Accounting of ecosystem services in the resource efficiency assessment of specially protected natural territories of the Komi Republic

The term “ecosystem services” (hereinafter – ES) implies the recognition of the fact that wellbeing and survival of people depends on nature, and a man is an integral part of modern biosphere [1]. Only the search for adequate assessments is an indicator of modern economy. Despite the absence of specific/strict methods of particular ES cost characteristics, it is impossible to ignore this assessment.

In Russia, ES do not enter the market, which means that they cannot be competitive. Nevertheless, the assessment of their significance now becomes an important component of efficiency with the usage of natural capital. Research in this area indicates the beginning of the stage of recognizing the value of natural capital and conducting various assessments (biological, environmental, and economic), in terms of the impact on the economy of many entities [1–7]. Development of schemes and mechanisms for accounting ES concerned the organization of sustainable nature management on the territory of specially protected natural areas (hereinafter – SPNA), based on the inclusion of the tourism and agricultural economic sectors, as well as traditional nature management [5; 7]. Experience of foreign countries is filled with practical developments of economic nature, including payments, various schemes of support from governments, mechanisms for compensating losses from the ES loss [8– 12]. Thus, the GIS-toolkit “Land Use Modeler” (LUMO) was developed and tested for the project “Landscape of Saxony 2015” (2009–2012), which allows displaying capabilities, potentials, risks, ES resources, and topographic relationships in the territorial context [13]. In the Republic of Belarus, ES are taken into account at the design stage of assessing the impact of economic projects on the environment; various compensatory measures and payment of damages in accordance with the developed methodology are provided1. At the stage of the conducted monetary ES assessments, their integration into the economic accounting of the usage of natural resources becomes relevant [1; 14]. There is a number of foreign studies aimed at the selection of activities on the SPNA territory: for example, modeling and analysis of the relationship between recreational ecosystem services and benefits of traditional nature management [15].

At the same time, the value of recreational services in the SPNA varies tenfold, and it is highly dependent on the biodiversity of entities, population’s well-being, infrastructure quality, and availability of objects [16].

In Russia, the main development driver is the national project “Ecology”, where the preservation of biological diversity includes the creation of at least 24 new specially protected natural areas with the development of recreational services2. The objects of our attention were the SPNA from the point of view of the ecological factor of the increment of net savings. The overall purpose of the study is to assess the economic growth through adequate consideration of the social, economic, and environmental aspects of resource management at the regional level. The adjustment of net savings is proposed as an integral method for assessing resource efficiency. In accordance with the concept of resource efficiency, adopted in the study, inversion pairs are used in terms of eco-efficiency: resource productivity and resource intensity, environmental intensity and environmental productivity3. The adjusted net savings method (ANS), which takes into account social and environmental aspects, is acceptable for assessing environmental productivity4. According to the methodology for calculating adjusted net savings, the formula is used for Russia’s conditions:

ANS = GF – IA – DNR – DEP +

+ HCD + CEP + SPNA,       ⁽¹⁾

where GF – gross fixed capital formation;

IA – investments in fixed capital by type of activity “Mining”;

DNR – depletion of natural resources;

DEP – damage from environmental pollution;

HCD – budget expenditures on human capital development;

CEP – costs of environmental protection;

SPNA – assessment of specially protected natural areas.

The focus of the study is the assessment of the resource efficiency by adjusting net savings through the efficient usage of resources in the SPNA. Previously, we analyzed and evaluated the positive impact on the GRP by evaluating the value of ecosystem services and considering regional tourist and recreational destinations [17]. However, the use of these options without their combination has a limited focus. The objectives of our research are to identify the mechanism for calculating and evaluating the SPNA; to select “profitable” ES for the region; and to propose efficient usage of these territories.

