THE FINANCING OF STATE NATURE RESERVES BY THE STATE
NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE IN 1999: BASIC SUMMARY
According to the records of the reserves funded by the
State Nature Conservation Committee, the total budget in 1999 for the
whole system of reserves amounted to 166,080.3 thousand rbl. (as opposed
to 86,371.1 thousand rbl. in 1998) and included various components.
Table 1. Sources of financing for the reserves of the State
Nature Conservation Committee in 1998 and 1999.
Sources of financing
1999
1998
Change in the share of the source of financing
Growth of the source of financing,
%
Total,
thousand rbl.
Share of the source,
%
Total,
thousand rbl.
Share of the source,
%
The federal budget, including the Ecological Fund
of the Russian Federation
86,438.0
52.1
48,230.9
55.9
- 3.8
+ 79
Regional and local budgets and extra-budgetary funds
21,838.6
13.2
14,852.8
17.2
- 4.0
+ 47
Own means
19,154.5
11.5
9,066.8
10.5
+ 1.0
+ 111
Grants from foreign charitable funds
33,951.8
20.4
13,252.7
15.3
+ 5.1
+ 156
Domestic sponsors
4,697.4
2.8
967.9
1.1
+ 1.7
+ 385
TOTAL
166,080.3
100
86,371.1
100
0
+ 92.3
Funds from the federal budget, including the Federal Ecological Foundation,
comprised 86,438.0 thousand rbl. and accounted for 52.1% of the total
budget of all the reserves (48,230.9 thousand rbl., or 55.9%).
A total of 21,838.6 thousand rbl. (13.2% of the budget) was allocated
to reserves by regional and local budgets and extra-budgetary funds (as
opposed to 14,852.8 thousand rbl., or 17.2%, in 1998).
The reserves’ own means amounted to 19,154.5 thousand rbl. (11.5% of
the annual budget, as opposed to 9066.8 thousand rbl., or 10.5%, in 1998).
The structure of the reserves’ own means is summarized in tab. 2.
Table 2. Structure of the reserves’ own means in 1999.
Source of income
Sum,
thousand rbl.
Reception of visitors and related activities
3,133.8
Legal kinds of limited exploitation in the reserves
and in security zones
1,842.8
Collected fines and claims, realization of the forfeit
2,378.9
Contractual research (apart from that at the expense
of the federal budget)
5,811.4
Experimental nurseries and secondary agricultural
production
228.1
Leasing of basic assets
21.7
Other services
457.3
Other activities
5,280.5
TOTAL
19,154.5
Several reserves received foreign grants. In 1999, in the whole system
of the State Nature Conservation Committee reserves, this income comprised
33,951.8 thousand rbl., or 20.4%, of the total budget (as opposed to 13,252.7
thousand rbl., or 15,3%, in 1998). The main grants came from the Global
Environmental Facility, the World Wild Fund for Nature, the U.S. Agency
for International Development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
several other foundations.
Domestic grants amounted to 4,697.4 thousand rbl. (2.8% of the total
budget, as opposed to 967,9 thousand rbl., or 1,1%, in 1998). The various
categories of domestic sponsors is outlined in tab. 3.
Table 3. Participation of domestic sponsors
in financing of nature reserves in 1999.
Group of the organizations
Sum,
thousand rbl.
Banks
43.3
Industrial organizations
1,208.6
Transport enterprises
84.4
Firms
17.1
Other commercial structures
1,522.6
Non-profit organizations
975.8
Individuals
845.6
TOTAL
4,697.4
There is no “typical” nature reserve in Russia since each reserve is
unique and has its own image and specifics. Therefore the parameters given
below are just to satisfy our statistical curiosity.
In 1999, the average annual budget of a reserve was around 1.9 mln. rbl.
(as opposed to 1 mln. rbl. in 1998). The reserves with
the largest and smallest budgets in 1999 (excluding new reserves whose
financing started after early1999) are indicated in tab. 4.
Table 4. Reserves with the largest and smallest budgets in 1999.
Reserves with the largest budgets
Reserves with the smallest budgets
Name
Budget,
thousand rbl.
Share of federal funds, %
Name
Budget,
thousand rbl.
