The Russian national parks budget for 2000 (excluding Losiny Ostrov)
came to 175,000,000 rubles. The structure of the sources of financing is
shown in Table 1.
[Because Losiny Ostrov was under the Moscow government in 2000,
it was financed by the city budget (34,676, 000 rubles); the park’s own
earnings came to 792,000 rubles].
Table 1. Sources of financing for Russian national parks in 2000.
Sources of Financing
Sum,
thousand rubles
Budget Share,
%
Federal budget
72,000
41
Regional and local budgets
and non-budgetary funds
18,000
10
National parks’ own earnings
73,000
41
Foreign grants
13,000
7
Russian sponsors
1,000
1
TOTAL
177,000
100
Federal budget funds comprised 72,000,000 rubles (41% of the national parks’
annual budget). A total of 18,000,000 rubles (10%) was allocated to national
parks from regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds. The
national parks' own earnings totalled 73,000,000 rubles (41%); 46,6% of
those earnings came from woodcutting and the sale of timber and wood products.
The national parks’ earnings are itemized in Table 2.
Table 2. National parks earnings in 2000.
Item of Income
Sum,
thousand rubles
Visitor services and related activities
19,800
Rent for land sections
5,700
Woodcuttings, sale of timber and wood products
34,000
Other legal activities using park land and resources
5,900
Penalties and fines, sale of confiscated items
2,600
Other activities
5,000
TOTAL
73,000
In 2000, Russia’s national parks received 12,800,000 rubles in foreign
grants (nearly 7% of the parks’ annual budget), mainly from the Global Environmental
Facility (65% of all the grants) and the TACIS program (11%). Approximately
1,000,000 rubles (0,6% of the total NP budget) came from Russian sponsors.
The average annual budget for a Russian national park in 2000 was 5,157,000
rubles. The national parks with the largest and the smallest budgets are
listed in Table 3.
Table 3. National parks with the largest and smallest budgets in 2000.
NPs with the Largest Budgets
NPs with the Smallest Budgets
Name
Budget,
thousand rubles
Federal Funds Share,
%
Name
Budget,
thousand rubles
Federal Funds Share,
%
Losiny Ostrov
35,468
0
Prielbrusye
993
81
Sochinsky
18,223
22
Alania
1,235
48
Kurshskaya Kosa
12,688
5
Shorsky
1,400
68
Samarskaya Luka
11,366
38
Chavash Varmane
1,802
73
Orlov. Polesye
10,004
77
Taganai
1,847
70
Kenozersky
9,151
40
Bashkiria
1,876
55
Vodlozersky
8,644
39
Alkhanai
1,913
51
Pribaikalsky
8,496
57
Zyuratkul
1,939
57
Sebezhsky
8,336
40
Smolny
2,010
60
Valdaisky
7,216
61
Nechkinsky
2,216
77
Of the 35 national parks that functioned throughout 2000, 21 had budgets
below average.
Most national parks received money from regional and municipal budgets
and non-budgetary funds. The regions that provided most and least support
to national parks are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Regions that provided the most and least support to Russian
national parks in 2000
(not counting the city of Moscow).
Regions that Provided the most Support
Regions that Provided the Least Support
Region
Sum,
thousand rubles
Region
Sum,
thousand rubles
Smolensk Region
4,085
Chuvash Republic
0
Republic of Tatarstan
1,994
Pskov Region
0
Republic of Karelia
1,778
Ryazan Region
1
Samara Region
1,342
Republic of Mariy-El
5
Irkutsk Region
925
Novgorod Region
30
Yaroslavl Region
787
Kabardino-Balkaria Rep.
38
Orel Region
781
Komi Republic
734
Sverdlovsk Region
722
Krasnodarsk Territory
565
All national parks, except for Alkhanai, earned money independently
in 2000. The national parks that earned the most are listed in Table
5.
Table 5. National parks with highest independent earnings for 2000.
National Park
Earnings,
in rubles
Budget Share,
%
Sochinsky
13,589,000
75
Kurshskaya Kosa
10,972,000
85
Samarskaya Luka
5,675,000
50
Vodlozersky
4,522,000
52
Sebezhsky
4,382,000
53
Mariy Chodra
4,080,000
72
Meschera
3,081,000
51
Pribaikalsky
2,750,000
32
Khvalynsky
2,306,000
59
Nizhnyaya Kama
2,257,000
53
Twenty national parks received foreign grants in 2000. The national parks
with the largest foreign grants are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. National parks that received the most in foreign grants in 2000.
National Park
Foreign Grants,
in rubles
Budget Share,
%
Kenozersky
3,637,000
39
Ugra
1,978,000
40
Paanayarvy
1,360,000
23
Plescheevo Ozero
1,343,000
32
Zabaikalsky
1,336,000
44
Shushensky Bor
1,210,000
30
Kurshskaya Kosa
810,000
6
In order to improve the financing of Russia’s national parks, we must:
Increase the federal budget’s contribution to national parks. Though
this won’t be easy to do, it certainly isn’t impossible. During the adoption
of the federal budget for 2001, the original funds allocated for state
nature reserves were increased by 30%, while the funds allocated for national
parks remained unchanged.
Significantly increase capital investments. This will be possible within
the framework of a new support program for nature reserves and national
parks now being developed as part of the federal project Russia’s Ecology
and Natural Resources.
Allocate federal financing to support scientific research in national
parks (the monies should go to the parks themselves, not the research
institutes involved).
Initiate special projects to attract foreign investment.
Restructure the national parks’ economic activities so that their own
earnings derive mainly from tourism and recreational services rather than
cuttings. The cuttings problem cannot be solved simply with directives
from above. We will have to feel our way. The current situation – with
half the parks’ own earnings coming from cuttings – may be the result
of forest scheduling projects and good intentions. However, it devalues
the very concept of national parks and therefore can no longer be tolerated.
V. B. Stepanitsky,
Deputy Head
Department of Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources
