Rus

 

«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»

FUNDING OF STATE NATURE RESERVES OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN 2002 AND 2003: A SUMMARY

According to reports from state nature reserves (zapovedniks) of the MNR of Russia, the total budget of the zapovednik framework in 2002 was 494,162 thousand roubles, in 2003 – 500,758 thousand roubles – i.e. it has grown by 1.5% (taking into account the 12% inflation) and included lots of articles (see the Table 1*). The Table also shows that in 2003, in comparison with 2002, 2 articles out of 5 have reduced nominally; 2 other articles (including those funded from the legally-stated main funding source – the federal budget) have reduced in real terms; and only own revenues have grown not only nominally but also in real terms.

Table 1. Funding sources of zapovedniks of the MNR 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

410,966

82.1

384,087

77.7

+ 4.4

+ 7

Regional and local budgets, non-budget funds

32,877

6.6

34,997

7.1

– 0.5

– 6

Foreign grants

7,454

1.5

33,047

6.7

– 5.2

– 77

Own revenues

36,851

7.4

30,590

6.2

+ 1.2

+ 20

Funds from domestic sponsors

12,609

2.5

11,442

2.3

+ 0.2

+ 9

Total

500,758

100

494,162

100

 

+ 1.3

In 2002, the average annual budget of a Russian zapovednik was 5,202 thousand roubles, while in 2003 it was 5,271 thousand roubles. Zapovedniks that had highest and lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003 are listed in the Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Zapovedniks with highest budgets in 2002 and 2003

Zapovedniks with highestbudgets in 2002

Zapovedniks with highest budgets in 2003

Title

Budget, thousand roubles

Percentage of federal funds, %

Title

Budget, thousand roubles

Percentage of federal funds, %

Caucazsky

18,259

71

Kronotsky

24,943

78

Kronotsky

17,109

83

Caucazsky

18,765

74

Yuzhno-Uralsky

14,223

95

Laplandsky

14,277

52

Laplandsky

14,138

42

Yuzhno-Uralsky

13,319

92

Kandalakshsky

12,869

62

Sikhote-Alinsky

12,625

90

Sikhote-Alinsky

12,625

82

Taimirsky

12,623

81

Teberdinsky

12,614

86

Teberdinsky

12,596

75

Taimirsky

11,923

76

Voronezhsky

12,466

92

Voronezhsky

10,428

83

Sayano-Shushensky

11,262

70

Yugansky

8,567

55

Baikalsky

11,601

90


Table 3. Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2002 and 2003

Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2002

Zapovedniks with lowest budgets in 2003

Title

Budget, thousand roubles

Percentage of federal funds, %

Title

Budget, thousand roubles

Percentage of federal funds, %

Visimsky

2,255

72

Polistovsky

2,176

99

Belogorie

2,232

76

Dagestansky

2,120

83

Tigireksky

2,101

43

Privolzhskaya Lesostep

2,116

88

Dagestansky

2,057

81

Belogorie

2,080

90

Basegi

1,873

89

Denezhkin Kamen

1,975

99

Denezhkin Kamen

1,852

92

Nurgush

1,849

100

Polistovsky

1,735

99

Visimsky

1,740

98

Rdeisky

1,713

85

Kaluzhskie Zaseki

1,622

89

Kaluzhskie Zaseki

1,645

86

Basegi

1,581

97

Bogdinsko-Baskunchaksky

1,286

91

Tigireksky

1,356

94

Generally, there is a disturbing trend in the zapovednik network: the number of zapovedniks with subaverage budgets is growing. In 2001, there were 57 such zapovedniks; in 2002 – 63; in 2003 – 64, i.e. almost 2/3 of the total number.

In 2001, 86 zapovedniks had received funding from regional and municipal budgets and non-budget sources; in 2002 – 73; and in 2003 – only 64. Perhaps, main reasons for this trend are current transition of the tax basis from regions to the federal centre (regarding both the consolidation taxation and collection degrees of various taxes) and limitations of regional authorities’ powers with regards to natural resource management – this discourages local authorities from assisting federal institutions.

Zapovedniks that have received highest funding from these sources are listed in the Table 4, while regions that had assisted zapovedniks located within them best of all are listed in the Table 5.

