FUNDING OF RUSSIAN NATIONAL PARKS IN
2002 AND 2003: A SUMMARY
The total budget of the national park framework in 2002
was 414,071 thousand roubles, in 2003 – 508,075 thousand roubles. Its
structure is provided in the Table 1.*
Table 1. Funding sources of national parks 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
228,987
45.1
191,232
46.2
– 1.1
+ 19.7
Regional and local budgets, non-budget funds (without the Moscow
City budget)
19,548
3.8
13,743
3.3
+ 0.5
+ 42.2
The Moscow City budget (funding of Losiny Ostrov NP)
57,415
11.3
48,800
11.8
– 0.5
+ 17.7
Foreign grants
10,528
2.1
14,271
3.4
– 2.3
– 26.2
Own revenues
179,201
35.3
141,296
34.1
+ 1.2
+ 26.8
Funds from domestic sponsors
12,396
2.4
4,729
1.1
+ 1.3
+ 162.1
Total
508,075
100
414,071
100
+ 22.5
In 2002, the average annual budget of a national park was 11,831 thousand
roubles, while in 2003 it was 14,516 thousand roubles. However, similarly,
with zapovedniks (see the article), these funds
were distributed irregularly: more than 2/3 of national parks in 2003
(24 out of 35) and almost 3/4 in 2003 (26) had budgets below average.
Parks that had highest and lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003 are listed
in the Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. National parks with highest budgets in 2002
and 2003
2002
2003
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Sochinsky
81,242
15
Sochinsky
99,774
12
Losiny Ostrov
51,292
0
Losiny Ostrov
83,109
7
Kenozersky
22,616
54
Nizhnyaya Kama
27,788
24
Kurshskaya Kosa
20,415
19
Kurshskaya Kosa
20,500
21
Samarskaya Luka
15,639
66
Kenozersky
19,740
54
Orlovskoe Polesie
13,916
70
Samarskaya Luka
18,224
61
Pribaikalsky
13,358
72
Pribaikalsky
18,160
69
Vodlozersky
12,857
94
Meshera
14,740
68
Mari Chodra
12,100
59
Orlovskoe Polesie
14,549
73
Nizhnyaya Kama
11,458
45
Vodlozersky
14,191
90
Table 2. National parks with lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003
2002
2003
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Title
Budget, thousand roubles
Percentage of federal funds, %
Alania
2,398
92
Shorsky
3,716
88
Shorsky
3,103
85
Nechkinsky
4,093
95
Prielbrusie
3,257
87
Chavash Varmane
4,144
88
Nechkinsky
3,761
86
Smolny
4,194
77
Smolny
3,814
76
Alania
4,947
92
Russky Sever
3,816
83
Meshersky
5,055
77
Chavash Varmane
4,027
88
Prielbrusie
5,343
74
Taganay
4,847
91
Taganay
5,656
93
Pripishminskie Bori
5,024
59
Yugid Va
5,664
67
Meshersky
5,201
67
Pripishminskie Bori
5,685
60
Most national parks received funding from regional budgets and non-budget
funds although in 2003 the number of regions that opted out of financial
assistance to national parks has grown significantly in comparison with
2002: Republics Bashkortostan, Komi, Mari El, and Udmurtia, Krasnodar
Krai, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Irkutsk, Kemerovo, and Ryazan regions joined
the Republic of Chuvashia; the Republic of Tatarstan has left this “company”.
Regions that had assisted national parks located within them best of
all are listed in the Table 4.
Table 4. Regions where regional and local budgets
and non-budget funds had assisted national parks best of all in 2002
and 2003
Region
Funding, thousand roubles
2002
2003 (percentage in the budget)
Moscow City
48,800
57,415 (69%)
Aginsky Buryatsky Autonomous District
3,149
2,864 (37%)
Yaroslavl Region
1,970
1,792 (19%)
Samara Region
1,046
1,603 (9%)
Orel Region
680
Saratov Region
663
Sverdlovsk Region
651
1,094 (19%)
Kaliningrad Region
613
825 (4%)
Archangelsk Region
548
Chelyabinsk Region
519
Republic of Tatarstan
6,535 (24%)
Republic of Karelia
675 (3%)
Novgorod Region
630 (5%)
Smolensk Region
541 (7%)
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the region
was not in the top ten in this year.
