«MISCELLANEOUS»

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF PNA FUNCTIONING
(Vladimir Region)

Many natural resource users and government structures consider that Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) are just a side element of conservation work. At best, PNAs use budget and other funds; at worst, they prevent economic development.

But it isn’t that simple. First one should consider how much PNAs actually limit economic development. In the Vladimir Region, PNAs now cover 14% of the whole area. This statistic has different interpretations. On one hand, it may be viewed as a proof of successful conservation work; that is why it is often cited in government reports. On the other hand, many business managers use it to argue against the creation of new PNAs (since a considerable amount of land has already been excluded from economic use).

Actually, both statements (that conservation work has been successful and that there are already too many PNAs) are untrue.

How is one to evaluate the efficiency of the economic use of land and natural resources located within a PNA?

Adding up the acreage of PNAs without considering how these areas are used results in a skewed sense of the economic and ecological roles they play. Nature and marine reserves, for example, differ significantly not only in legislative and spatial, but in economic terms as well, primarily in the degree of exemption of the PNAs or protected objects and sites from economic turnover.

Adding up the lands involved in economic use in a specific PNA is difficult because of the various modes of use of one and the same area and frequent changes in priorities, let alone the spatial dynamics. That is why, the size of a PNA efficient area can act as a sort of approximate factor (Vakhromeev, Davydova, 2000) permitting us to evaluate the economic and temporal features of a PNA rather than the spatial ones (which is sometimes more important):

where

a_i — economic and time exemption coefficient for the area (i-type economic activities restriction factor);
n —number of types of nature use restricted in a PNA;
t — time of PNA functioning (provided that t > 1 year);
S_PNA — PNA total area, hectares.

If the PNA has been divided into functional zones, and there exist different protection regimes for each zone, one should use the formula for each zone separately taking into consideration the size of these zones:

where
S_j– size of j-zone with special protection regime;
m – total number of zones with relevant protection regime.

Coefficient a is empiric and can vary from region to region. For Vladimir Region the proposed values for this coefficient range from 0,05 to 0,12 (see Table).

We use this coefficient because the greater the number of types of resource use that are restricted in a given PNA, the greater the values that coefficient a can reach and the greater the share of the PNA that will be practically inaccessible for economic use. For most nature reserves the total value of coefficient à tends to be close to one. Unified coefficient à values for all of Russia and each type of PNA could help us do qualitative comparisons and juxtapositions to relevant regional areas as well as to evaluate the efficiency of a PNA’s functioning.

The second component in the formula is the time of PNA functioning. The given functional dependence refers to the following condition:

The shorter the period of PNA functioning, the less the value of coefficient a will be and the smaller the efficient area will be, and vice versa.

As an example, we used Formulas (1) and (2) to calculate the efficient area for a projected botanical reserve, Starodubsky (Kovrov District of the Vladimir Region). Its pre-project justification envisages the division of the area into functional zones with appropriate protection regimes: a strictly protected zone of 4,230 hectares and a moderate regime zone of some 4,000 hectares. There will also be a buffer zone around the reserve, 10 to 30 meters wide. We can exclude this area from our calculations since the buffer zone is not part of the reserve area.

For the strictly protected zone, considering all the restrictions on economic use, the efficient area will be:

The total value of coefficient à equals 0,477, the time of the reserve functioning is unlimited, or absolute (t —> °°, therefore, 1 – 1/t —> 1).

For the moderate regime zone the efficient are will be:

The total efficient area will be:

Thus, the actual share of lands excluded from economic use will be not more than 58% of the total reserve area.

Table. Coefficient values to calculate PNA area efficiency

The other economic aspect of PNA functioning is the financing. Until now federal PNAs and almost all regional PNAs have been budget-dependant, which means that they only use funds. Actually, there is nothing reprehensible about this situation; just the opposite, in fact. The Government, interested in further development and safety, has to invest in conservation, because conservation cannot be profitable or even self-financing. However, in times of protracted economic crisis, one must find other sources of funding for conservation, particularly for PNAs.

One possible source of funding is eco-tourism in PNAs. Naturally, economic aspects of PNA functioning should not prevail over the main objective — local nature conservation.

As an example of additional funding, I will cite the figures for an historic landscape complex (HLC) Bogolubovo Meadow. HLC is a new category of PNA first introduced in the Vladimir Region in 1999. Since one of the goals of an HLC is to provide recreation that is safe from the point of view of conservation, it can contribute much to the development of eco-tourism.

