Funding National Parks
An International Comparison
National Parks and Global Protected Areas
One hundred fifty years ago, when US President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act into law 1 , it might not have occurred to him that he would help inaugurate a groundbreaking system for nature protection that has evolved into a worldwide network of protected areas, safeguarding about 15 percent of the Earth’s land and providing a safe haven for biodiversity as well as recreational and educational opportunities for the public 2 .
The United States Congress established Yellowstone National Park in 1872, and on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act into law. Source: US National Park Service
As countries are set to reconvene at the second part of CBD COP 15 at the end of this year and agree to the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, safeguarding the world’s 30 percent of land and oceans through protected areas by 2030 (30 by 30) will likely become one of the key targets 3 . National parks, as a key category of protected areas 4 , will have an even more pivotal role in securing a sustainable future in which humans live in harmony with nature 5 .
At the first part of CBD COP 15 held in Kunming in 2021, China officially launched its first batch of five national parks, which would help underpin and spearhead China’s broader efforts to overhaul and streamline its patchwork of protected areas. As China has just embarked on this journey, PI is taking a timely look at financing for national parks globally because financing, as one of many enabling conditions for a well-functioning and effective national park system, is critical and yet often highly challenging.
Selection of Countries for Comparison
To make this exercise more relevant and meaningful, selecting the right countries for comparison on two important metrics is important:
- Countries broadly regarded as the “Gold Standard” in running their national park system (e.g., science-based planning, effective park management, and adequate staffing and funding)
- Countries currently at a comparable economic development level to China (i.e., upper middle-income economies) 6 and with a well-established national park system 7 .
For the former, the US, given its status as the birth country of national parks and a standard bearer of national park management, would make a fitting candidate for benchmarking. For the latter, selecting at least one upper middle-income country from each main continent for better geographic diversity would be helpful. For the reason described above, the US, Argentina, South Africa, Poland, and Thailand are selected for this comparison (Table 1). This article aims to use benchmarking to shed light on how China’s current spending on its national parks 8 broadly compares with other countries and how China can better plan and prioritize financing for national parks.
Table 1: Overview of the Countries Selected
Source: Calculations based on World Bank and Wikipedia data
Public Spending on National Parks at a Glance
Yellowstone National Park, Photo credit: Li Zhu
Given the competing priorities facing any country’s government, providing sufficient funding for its national park system is always a challenge. For example, even in the US, where national parks enjoy a high level of popularity and public support 9 , some of the parks are still straining to maintain their day-to-day operations. The deferred maintenance backlog for the entire national park system reached US$21.8 billion in fiscal year 2022 10 . In many less well-off countries, the financial shortfalls faced by their national parks are even more overwhelming.
In the US, Congress appropriated US$4.25 billion for use across the national park system (423 units in total, including 63 units designated as national parks and 360 units with different naming designations) in fiscal year 2021 11 . The budget translates to US$12,053 per km 2 based on a total of 85 million acres (343,983 km 2 ) under the National Park Service’s management 12 . Measured by the budgets for individual national parks, the combined budgets of the 63 national parks totaled US$507 million in 2021 13 , which is equivalent to a public spending level of US$2,392 per km 2 . This individual parks-based number is significantly lower than the overall spending level across the National Park Service. It could be misleading, however, because maintaining the national park system is a systematic undertaking that goes beyond merely keeping things running at each park and requires far more financial resources than the sum of individual park budgets would indicate. Therefore, the overall spending level across the Service (i.e., US$12,053 per km 2 ) should be a more accurate indicator of the financing level required to sustain the US national park system.
National Parks of the United States of America
Source: The National Park Service Zoom in for more detail
Talampaya National Park, Argentina Photo credit: Tomas Zrna/Gettyimages
In Argentina, the administration of national parks falls under the jurisdiction of the agency of the National Parks Administration (APN), which is part of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development 14 . Although the majority of APN’s management portfolio is national parks, it also oversees a handful of natural monuments, national reserves, and national marine areas. Given that the publicly available data does not provide a breakdown of the budgets between these different types of protected areas and that the vast area of marine protected areas can significantly distort the level of spending measured by US$ per km 2 , it is reasonable to use APN’s overall budget (after deducting its allocation for its Directorate of Marine Areas) divided by the total land area (i.e., excluding marine protected areas) under its management to approximate the spending level on national parks. In 2020, APN’s overall budget was ARS3.035 billion (US$43.407 million 15 ), of which ARS5.55 (US$79,300) was set aside for marine area administration 16 . With a total of 45,175 km 2 terrestrial protected areas managed as national parks 17 , this translates to a spending level of US$1,013 per km 2 .