Table 4. Zapovedniks that had highest funding
from regional and local budgets and non-budget sources in 2002 and 2003

Zapovednik

2002

2003

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Malaya Sosva

3,867

48

5,086

56

Yugansky

3,797

44

3,802

44

Taimirsky

2,657

22

2,288

18

Volzhsko-Kamsky

2,587

51

   

Verkhne-Tazovsky

1,747

34

800

17

Teberdinsky

1,182

9

   

Voronezhsky

1,135

11

   

Rostovsky

1,000

37

1,000

44

Nenetsky

992

23

1,198

29

Pechoro-Ilichsky

940

17

990

17

Shulgan-Tash

   

1,427

21

Chernie Zemli

   

1,377

53

Kerzhensky

   

1,033

25

Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was not in the top ten in this year.


Table 5. Regions where regional and local budgets
and non-budget sources had assisted zapovedniks best of all in 2002 and 2003

Region

2002

2003

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in budgets of zapovedniks of the region, %

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in budgets of zapovedniks of the region, %

Hanti-Mansiysky Autonomous District

7,664

46

8,888

50

Taymir Autonomous District

3,170

17

2,960

17

Republic of Bashkortostan

   

1,486

6

Republic of Kamikia

   

1,377

53

Khabarovsk Krai

936

4

1,295

7

Nenetsky Autonomous District

992

23

1,198

29

Chita Region

   

1,140

12

Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous District

2385

30

1,084

16

Nizhny Novgorod Region

853

21

1,033

25

Voronoezh Region

1,703

11

1,026

6

Rostov Region

1,000

37

1,000

44

Republic of Komi

940

17

990

17

Republic of Tatarstan

2,587

51

768

26

Bryabsk Region

   

751

22

Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia

1,182

9

748

6

Murmansk Region

1,591

5

700

3

Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the region was not in the top ten in this year.


Republics Adigea, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Mariy-El, and Hakasia; Kirov, Leningrad, Pskov, and Sakhalin regions opted out of financial assistance to zapovedniks located within them both in 2002 and 2003; Republic of Kalmikia and Koryaksky Autonomous District – only in 2002; Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Altaisky Krai, Primorsky Krai, Tver Region, Chukotsky and Evenkiysky Autonomous Districts – only in 2003.

In 2002, 63 zapovedniks have received foreign charitable grants; in the next year – only 37. Since 2001, the amount of charitable aid has reduced by more than 5 times (from 40,241 thousand roubles to 7,454 thousand roubles). In 2003 this reduction was drastic (see the Table 1). There are both objective and subjective reasons behind this trends. The first ones include the fact that the state budget of Russia was profitable for a number of years, and foreign donors reasonably think that the state is able to increase funding of its institutions without any donations. In addition, due to the growing terrorism threat, many countries – international donors – reduced significantly financial aids to other countries in many areas, including environmental conservation. The last ones include the continuous mess in the power distribution between various ministries and MNR departments as well as incompetence and clumsiness of the former senior management of the Ministry that have discouraged international donors from dealing with the MNR.

Main donors are the Global Environmental Facility (although its share has reduced from 69% of total grants in 2002 to 27% in 2003) and US governmental institutions (22% and 34% respectively). Zapovedniks that had highest funding from these sources are listed in the Table 6.

Table 6. Zapovedniks that had highest funding in the form of international grants in 2002 and 2003

Zapovednik

2002

2003

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Sikhote-Alinsky

2,286

18

995

10

Khingansky

2,286

36

   

Privolzhskaya Lesostep

2,037

48

   

Bolshekhekhtsirsky

1,657

32

   

Norsky

1,601

61

   

Khakassky

1,533

21

   

Bastak

1,519

38

   

Barguzinsky

1,421

20

   

Tungussky

1,395

29

   

Sokhondinsky

1,386

25

   

Bolshaya Kokshaga

   

1,781

47

Sayano-Shushensky

   

1,678

15

Pasvik

   

1,268

32

Teberdinsky

   

1,003

8

Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina

   

862

13

Kronotsky

   

755

3

Lazovsky

   

702

8

Baikalsky

   

678

6

Bryansky Les

   

592

17

Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was not in the top ten in this year.


Zapovedniks have somewhat compensated the reduction of real and nominal funding in 2003 by own revenue-generating activities. Almost all zapovedniks (87 in 2002 and 88 and 2003) were earning own funds. Most successful zapovedniks are listed in the Table 7.