The creation of an HLC, as well as the organization of any other category of PNA, may be evaluated with the help of economic indices – for instance, the size of prevented ecological damage. Since the key component of the Bogolubovo Meadow HLC is the botanical nature monument, we chose the condition of the vegetative layer as the criterion for damage evaluation. If we assume that the creation of the HLC will contribute to the conservation of the whole area’s vegetative layer (currently one can observe increasing recreational digression here), the size of prevented damage (D)associated with destroying or damaging the plants can be calculated with the help of the following formula*:

where
k — biodiversity factor (assumed as 4,6);
H_p — damage reimbursement tariff for causing damage to 1 hectare of intense plant growing, in rubles (300 minimum monthly wages);
S — the area covered with vegetative layer, hectares;
H_opi — damage reimbursement tariff for causing damage to 1 plant included in the Russian Red Book of rare and endangered species;
N_i — the number of destroyed i-type plants;
50 — average period of PNA functioning needed to do these calculations.

Thus, the size of the damage according to this formula will be:

The size of prevented damage cannot be regarded as a direct economic effect index, however it is useful in doing scientific calculations on other economic indicators.

An economic effect may occur given the introduction of an eco-tourism program at an HLC. The presumed economic effect (E)here can be calculated by using the following formula:

where
D_p — size of prevented damage from destroying vegetative layer, rubles per year;
N — total number of tourists that visited the HLC, persons per year;
S — size of HLC, hectares;
MARL — maximum admissible recreation load, persons per hectare per day;
365 — average number of days in a year.

Given this formula to estimate the economic effect from eco-tourism, we can calculate the entrance fee per tourist in an organized group:

where
H_ti — entrance fee for visit to an HLC by a tourist in an organized tourist group in i-year (current year), rubles per person.;
E_i-1 — economic effect from the implementation of eco-tourism program in i – 1-year (previous year), rubles;
N_i-1 — number of tourists that visited the HLC in organized groups in i – 1-year (previous year), persons;
P_i — the given level of profitability of eco-tourism activities during i-year.

Calculations done according to this method require data on the number of visitors that passed through the HLC (organized tour groups).

Such calculations were done for 2001 by using data on visits to Bogolubovo Meadow by tourists in organized groups during 11 months of the previous year, 2000 (data provided by the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum Reserve). In accordance with existing recommendations (Zabelina, Belousova, 1973), we estimated the maximum admissible recreation load as 30 persons per hectare per year.

The economic effect of eco-tourism activities in 2000 could be:

In order to have the same effect in 2001 (given the same number of tourists) the entrance fee per tourist per group with 25% (0,25) profitability should be:

These calculations show that it is possible to make a profit by charging only a nominal entrance fee; the collected fees can be used to develop the complex, or to do scientific research, or to initiate other commercial projects. But economic benefits should never conflict with the conservation goals of HLCs and other PNAs.

The above example reflects only one of the possible ways of attracting additional funds for PNAs. Depending on the PNA type, category, size, etc., one may develop other projects and program.

In conclusion, not all PNAs can be completely exempt from economic use (not counting, of course, state nature reserves and other strict protection regime natural monuments). The sum of PNA functional zones should not be viewed as direct indicators of conservation efficiency, or the degree of exemption of the area from resource use. For an objective evaluation, one must distinguish between PNAs according to their category, purpose, size and protection regime.

On the other hand, many PNAs can generate additional funds by implementing secondary commercial projects and programs, while some PNAs can become independent. The generation of additional funds may prove an important argument in convincing the authorities, land-users and other shareholders (especially at the regional level) that PNAs can yield practical outputs; therefore we must support and develop them.

I. V. Vakhromeev,
Kovrov State Academy of Technology

Vakhromeev I. V., Davydova S. N. On the conception of efficient PNA area // Protected Natural Areas: Materials of II International Conference— St.-Petersburg, 2000. — P. 46—48.

Zabelina N. M., Belousova L. S. Concerning the evaluation of recreation potential in the process of Nature Parks creation // Scientific foundation for nature conservation: Collection of scientific works — Moscow, 1973. — Edition 2. — P. **—**.

Bases for nature conservation. Methods of preventing damage. — St.-Petersburg: Edition of St.-Petersburg State Ecological Committee, 2000.— 115 p.

<< | contents | top |