PA00HW8M.Pdf

BUDGET MONITORING: Analysis of Budget Execution in 2010

Budget Monitoring Contract # 121-А-00-08-00708-00 October 2008

Prepared for: Office of Economic Growth Regional USAID Mission for Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova

This publication is prepared by the Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER) as part of the Municipal Finance Strengthening Initiative (MFSI) project implemented with support of the American people provided through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). BUDGET MONITORING: ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION BOOK SERIES

The series is published by the Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER) as part of the Municipal Finance Strengthening Initiative (MFSI) project implemented with support of the American people provided through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The main goal of the project is strengthening the capacity of cities to plan and finance local development projects, in particular, those intended for improving the municipal infrastructure by strengthening their own financial resources and attracting alternative sources for financing of local development. www.ibser.org.ua ______

Budget Monitoring: Analysis of Budget Execution in 2010

This publication has been prepared and arranged by the following IBSER experts: I.F.Shcherbyna, Director General V.V.Zubenko, Deputy Director General, Director of PPB and Training Programs A.Yu.Rudyk, Director, Department of Tax Policy and Monitoring I.V.Samchynska, Director, Department of Financial Policy A.I.Korniyenko, Deputy Director, Department of PPB and Trainings Programs I.M.Pereli, Chief Economist, Department of Financial Policy M.S.Svyeshnikova, Banking Consultant ______

Budget Monitoring: Analysis of Budget Execution in 2010 / [I.F.Shcherbyna, A.Yu.Rudyk, V.V.Zubenko, I.V.Samchynska]; IBSER, Municipal Finance Strengthening Initiative Project, USAID. – К. : 2011. – 132 p.

Publisher’s Note: The contents of this product are the responsibility of the Institute for Budgetary and Socio- Economic Research (IBSER) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

All rights in this publication are reserved. Use of the monitoring materials must be coordinated with IBSER experts.

© USAID, 2010 © IBSER, 2010 CONTENTS 3

CONTENTS Executive summary ...... 9

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF THE NORMATIVE–LEGAL BUDGET FRAMEWORK FOR DECEMBER 2010 – MARCH 2011 ...... 14 1.1. Revenues of the state budget of Ukraine ...... 14 1.2. Expenditures of the state budget of Ukraine and the budget process ...... 15 1.3. Financing and state debt ...... 20 1.4. Public–private partnership ...... 21 1.5. Local budgets and interbudgetary relations ...... 22

SECTION 2. ANALYSIS OF MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS IN 2010 ...... 30

SECTION 3. ANALYSIS OF UKRAINIAN BANKING SYSTEM INDICATORS IN 2010 ...... 37

SECTION 4. ANALYSIS OF BUDGET INDICATORS IN 2010 ...... 51 4.1. Intake of revenues of consolidated budget and state budget of Ukraine in 2010 ...... 51 4.2. Financing of the state budget of Ukraine and state debt in 2010 ...... 61 4.3. Analysis of expenditures and crediting of the consolidated and state budgets of Ukraine in 2010 ...... 70 4.4. Execution of local budgets in 2010 ...... 84

APPENDIX ...... 114 Appendix А. Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine by Program Classification in 2008-2010 ...... 114 Appendix B. Execution of General Fund Revenues of Local Budgets in 2010 ...... 116 Appendix C. Data on the Status of Intergovernmental Settlements between the State Budget and Local Budgets in 2010 ...... 126 Appendix D. The Status of Remittance of State Budget Subventions to Local Budgets in 2010...... 129 4 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Nominal and Real Salaries and Wages by Region of Ukraine in 2008-2010 ...... 33 Table 3.1 Change in Assets of Largest Banks and Their Share in the Total Amount in 2010 ...... 47 Table 4.1.1 Revenues of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budget of Ukraine in 2007-2010 ...... 51 Table 4.1.2 Structure of Consolidated and State Budget Revenues in 2008-2010 ...... 53 Table 4.2.1 Financing of the State Budget of Ukraine in 2006-2010 ...... 64 Table 4.2.2 Budget Expenditures for Repayment and Servicing of State Debt in 2008-2010 ...... 65 Table 4.3.1 Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2008-2010 ...... 70 Table 4.3.2 Growth Rates of Certain Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2008-2010 Compared to Previous Periods ...... 74 Table 4.3.3 Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine by Functional Classification in 2008-2010 ...... 78 Table 4.3.4 Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine (with Intergovernmental Transfers) by Economic Classification in 2008-2010 ...... 79 Table 4.3.5 Indicators of Budget Credit Provision and Repayment in 2008-2010 ...... 82 Table 4.4.1 Dynamics of Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2008-2010 ...... 85 Table 4.4.2 Per Capita Local Budget Revenues Disregarded when Determining Intergovernmental Transfers and Capital Subventions by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 96 Table 4.4.3 Dynamics of Local Budget Expenditures (without the Funds Transferred from Local Budget to the State Budget) in 2008-2010 ...... 98 Table 4.4.3 Dynamics of Intergovernmental Transfers from the State Budget to Local Budgets in 2008-2010 ...... 109 LIST OF GRAPHS 5

