniks are listed in the Table 7.
Table 7. Zapovedniks that had earned highest revenues
in 2002 and 2003
Zapovednik
2002
2003
Earnings, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Earnings, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Kandalakshsky
4,124
32
2,114
21
Laplandsky
3,432
24
3,343
23
Kronotsky
2,647
15
4,114
16
Astrakhansky
2,212
29
2,694
35
Wrangel Island
1,587
21
1,560
25
Caucazsky
1,556
9
2,337
12
Kurilsky
1,215
21
2,150
31
Kivach
769
26
Yuzhno-Uralsky
722
5
Prioksko-Terrasny
688
11
Teberdinsky
1,435
11
Chernie Zemli
1,324
25
Poronaysky
1,285
34
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was
not in the top ten in this year.
The structure of zapovedniks’ own funds is shown in the Table 8.
Table 8. Structure of zapovedniks’ own funds in 2003
(in comparison with 2002)
Revenues from
Amounts, thousand roubles
2002
2003
Visitors services
7,591
11,980
Forestry, timber procurement and sales
898
1,380
Other allowed limited nature uses in zapovedniks and their protected
zones (including fees for transit movement)
5,066
3,840
Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff
2,962
5,383
Contract-based research studies (in addition to studies funded from the
federal budget)
11,555
12,432
Other activities
2,518
1,836
Total
30,590
36,851
52 zapovedniks gained financial support from domestic sponsors in 2002;
48 – in 2003 (see the Table 9). The total amount of the support
was 12,609 thousand roubles in 2003 and 11,442 thousand roubles in 2002.
It is strange, however, that 3 zapovedniks out of 100 received more
than half of the total aid in 2003 and 3/4 in 2002 – i.e. the aid was
throwaway. This fact characterises the situation with charities in the
country very well. As a matter of fact, there are neither moral nor
physical (i.e. tax-related) incentives for charity in Russia. Sometimes,
charitable activities (at least, in the social sphere) provoke additional
nearly inspections by tax authorities. Endless changes in economic and
tax legislation, together with persecution of businessmen make businesses
insecure of the future, force entrepreneurs to remove their money and
businesses from the country and do not provide incentives for creating
positive image (including charitable activities) within the country.
Table 9. Zapovedniks that have gained highest financial support
from domestic sponsors in 2002 and 2003
Zapovednik
2002
2003
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Caucazsky
3,470
19
2,331
12
Laplandsky
3,420
23
2,987
21
Oksky
1,493
20
1,253
19
Astrakhansky
536
7
268
3
Nizhne-Svirsky
336
13
Sayano-Shushensky
227
3
403
4
Wrangel Island
226
3
Kronotsky
160
1
557
2
Vishersky
142
5
Bashkirsky
130
3
Shulgan-Tash
1,238
18
Stolbi
814
16
Comandorsky
501
13
Darvinsky
246
3
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was
not in the top ten in this year.
Charitable donations of various categories of domestic benefactors are
shown in the Table 10.
Table 10. Participation of domestic benefactors
in the funding of zapovedniks in 2002 and 2003
Types of organisations
Funding, thousand roubles
2002
2003
Industrial plants
5,590
8,509
Transportation enterprises
1,840
400
Other commercial structures
1,430
703
Non-governmental organisations
1,051
923
Private persons
1,531
2,074
Total
11,442
12,609
In general the following dynamics in the funding of zapovedniks can be observed:
significant (by 65%) in 2002 and small (by 7%, i.e. lower than the current inflation level) in 2003 growth of funding from the federal budget; continuous, but decelerating growth (from 11% to 4.4%) of the federal budget percentage in the total funding of zapovedniks;
significant reduction (by 20% in 2002 and by 7% in 2003) of the nominal funding of zapovedniks from regional and local budgets and non-budget funds;
significant reduction (more than 5 times within 2 years) of funding from foreign donors;
steady, outgrowing the inflation, growth of own revenues;
growth of funding from domestic donors – while in most zapovedniks, the percentage of this funding source is very small.
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: *Note: data on zapovednik
framework funding in previous years are available in the Bulletin “Zapovedniks
and National Parks” (#31/2000, #34/2001,
and #39/2002).