Table 7. Zapovedniks that had earned highest revenues in 2002 and 2003

Zapovednik

2002

2003

Earnings, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Earnings, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Kandalakshsky

4,124

32

2,114

21

Laplandsky

3,432

24

3,343

23

Kronotsky

2,647

15

4,114

16

Astrakhansky

2,212

29

2,694

35

Wrangel Island

1,587

21

1,560

25

Caucazsky

1,556

9

2,337

12

Kurilsky

1,215

21

2,150

31

Kivach

769

26

   

Yuzhno-Uralsky

722

5

   

Prioksko-Terrasny

688

11

   

Teberdinsky

   

1,435

11

Chernie Zemli

   

1,324

25

Poronaysky

   

1,285

34

Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was not in the top ten in this year.


The structure of zapovedniks’ own funds is shown in the Table 8.

Table 8. Structure of zapovedniks’ own funds in 2003
(in comparison with 2002)

Revenues from

Amounts, thousand roubles

2002

2003

Visitors services

7,591

11,980

Forestry, timber procurement and sales

898

1,380

Other allowed limited nature uses in zapovedniks and their protected zones (including fees for transit movement)

5,066

3,840

Penalties, fines, sales of seized stuff

2,962

5,383

Contract-based research studies (in addition to studies funded from the federal budget)

11,555

12,432

Other activities

2,518

1,836

Total

30,590

36,851


52 zapovedniks gained financial support from domestic sponsors in 2002; 48 – in 2003 (see the Table 9). The total amount of the support was 12,609 thousand roubles in 2003 and 11,442 thousand roubles in 2002. It is strange, however, that 3 zapovedniks out of 100 received more than half of the total aid in 2003 and 3/4 in 2002 – i.e. the aid was throwaway. This fact characterises the situation with charities in the country very well. As a matter of fact, there are neither moral nor physical (i.e. tax-related) incentives for charity in Russia. Sometimes, charitable activities (at least, in the social sphere) provoke additional nearly inspections by tax authorities. Endless changes in economic and tax legislation, together with persecution of businessmen make businesses insecure of the future, force entrepreneurs to remove their money and businesses from the country and do not provide incentives for creating positive image (including charitable activities) within the country.

Table 9. Zapovedniks that have gained highest financial support
from domestic sponsors in 2002 and 2003

Zapovednik

2002

2003

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Funding, thousand roubles

Percentage in the budget, %

Caucazsky

3,470

19

2,331

12

Laplandsky

3,420

23

2,987

21

Oksky

1,493

20

1,253

19

Astrakhansky

536

7

268

3

Nizhne-Svirsky

336

13

   

Sayano-Shushensky

227

3

403

4

Wrangel Island

226

3

   

Kronotsky

160

1

557

2

Vishersky

142

5

   

Bashkirsky

130

3

   

Shulgan-Tash

   

1,238

18

Stolbi

   

814

16

Comandorsky

   

501

13

Darvinsky

   

246

3

Note: Absence of figures in some cells means that the zapovednik was not in the top ten in this year.


Charitable donations of various categories of domestic benefactors are shown in the Table 10.

Table 10. Participation of domestic benefactors
in the funding of zapovedniks in 2002 and 2003

Types of organisations

Funding, thousand roubles

2002

2003

Industrial plants

5,590

8,509

Transportation enterprises

1,840

400

Other commercial structures

1,430

703

Non-governmental organisations

1,051

923

Private persons

1,531

2,074

Total

11,442

12,609


In general the following dynamics in the funding of zapovedniks can be observed:

  • significant (by 65%) in 2002 and small (by 7%, i.e. lower than the current inflation level) in 2003 growth of funding from the federal budget; continuous, but decelerating growth (from 11% to 4.4%) of the federal budget percentage in the total funding of zapovedniks;
  • significant reduction (by 20% in 2002 and by 7% in 2003) of the nominal funding of zapovedniks from regional and local budgets and non-budget funds;
  • significant reduction (more than 5 times within 2 years) of funding from foreign donors;
  • steady, outgrowing the inflation, growth of own revenues;
  • growth of funding from domestic donors – while in most zapovedniks, the percentage of this funding source is very small.

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: *Note: data on zapovednik framework funding in previous years are available in the Bulletin “Zapovedniks and National Parks” (#31/2000, #34/2001, and #39/2002).

<< | contents | top | >>

 

OUR PUBLICATIONS


Nature Reserves and National Parks


ATTENTION!

2010 International Year of Biodiversity Website launched in Montreal!


TEEB
Russian Clearing-House mechanism on biological diversity

Volunteers Join Us

OUR BANNERS

Biodiversity

NAVIGATION

Home page
Site map (in Russian)

Subscribe to the BCC news
(in Russian):


<<<back

© 2000-2022 Biodiversity Conservation Center. All rights reserved