Analysis of assessment methods

According to S.N. Bobylev’s methodology [18], the logic of the SPNA assessment is that the GRP production on the region’s territory is distributed evenly. The SPNA are territories which are fully or partially withdrawn from the economic activity, which means that the lost income relative to the GRP will be a necessary amount. The author’s opinion is associated with more detailed and correct assessment of the value of the SPNA considering the ES. On the one hand, the budget receives less income from the exploitation of the territory; on the other – protected areas allow their untouched nature to ensure the environmental quality of adjacent territories that can bring income. Many regulatory services function, including the absorption of cross-border pollution. The understanding of this problem is shown even in the loss of financial benefits from business for the sake of preserving natural resources. Thus, a survey of managers of enterprises (more than 900 respondents) among small and medium-sized businesses in the field of tourism in the SPNA confirmed the willingness to lose financial benefits from tourism and direct use of resources to ensure living conditions, quality and environmental protection [19]. As a result of the research, it was revealed that the value of industrially active territories (for example, for coal mining) is comparable to the volume of ecosystem services in the form of recreation and aesthetic benefits for people [20]. The oxygen content in the air and river water outside and in protected areas contributes to the improvement of the natural environment of nearby territories due to the protected regime in the SPNA [21]. Thus, consideration of regulatory services (not just production and cultural services – ones that fit into market relations the most) provides many benefits for population. This fact explains the reason for using the economic assessment of the SPNA ecosystem services on the basis of the concept of total economic value according to the cost calculation of benefits provided at these facilities [2; 22; 23].

Most methods of assessing the SPNA in terms of resource usage efficiency are based on calculations of tourism, or recreation, benefits, as well as the traditional usage of natural resources by population at these objects. Thus, S.B. Boldyreva, according to the statistical reports of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD), records a high contribution of tourism to the GDP, for example, in Iceland (27.2%), Greece (18.5%), New Zealand (17.4%), Portugal (16.4%), Spain (10.8%), Australia (10.8%), Italy (10.2%), Sweden (9.6%), France (9.1%), Germany (8.9%), the United States (8.2%), and other countries [24]. Obviously, such high values are most likely obtained due to business, event, and sea tourism. Nevertheless, ecotourism in the SPNA annually brings considerable income to national budgets of these states (from 660 to 1.2 trillion dollars). There is a synergistic effect, while the distribution of income of the territory itself and related businesses is not uniform. G.T. Shkiperova and other scientists refer to the experience of foreign studies on the costs of maintaining the SPNA and income received from eco-tourism (tour operators, public catering enterprises, hotels, gas stations, shops, etc.), which is estimated as 1:5 and higher5 in many countries [25–27]. Currently, according to the UNWTO, the contribution of eco-tourism to the global tourism industry is only 10%, in the Russian Federation – 2%, or 11.7 million dollars6. The main flow of tourists who prefer ecological types of recreation appears in the SPNA.

The methodology for assessing tourism in a region is based on the System of National Accounts developed under the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the World Tourism Organization, and Eurostat. It is based on methods for calculating the GDP7. The GRP is calculated by the production method as the sum of the values added created in the sectors of the economy in producers’ prices8.

Assessment of tourism at the SPNA objects of the region is performed using the cluster approach, reflecting the specificity of this activity, taking into account the geographically neighboring companies characterized by common activities [28] and the concept of chain and distribution values of the tourism product [29; 30]. Thus, protected areas act as destinations where the value added chain is created within the network interaction of tourism entities with the management system and mechanisms for promoting the tourist product. The level of the efficiency of tourism activities in the SPNA as destinations reflects the indicator of gross value added.

In 2019, «Methodology for calculating indicators “Gross value added of the tourism industry” and “Share of gross value added of the tourism industry in the gross domestic product of the Russian Federation”»9 was approved. In it, gross value added of the tourism industry (GVATI), due to the classification grouping of types of economic activity “Tourism” [2], is defined according to the formula:

GVATI = OTI – ICTI,        (2)

where OTI – cost of production of goods and services,

ICTI – cost of intermediate consumption10.