In 2003, the number of national parks that had received foreign charitable
grants has reduced to 7 (in 2002, it was 16); the total amount of the
charitable funding has reduced by almost 1.5 times (from 14.3 to 10.5
million roubles). We tried to identify possible reasons for this trend
in the previous article. Main beneficiaries are
listed in the Table 5. Main benefactors are the Global Environmental
Facility, the National Parks Fund, and governmental institutions of
the USA (2002), Norway, and Denmark (2003).
Table 5. National parks that had highest funding
in the form of foreign grants in 2002 and 2003
National park
2002
2003
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Funding, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Kenozersky
8,836
39
5,879
30
Sebezhsky
1,881
21
Plesheevo Ozero
1,350
12
Valdaisky
899
9
2,953
23
Paanayarvi
789
12
Ugra
519
7
1,151
13
Zyuratkul
187
3
Meshera
187
2
Tunkinsky
174
2
Losiny Ostrov
153
0,3
Bashkiria
185
3
Alania
155
3
Kurshskaya Kosa
152
0,7
Pribaikalsky
126
0,7
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the national
park was not in the top ten in this year.
In 2002, all the national parks of Russia have earned 141,296 thousand
roubles; in 2003 this amount has grown to 179,201 thousand roubles.
25% of the earnings in 2002 and 21% in 2003 were linked with forestry
activities and timber sales. The structure of national parks’ own revenues
and their dynamics are shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6. Structure of national parks’ own funds in
2003
(in comparison with 2002)
Revenues from
Amounts,
million roubles
2002
2003
Visitors services
33.2
31.8
Rent of lands
10.4
15.8
Forestry, timber procurement and sales
35.0
37.6
Other allowed limited nature uses in national parks (including
fees for transit movement)
49.7
64.5
Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff
3.7
20.5
Other activities
9.3
8.9
Total
141.3
179.2
Table 7. Changes in the structure of national parks’
own funds in 2003 (in comparison with 2002)
Revenues from
Percentage in the total amount of own funds
in 2003
Percentage in the total amount of own funds
in 2002
Visitors services
18
24
Rent of lands
9
7
Forestry, timber procurement and sales
21
25
Other allowed limited nature uses in national parks (including
fees for transit movement)
35
35
Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff
12
3
Other activities
5
6
Most successful self-funding national parks are listed in the Table
8.
Table 8. National parks that had earned highest revenues
in 2002 and 2003
National park
2002
2003
Earned, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Earned, thousand roubles
Percentage in the budget, %
Sochinsky
68,796
85
87,917
88
Kurshskaya Kosa
18,570
91
15,218
74
Nizhnyaya Kama
5,262
46
5,094
18
Mari Chodra
4,955
41
4,791
34
Samarskaya Luka
4,242
27
5,450
30
Khvalinsky
3,482
44
4,554
47
Orlovskoe Polesie
3,472
25
3,805
26
Pribaikalsky
3,350
25
5,353
30
Sebezhsky
3,105
35
3,330
34
Tunkinsky
2,562
25
Losiny Ostrov
19,962
24
Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the national
park was not in the top ten in this year.
Funding from domestic donors has almost tripled in 2002–2003 (from 4,729
to 12,396 thousand roubles) although the share of this funding source
in consolidated national park budgets remains very low. Possible reasons
for this are addressed in the previous article. Charitable donations
of various categories of domestic benefactors are shown in the Table
9.
Table 9. Participation of domestic benefactors
in the funding of national parks in 2002 and 2003
Types of organisations
Funding, thousand roubles
2002
2003
Industrial plants
2,536
10,821
Banks
400
–
Trade companies
15
22
Other commercial structures
1,346
245
Non-governmental organisations
101
351
Private persons
331
957
Total
11,442
12,609
In general, during the last 2 years, nominal and real (including inflation
adjustments) funding of national parks from almost all sources (except
foreign grants) is continuously growing.
It is necessary to note that the financial situation of Russian national
parks looks much more optimistic than that for zapovedniks (see the
article). Perhaps, this is because national parks
fit the market-based development strategy of the country better than
zapovedniks do. Financial investments into national parks (especially
into their tourism infrastructure) allow to create new jobs in depressive
regions and attract additional visitors’ funds – thus, improving the
situation with local and regional budgets. In addition, national parks
provide much more advertisement opportunities for domestic donors (including
hidden advertisement) rather than zapovedniks.
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: Data on national
park framework funding in previous years are available in the Bulletin
“Zapovedniks and National Parks” (#31/2000,
#34/2001, and #39/2002).