Share of federal funds, %
Kronotsky
8,022
18
Bastak
277
75
Sikhote-Alinsky
6,717
36
Rdeisky
332
87
Kurilsky
6,133
24
Polistovsky
431
80
Laplandsky
5,326
36
Dzhugdzhursky
479
100
Voronezhsky
5,192
47
Vitimsky
572
93
Teberdinsky
5,150
49
Nizhnesvirsky
646
57
Sayano-Shushensky
4,082
24
Nurgush
673
48
Yugansky
4,069
35
Belogorie
702
49
Kandalakshsky
3,852
51
Rostov
703
33
Tsentralno-Lesnoi
3,721
58
Bassegi
705
58
Fifty-four out of 87 reserves that functioned during the whole of 1999
had budgets lower than average in the system (as opposed to 56 in 1998).
Eighty-three reserves (as opposed to 75 in 1998) in 63 regions (as opposed
to 58) derived their income from the budgets and extra-budgetary funds
of federal bodies and municipal funds. The reserves with the most income
from these sources are indicated in tab. 5. The regions that assisted
their local nature reserves most and least are indicated in tab. 6.
Table 5. Reserves with the most income from regional and local
budgets
and extra-budgetary funds in 1999.
Reserve
Financing,
thousand rbl.
Share of the budget,
%
Yugansky
2,648
66
Voronezhsky
1,540
29
Volzhsko-Kamsky
1,395
63
Malaya Sosva
1,173
45
Verkhne-Tazovsky
950
44
Stolby
950
37
Teberdinsky
786
15
Bureinsky
553
40
Oksky
514
15
Pechoro-Ilychsky
467
17
Table 6. Regions that provided most and least financing to state
reserves
from regional and local budgets and extra-budgetary funds.
The regions that provided the most support
The regions that provided the least support
Region
Sum,
thousand rbl.
Share of the total budgets of the reserves of
the region, %
Region
Sum,
thousand rbl.
Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area
3,821
57
Adygei Republic
0
Voronezh Region
1,977
43
Altai Republic
0
Krasnoyarsk Territory
1,526
19
Republic of Mariy-El
0
Republic of Tatarstan
1,395
63
Pskov Region
0
Republic of Bashkortostan
1,215
16
Chukot Autonomous Area
0
Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area
950
44
Koryaksky Autonomous Area
10
Sverdlovsk Region
842
44
Moscow Region
10
Khabarovsk Territory
822
14
Kalmykia Republic
16
Karachai-Cherkess Republic
786
15
Novgorod Region
40
Perm Region
731
37
Irkutsk Region
41
Eighty-three reserves (as opposed to 76 in 1998) were able to earn means
independently in 1999. The reserves that had most success here are listed
in tab. 7.
Table 7. Reserves with the highest earnings in 1999.
Reserve
Earned,
thousand rbl.
Share of the budget, %
Kronotsky
6,284
78
Laplandsky
2,407
45
Kandalakshsky
1,340
35
Tsentralno-Lesnoi
650
17
Stolby
553
22
Oksky
536
16
Chernye Zemli
532
52
Voronezhsky
424
8
Kavkazsky
395
14
Zhygulevsky
358
28
Sixty-three reserves received foreign grants last year (as opposed to
52 in 1998). The reserves with the most income here are indicated in tab.
8.
Table 8. Reserves with the most foreign financing (grants) in
1999.
Reserve
Income,
thousand rbl.
Share of the budget, %
Kurilsky
4,515
74
Sikhote-Alinsky
4,265
63
Sayano-Shushensky
2,097
51
Katunsky
1,864
62
Teberdinsky
1,634
32
Khingansky
1,526
57
Daursky
1,393
53
Lazovsky
1,389
50
Barguzinsky
1,318
45
Bryansky Les
1,277
63
Forty-nine reserves (as opposed to 35 in 1998) received financial support
from domestic sponsors in 1999.
Table 9. Reserves with the most support
from domestic sponsors in 1999.
Reserve
Income,
thousand rbl.
Share of the budget, %
Kandalakshsky
1,340
35
Astrakhansky
663
28
Khopersky
628
26
Sayano-Shushensky
502
12
Komandorsky
300
20
Kronotsky
250
3
Kuznetsk Alatau
158
8
Tsentralno-Chernozemny
151
7
Ust'-Lensky
143
8
Pinezhsky
134
8
Overall the budgets of state nature reserves increased considerably due
to various sources of income in 1999 as compared to 1998 (see tab. 1),
including:
79% from the federal budget,
47% from regional and local budgets and extra-budgetary funds,
111% from own means,
156% from foreign grants,
385% from domestic sponsors.
The changes in the shares of various sources of financing in the total
budget of the system of reserves are also given in tab. 1.
Vsevolod Stepanitsky,
The Head of the Department of Reserves
State Nature Conservation Committee of the Russian Federation