Gross value added of tourist destinations located within protected areas (GVATIд) is calculated as the difference between the amount of revenue from sales of tourist services of entities belonging to the “Tourism” classification group (OTIд) and their material costs (ISTIд). Restrictions in the calculation of gross value added were removed by expert means: in particular, in case of the extraterritorial nature of tourist companies or the lack of recording of tourist and recreational activities in the accounting statements of entities engaged in several types of activities at once.

Assessment of protected areas in the region

Considering tourism, the leading federal SPNA in the Komi Republic are Yugyd Va National Park and Pechora-Ilych Nature Reserve. The flow of tourists to the Yugyd Va National Park has slightly increased in 2000–2018: in 2000, it was 5,000 people a year, by 2018 – 7,300 visitors. At the same time, the share of local residents of the districts prevails (65% of the total flow), share of residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg does not exceed 11%; tourists from other Russian towns – 21%; foreign visitors – 3%11. Types of tourism include rafting on non-motorized vessels – 42%; hiking – 12%; waterhiking – 15%; weekend recreation – 31%.

The reserve includes many natural objects, ecological trails, a museum, and a unique moose farm (the first one in Russia). In recent years, the tourist flow has been growing (from 1,000 people in 2000 to 3,200 in 2018). This could be also explained by the fact that, in 2008, the Manpupuner plateau was included in the list of the seven wonders of the world in Russia. Despite the remoteness of the object from a convenient transport network, the flow of tourists in 2008–2012 reached 500 people a year. However, this fact is not considered positive for the plateau itself and the nature reserve trails. Only thanks to activities of the inspection, the installation of cordons and various restrictive

Table 1. Gross value added of tourist destinations of protected areas (expert assessment of 2018), mil. rub.

Activity according to the “Tourism” classification group	Yugyd Va National Park			Pechora-Ilych Nature Reserve
	GVATI д	OTI д	ICTI д	GVATI д	OTI д	ICTIд
Organization of complex tourist servicing, services of tour operators*	31.55	38.67	7.11	3.20	4.00	0.80
Activities of hotels and tourist bases (hotel “Erkusei”, Yugyd Va National Park base)	0.35	1.5	1.15	0.60	1.3	0.70
Aviation transport services and services of the tour operator “Severny Ural”	1.75	3.48	1.73	6.0	12.2	6.20
Railway transport services	24.0	52.0	28.0	-	-	-
Automobile and other transport services (SPNA and other entities, mainly in Inta town)	29.00	49.30	20.30	1.52	3.36	1.52
Retail sale of souvenirs	0.15	0.17	0.02	2.00	2.20	0.20
Total	88.15	145.12	58.31	13.32	23.06	9.42

*Active recreation in Komi, NordUral, active recreation in the Urals, IP Dan’ko V.Yu. NP Yugyd Va, Pechora-Ilych Nature Reserve, and other tourism sites.

Source: own calculation.

measures, a number of visitors was reduced to the amount allowed for the territory – 200 people a year, including tourists from the Sverdlovsk Oblast.

The information base for identifying the cost of tourist services was a survey of the heads of tourism entities and the Internet resources of travel agencies, where the cost of a tourist service or product was indicated. The volume of services was specified through a number of visitors, which is recorded by the administration of the national park and reserve. The material costs of tourism entities were determined in the course of a survey of managers and tourists who received services, as well as on the basis of tour programs. An expert assessment of the added value of the SPNA destinations based on actual indicators of revenue and costs of tour operators is presented in table 1 .