National Parks of Argentina
Source: Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development Zoom in for more detail
In South Africa, South African National Parks, the entity under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) manages the national park system 18 . Based on its 2021 annual report 19 , the agency spent a total of ZAR2.93 billion (US$151.94 million) in 2020 on its 20 national parks with an aggregated land area of 42,000 km 2 . This translates to a spending level of US$3,618 per km 2 .
National Parks of South Africa
Source: South African National Parks Zoom in for more detail
In Poland, according to its Ministry of Climate and Environment’s budget (2021) 20 , the central government allotted PLN94 million (US$24 million) to the national park administration unit. With its 23 national parks that total 3,140 km 2 under its management, this is equivalent to a spending level of US$7,697 per km 2 .
National Parks of Poland
Source: Poland Ministry of Climate and Environment Zoom in for more detail
Tropical rainforest at Khao Yai National Park, Thailand Photo credit: Huchart Duangdaw/Gettyimages
In Thailand, based on the information from the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 21 , the Thai government budgeted THB11,493 billion (US$367 million) for the Department in financial year 2020 22 . The Department also oversees wildlife and forest conservation in addition to national parks, and its budget doesn’t provide a discrete cost center for all of its national park-related spending. The alternative is to divide the department’s overall spending based on the ratio between the publicly disclosed personnel budget for its national park administration and the department-wide personnel budget 23 , assuming the project-related spending corresponds to the staffing ratio between different functional units within the department 24 . Following this methodology, the public spending on national parks in 2020 was THB831 million (US$26.6 million), or US$418 per km 2 based on its 156 national parks with a total area of 63,532 km 2 . 25
National Parks of Thailand
Source: Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Zoom in for more detail
China officially launched its first five national parks at the first part of CBD COP 15 in 2021. Since they are still new, detailed budget and funding information is not yet publicly available. Moreover, even if such data exists, it may not be sufficiently representative of the spending needed to maintain the national park system because the early stage of creating the national park system would likely require a higher level of investment. Given these constraints, the best proxy for indicating a plausible level of spending for China’s national parks would be its existing protected areas. Because of national parks’ pivotal role in underpinning China’s reformed protected area system 26 , such a workaround should provide a useful frame of reference for the level of financing for national parks.
National Parks of China
Source: Global Times Zoom in for more detail
Sanjiangyuan National Park in China, Photo credit: Rose Niu
As the government spending on the entire protected area system is not publicly available and nature reserves account for the bulk of China’s protected areas by number and acreage, using the government’s spending on nature reserves to approximate the overall public spending level for protected areas is reasonable. Also, given the fact that government budgets (at both the central and provincial levels) currently do not provide a dedicated entry to account for nature reserves-related funding, aggregating the items related to nature reserves that are scattered in the budgets would likely result in different numbers depending on the methodologies adopted. Given this, a more viable alternative is to look at the actual spending of each nature reserve as well as the government departments and agencies overseeing nature reserves.
Based on the China Forestry and Grassland Statistical Yearbook (2020), maintaining and managing China’s nature reserves cost RMB25.5 billion (or US$3.9 billion) in 2020, which included expenditures by both the relevant government oversight agencies and all individual nature reserves (which are usually characterized as public service entities and mostly funded by public finance). As China’s nature reserves cover a total of 1.47 million km 2 in area 27 , this translates to a spending level of US$2,677 per km 2 .
Table 2: Public Spending on National Parks in Selected Countries
*In the case of China, the numbers listed in the table are for its nature reserves.
Clear from Figure 1, the level of public spending on national parks in these six countries is broadly reflective of each country’s economic development level as measured by GDP per capita. The US leads the pack, Poland, South Africa, and China occupy the middle ground, and Thailand and Argentina trail at the bottom.
Figure 1: Level of Spending on National Parks in Selected Countries (US$ per km 2 )
Of course, given the different economic circumstances (such as price levels, etc.) of these countries, comparing these numbers on a nominal basis could be misleading. To remedy this, an adjustment based on purchasing power parity (PPP) would be called for. PPP, as an economic concept and tool designed to minimize differences in price levels among different countries, can make price comparisons more meaningful when combined with nominal prices (i.e., directly based on currency exchange rates). As shown in Figure 2 below, after this adjustment, the nominal differences in funding levels for national parks between these countries are markedly reduced. In fact, in the case of South Africa, its spending on national parks is already comparable to that of the US. For China, its PPP-adjusted spending on nature reserves is now roughly one-third of the US, as opposed to less than a quarter on a nominal basis. For Argentina and Thailand, though still very modest on national park spending, their gap with the rest of the countries is narrower.
