|
«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»
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).
<< | contents
| top | >>
| |
|