The most important link in the food chain in federal protected areas is transport services. The volume of interaction between transport companies and the SPNA in terms of the delivery of tourists is 61.4% of the destination’s revenue (62.27 million rubles). Tourist companies served only 27% of tourists (about 3,000 people) who visited these protected areas, which generate 42.5 million rubles (41.8%) of the gross value added of destinations. At the same time, it should be noted that the tour operator “Severny Ural” also provides services for the air transportation of tourists, primarily on the Manpupuner plateau. The calculations for 2016 and 2018, performed according to the studied scheme, gave the following results. The gross value added of tourist destinations in 2016 amounted to 91.10 million rubles. In 2018, when the tourist flow increased by 32.3% compared to 2016 (to 10,500 people), and the tour operator was added, it reached 101.47 million rubles (see tab. 1). The share of the value of the tourist product of destinations in the GRP12 in 2016 was only 0.02%. Considering efficient usage of resources and increasing gross value added, the priority is the growth of tourist services, since, without the quantity and quality of tourist goods, the flow of tourists does not bring income but only increases the cost of maintaining security and tourist infrastructure of the SPNA. In this regard, it is important to strengthen the interaction of the SPNA administrations with service companies that provide catering and accommodation services for tourists. Only 0.2% of food is provided on the territory of the destination, the rest is purchased outside of it. Construction of a high-quality highway from Inta

Table 2. Gross value added of the regional SPNA (expert assessment of 2018), mil. rub.

Type of activity in the classification group “Tourism”	Zakazniki
	GVATI д	OTI д	ICTI д
Services of entities of tourist activity, including tourist bases located in relative proximity to protected areas	25.0	30. 2	5.2
Automobile and other transport services	13.5	15.6	2.1
Products of protected areas (mushrooms, berries, etc.)	-20.0	0.0	20.0
Total	18.5	45.8	27.3
Source: own calculation.

to the national park could significantly reduce costs per tourist (from 4000 to 1000 rubles). In addition, low income from accommodation facilities (2.3% of total destination’s income) is collected on the territory of destinations due to low capacity and high maintenance costs.

Unlike the federal SPNA, regional protected areas, which include 161 nature reserves, 67 natural monuments, and one protected natural landscape, generate 18.5 million rubles, but they do not form full-fledged tourist destinations with an appropriate level of tourist infrastructure development ( Tab. 2 ). Currently, only one out of twenty regional districts (Knyazhpogostsky) includes tourism entities in the SPNA, which make it possible to consider it a proto-destination without an appropriate organizational structure. The implementation of the state policy in the sphere of regional national protected areas development, including ecological tourism, is governed by SBI KR “SPNA Center”, which does not consider protected objects from the standpoint of the tourist destination formation.

The peculiarity of the tourist flow in these territories is the visits of residents of Syktyvkar, Ukhta, and Vorkuta for recreation and collecting berries, mushrooms, and other resources (about 10 thousand people). The services of tourism entities consist of the delivery and escort of tourists to protected areas and a possibility of living in neighboring territories. In general, tourism entities receive 25 million rubles from this type of activity.

In this situation, the role of regional protected areas is very specific. These are basic territories that do not receive money from tourism and give their resources to other users for free (minus 20 mil. rubles, see tab. 2).

As a result, it is necessary to focus on changing the role of the regional SPNA and redistributing income from tourism: at least partially compensating for losses from collecting resources of protected areas and creating an appropriate tourist infrastructure with an increase in the income of destinations.

The specifics of the author’s calculation are the inclusion of ecosystem services in the income component of the SPNA due to the dependence of the quality and availability of services of the recreation territory. The essence of economic assessment is narrowed down to the calculation of the ES through the product of natural and cost values. The calculation procedure is determined by the methods and key parameters discussed in previous authors’ publications [17; 31]. Thus, the key regulatory ES (water regulation, CO₂ deposition, water clearance, soil erosion protection, biodiversity conservation, and air pollution absorption) were initially selected and then calculated. The method of compensatory or alternative costs prevails in the evaluation of services, with the exception of the CO₂ deposit service for which an indirect market valuation is applied. ES were calculated within forestry and administrative districts; for the SPNA – proportionately to an area occupied by them in forest and administrative districts ( Tab. 3 ).

A high capacity of forest ecosystems to absorb dust and harmful substances from the atmosphere

Table 3. Economic assessment of ecosystem services of the SPNA (estimated data for 2018), mil. rub.