Figure 2: PPP-adjusted Spending on National Parks in Selected Countries (US$ per km 2 )
In addition to the direct comparisons based on absolute dollar amounts, examining how intensive each country’s spending on national parks is in relation to their respective economic development level is revealing. This can be achieved by calculating the ratio between the public spending on national parks (as measured by US$/km 2 ) and the country’s GDP per capita: A higher ratio would indicate a higher priority for national parks relative to the country’s economic development level and financial strengths, and vice versa.
Figure 3: National Park Spending Intensity in Relation to GDP per capita in Selected Countries
As shown in Figure 3, this reveals a very different picture. Viewed through relative spending intensity, the US no longer tops the chart. Instead, South Africa and Poland significantly outpace the US. This means these two countries spend a larger share of their financial resources on national parks relative to their economic development levels. China’s relative spending intensity is markedly higher than the US but lags far behind South Africa and Poland. Argentina and Thailand’s modest relative spending intensity for national parks may be indicative of the low priority of national parks in their overall government spending schemes.
Findings and Reflections
Based on the analyses above that rely on a diverse albeit fairly limited sample size, the following observations can be made.
The level of public financing for national parks (as measured by US$ per km 2 ) is broadly correlated with a country’s overall economic development level (as measured by GDP per capita). In other words, a more economically prosperous country can afford to spend more on its national park system than its less affluent counterparts. With China’s GDP per capita much smaller than that of the US but larger than that of Argentina and Thailand, these countries’ spending on national parks largely mirrors their relative economic development levels.
But there is also considerable variance even among the upper middle-income countries included in this analysis. For example, in nominal US$ terms, Poland’s GDP per capita is roughly only 1.5 times that of China (US$15,743 vs. US$10,409), but its spending on national parks (as measured by US$ per km 2 ) is three times that of China. In the case of South Africa, the contrast is even more pronounced—its GDP per capita is roughly half of China’s, but its spending on its national parks is 1.35 times and 2.4 times that of China in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. This reveals that even among countries with a comparable level of economic development, their spending on national parks in either nominal or relative terms can still vary significantly, which may reflect the importance each country places on protecting its national parks.
For China, the implications of this comparison are twofold. On the one hand, China’s current spending on its protected areas (in either nominal or PPP adjusted terms) trails behind not only the US but also its more comparable peers such as Poland and South Africa. If this international comparison is any guide, China would probably need to increase its public financing to build and effectively manage its national park system as well as to enhance its protected areas in general.
On the other hand, if viewed through the lens of relative spending intensity, China is already directing a significantly higher percentage of its financial resources than the US to national parks relative to their economic development levels (as shown in Figure 3). Compared to Argentina and Thailand, China’s GPD per capita is only about 25 percent higher, but its spending on national parks, in either absolute or relative terms, far exceeds that of those two countries. This is no doubt a testament to China’s commitment to domestic conservation.
At the same time, it could also mean that any further increase in public spending on national parks in China would likely be modest and incremental, given the fact that its current relative spending intensity already compares favorably with the US (Figure 3) and that the projected slower economic growth in China in the coming years would put further constraints on the government spending. Therefore, China’s national park efforts should go beyond trying to secure more financing. There is no question that financing is critical. Yet, financing alone is insufficient to ensure a well-managed national park system because the successful operation of national parks ultimately relies on well-designed and implemented plans, policies, and well-trained park managers. In this regard, China still has a lot of ground to cover to close the gap with national park management in the US and other more advanced economies in terms of resource management, visitor management, and staff capacity, among other key elements. Given this, China’s national park efforts may therefore benefit from a two-pronged approach—working to secure incremental growth in financing while at the same time maximizing the impact and efficiency of the existing funding.
Due to constraints around data availability, quality, and sample size, the comparison above is intended to paint a broad stroke picture of the landscape of public spending on national parks without delving into each country’s unique socio-economic and historical circumstances to account for the disparity in national park funding levels. A higher level of public funding for national parks alone is no guarantee for building and maintaining a successful national park system that truly delivers on resource conservation and public education. In addition, the same level of funding may yield vastly different results depending on the unique circumstances of each national park, such as its total acreage, resource conservation needs, and visitation intensity. As a result, the observations and findings outlined are indicative in nature and should be viewed with these caveats in mind. But even in this limited sense, these analyses offer an important frame of reference, placing each selected country in a spectrum that makes side-by-side comparisons possible and meaningful. The aim of this article is to serve as a starting point to help further this important examination and conversation about how to adequately and effectively fund national parks, which are the shared natural heritage for humanity.
Sources
7 Comparable economic development level with China here means falling into or bordering upper middle-income economies with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita between $4,046 and $12,535 in 2021, as defined by the World Bank.
8 Due to data availability, nature reserves will be used as an alternative to approximate spending on national parks. The rationale and methodology are detailed in the following sections.
15 Currency conversion throughout this article is based on the yearly average exchange rate between US$ and the local currency in the corresponding year.
