In 2001, the Russian national parks budget for 2001 (excluding Losiny Ostrov*)
came to 227,981,000 rubles* (versus 176,156,000
rubles in 2000). The structure of the sources of financing is shown in Table
1.
Table 1. Sources of financing for Russian national parks in
2001 and 2000
Sources of Financing
2001
2000
Change in Share of Financing Source,
%
Growth
of Financing Source,
%
Sum, thousand rubles
Budget
Share,
%
Sum, thousand rubles
Budget
Share,
%
Federal Budget, including State Ecology Fund
96 940
42,5
71 556
40,6
+ 1,9
+ 35
Regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds
24 641
10,8
18 343
10,4
+ 0,4
+ 34
Foreign grants
15 199
6,7
12 777
7,3
- 0,6
+ 19
National Parks’ own earnings
88 136
38,7
72 494
41,2
- 2,5
+ 22
Russian sponsors
3 065
1,3
986
0,6
+ 0,7
+ 211
TOTAL
227 981
100
176 156
100
In 2001, all the national parks combined (including Losiny Ostrov) earned
90,436,000 rubles (versus 73,286,000 rubles in 2000), 39% of the money (versus
47% in 2000) came from woodcutting and the sale of timber and wood products.
The national parks’ earnings are itemized in Table 2.
Table 2. Earning of national parks (including Losiny Ostrov)
in 2001 (as compared to NP earnings in 2000)
Item of Income
Sum,
thousand rubles
Visitor services and related activities
26,5 (19,8)
Rent for land sections
6,1 (5,7)
Woodcuttings, sale of timber and wood products
35,4 (33,9)
Other legal activities using park land and resources (including transit
fees)
12,5 (9,7)
Penalties and fines, sale of confiscated items
2,9 (2,6)
Other activities
7,0 (1,6)
TOTAL
90,4 (73,3)
In 2001, 14 national parks (versus 20 in 2000) received 15,200,000 rubles
(versus 12,800,000 rubles in 2000) in foreign grants, mainly from the Global
Environment Facility (48% of all the grants) and the TACIS Program (25%).
Some 3,065,000 rubles (versus 986,000 rubles in 2000) came from Russian sponsors.
Russian sponsors’ funds are itemized in Table 3.
Table 3. Russian sponsors’ funds in 2001
Organizations
Sum,
thousand rubles
Industrial organizations
279
Banks
1
Trade firms
286
Public organizations
2305
Individuals
140
Other organizations
54
TOTAL
3065
The average annual budget for a Russian national park in 2001 was 6,675,000
rubles. The national parks with the largest and smallest budgets are listed
in Table 4.
Table 4. National parks with the largest and smallest budgets
in 2001
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
42 668
0
Prielbrusye
1336
71
Sochinsky
29 499
13
Alania
1395
93
Kurshskaya Kosa
17 527
5
Chavash Varmane
2074
64
Orlovskoye Polesye
15 110
54
Russky Sever
2324
47
Samarskaya Luka
14 314
41
Smolny
2376
64
Kenozersky
12 244
54
Bashkiriya
2740
52
Pribaikalsky
10 716
62
Nechkinsky
2841
64
Sebezhsky
8 562
51
Meschersky
3059
50
Vodlozersky
8 420
70
Taganai
3171
62
Mariy-Chodra
7 981
33
Zabaikalsky
3389
78
Of the 35 national parks that functioned throughout 2001, 19 had budgets
below average (versus 21 in 2000).
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 5.
Table 5. Regions that provided the most and least support to
Russian national parks in 2001
(not counting the city of Moscow and the Republic of Tatarstan,
since Nizhnyaya Kama was not funded from the federal budget in 2001)
Regions that Provided the Most Support
Regions that Provided the Least Support
Region
Sum,
thousand rubles
Region
Sum,
thousand rubles
Oryel Region
3575
Pskov Region
0
Chelyabinsk Region
2355
Chuvash Republic
0
Smolensk Region
2122
Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria
56
Aginsky Buryatsky Aut. Area
2030
Ryazan Region
82
Samara Region
1481
Northern Osetia Rep.
86
Yaroslavl Region
1461
Vologda Region
148
Sverdlovsk Region
1418
Kaliningrad Region
160
Republic of Buryatia
1028
Republic of Moldova
168
Saratov Region
972
Kaluga Region
189
Arkhangelsk Region
772
Krasnoyarsk Territory
200
All national parks earned money in 2001. The national parks that earned the
most are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. National parks with highest independent earnings for
2001
National Park
Earnings,
thousand rubles
Budget Share,
%
Sochinsky
24 983
85
Kurshskaya Kosa
16 241
93
Samarskaya Luka
6 987
49
Mariy-Chodra
5 023
63
Nizhnyaya kama
4 704
67
Sebezhsky
3 750
44
Orlovskoye Polesye
3 338
22
Pribaikalsky
3 187
30
Khvalynsky
2 788
48
Vodlozersky
2 372
28
In 2001, 14 national parks received foreign grants. The national parks with
the largest foreign grants are listed in Table 7.
Table 7. National parks that received the most in foreign grants in 2001
National Park
Foreign Grants,
thousand rubles
Budget Share,
%
Paanayarvi
3767
53
Kenozersky
3409
28
Ugra
2642
34
Shushensky Bor
2414
35
Russky Sever
626
27
Sebezhsky
483
6
Valdaisky
404
7
Tunkinsky
398
5
Smolenskoye Poozerye
397
6
Pribaikalsky
284
3
As compared to 2000, NP financing in 2001 can be characterized as follows:
The federal budget’s contribution to national parks increased significantly
(by 35%). This is the first time in recent years that the share of federal
budget funds in the total NP budget increased (by 1.9%);
Financing from regional and local budgets and non-budgetary funds also
increased significantly (by 34%), while the growth of the budget share
increased (by 0.4%);
National Parks’ own earnings increased by 22%. However, the budget share
decreased somewhat (2.5%);
Foreign grants increased by 19%. However, the budget share slightly
decreased (0.6%);
A significant increase (by 211%) of funds allocated by Russian sponsors
and some growth of the budget share (0.7%).
V. B. Stepanitsky,
Manager of Federal Projects,
WWF
*Because Losiny Ostrov was under
the Moscow government in 2001, it was financed by the city budget (40,300,000
rubles); the park’s own earnings came to 2,300,000 rubles (versus 800,000 rubles
in 2000)
*Average weighted $ rate was 1 USD=29.15
rubles in 2001; 1 USD=27.6 rubles in 2000