SPNA	Area, thous.hect.	Ecosystem services*
		WR	D	WC	P	BD	AP	Total
Reserve	721.3	87.1	105.3	57.7	461.2	17.0	2904.8	3633.1
National park	1894.1	208.6	104.5	50.5	698.8	16.5	10219.4	11298.3
Zakazniki	1281.8	202.0	67.3	115.1	775.3	72.0	11768.8	13000.5
Total	3894.8	497.7	277.1	223.3	1935.3	105.5	24893.0	27931.9
Percentage of total values, %		1.8	1.0	0.8	6.9	0.4	89.1	100
* Water regulation (WR); carbon deposition (D); water cleaning (WC); erosion protection (P); preservation of biodiversity (BD); Absorption of pollutants from air (AP). Sources: own calculation according to data of SNiP 23-01-99. Table 2. Climatic parameters of a warm period of a year. RF. Kemerovo Oblast, Kirov Oblast, Komi Republic, etc. and SNiP 23-01-99. Construction Climatology. Table 1. Climatic parameters of a cold period of a year. RF. Kemerovo Oblast, Kirov Oblast, Komi Republic, etc..; Atlas of the Komi Republic . Мoscow: Feoria, 2011. 294 p.; Red Book of the Komi Republic . Syktyvkar: Institute of Biology of Komi SC UB RAS, 2009. 791 p.; Forest Plan of the Komi Republic , 2019. 314 p.; On the State of the Environment of the Komi Republic in 2019: State Report . Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Komi Republic, SBI KR “Territorial Information Fund of the Komi Republic”. Syktyvkar, 2020. 162 p.

(9 t/ha of harmful emissions; 51 t/ha of dust per year) explains a maximum value in the calculations provided by the ES (89.1%). Forest ecosystems contain erosion processes, and the economic significance of this function is 6.9% of total economic effect.

When analyzing the cost values of the SPNA value, it is important to understand the goals and objectives of this type of action. It is obvious that, it is necessary to follow the rule of choosing those benefits that remain in the region for the SPNA assessment, thereby forming a regional product. In this regard, in the next section, we suggest discussing the choice of these services.

Discussion of the results

The main task of the SPNA is to protect natural ecosystems and preserve biodiversity, conduct scientific research in permitted areas – ecological tourism and recreation of population. It is obvious that only tourism and recreation of citizens form a real income and therefore contribute to the GRP. Despite a significant potential for ecotourism in the Komi Republic and the presence of world-class objects in it – the “Virgin Komi Forests” (UNESCO natural heritage site) in particular, the Manpupuner weathering pillars, Narodnaya mountain (the highest point of the Ural Mountains), it is not yet possible to get a sufficient economic effect from ecotourism in the SPNA of the republic.

Currently, an attempt has been made to obtain funds from the federal project “Ecology” (subprogram “Preservation of biological diversity and development of ecological tourism”)13 through participating in the all-Russian competition of investment projects for the development of the SPNA potential14. On demand of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Archival Affairs of the Komi Republic, the competition application Tourist and Recreational Cluster “Seventh Wonder of the World” was prepared (geographically extending beyond the UNESCO site “Virgin Komi Forests”) at the budget of 26.7 billion rubles. Within the project, four zones of the functional and planning organization of the tourist and recreational cluster were allocated: 1 – “Manpupuner Plateau”, 2 – “Lesnaya (Yaksha village)”, 3 – “Tima-iz Ski Area”, 4 – “Zhelannoe”. In particular, in zone 4 “Zhelannoe” (the Circumpolar Urals area), it is planned to create tourist bases (glamping for 20 people) at the foot of the Narodnaya mountain

(22 million rubles budget), Manaraga mountain (22 million); reconstruction of the Sanavozh base for 50 people (50 million) and quartz adit (20 million); development of helipads (12 million). The key project of the cluster is the construction of a highway (137 km, at the budget of 7.7 billion rubles) with bridges (including the one over the Kozhim River – 2.5 billion rubles) from Ints to the foot of Narodnaya Mount to ensure the delivery of tourists to the attractions. The project has reached the final stage of the All-Russian competition of investment projects for the development of the potential of specially protected natural areas.