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 2.1 Dynamics of Price Indices in 2007-2010 ...... 32 Graph 4.1.1 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues in 2005-2010 ...... 52 Graph 4.1.2 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues from Enterprise Profit Tax in 2005-2010 ...... 54 Graph 4.1.3 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues from Value-Added Tax in 2005-2010 ...... 56 Graph 4.2.1 Dynamics of the Ratio of State Budget Deficit and the State and State Guaranteed Debt to GDP in 2004-2010 ...... 62 Graph 4.2.2 Comparison Between State Budget Borrowing and State Debt Repayment in 2005-2010 ...... 64 Graph 4.3.1 Dynamics of Monthly Consolidated Budget Revenues in 2005-2010 ...... 72 Graph 4.3.2 Dynamics of the Share of Social Expenditures in the Structure of Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2006-2010 ...... 73 Graph 4.3.3 Dynamics of the Share of Special Fund Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine without Intergovernmental Transfers in 2005-2010 ...... 75 Graph 4.4.1 Dynamics of Monthly Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2005-2010 ...... 86 Graph 4.4.2 Dynamics of Actual Monthly Expenditures of Local Budget in 2005-2010 ...... 99 Graph 4.4.3 Share of Expenditures for Payroll with Taxes in the General Fund Structure of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 104 Graph 4.4.4 Rate of Growth of Transfers and Revenues of Local Budgets in 2005-2010 ...... 110 Graph 4.4.5 Dynamics of Remittances of the Equalization Grant and Funds Transferred to the State Budget from Local Budgets in 2006-2010 ...... 111 Graph 4.4.6 Dynamics of the Share of Transfers to the State Budget in Local Budget Expenditures in 2005-2010 ...... 113 6 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 2.1 Dynamics of Industrial and Agricultural Production Indices in 2008-2010...... 31 Chart 2.2 Export and Import of Goods and Services in 2009-2010 ...... 34 Chart 2.3 Structure of Foreign Trade in Goods by Key Partner Country in 2009-2010 ...... 35 Chart 3.1 Dynamics of Total Bank Assets in the National Currency in 2008-2010 ...... 39 Chart 3.2 Dynamics of Total Bank Assets in Foreign Currencies in 2008-2010 ...... 40 Chart 3.3 Dynamics of Bank Credits Issued to Legal Entities in 2008-2010 ...... 40 Chart 3.4 Dynamics of Bank Credits Issued to Individuals in 2008-2010 ...... 41 Chart 3.5 Dynamics of the Balance of Funds of Legal Entities at Bank Accounts in 2008-2010 ...... 42 Chart 3.6 Dynamics of the Balance of Funds of Individuals at Bank Accounts in 2008-2010 ...... 43 Chart 3.7 Financial Results of Banks in 2006-2010 ...... 44 Chart 3.8 Change in Net Assets and Shares of Banks ...... 48 in the Banking System in 2010 ...... 48 Chart 3.9 Dynamics of Problem Debts on Credits in 2006-2010 ...... 48 Chart 3.10 Financial Performance Losses in 2010 ...... 49 Chart 4.1.1 Revenues from Enterprise Profit Tax Paid ...... 55 by Enterprises of Various Forms of Ownership in 2009-2010 ...... 55 Chart 4.1.2 Value-Added Tax Reimbursement from the Budget in 2008-2010 ...... 56 Chart 4.1.3 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Taxes on Foreign Trade in 2009-2010 ...... 57 Chart 4.1.4 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Excise Tax in 2009-2010 ...... 58 Chart 4.1.5 Structure of Non-Tax Revenues of State Budget in 2008-2010 ...... 59 Chart 4.1.6 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Capital Transactions in 2008-2010 ...... 61 Chart 4.2.1 Dynamics of State Budget Deficit (–) / Surplus in 2006-2010 ...... 61 Chart 4.2.2 Structure of State Budget Sources of Financing in 2006-2010 ...... 63 Chart 4.2.3 Ratio of the State and State-Guaranteed Debt to GDP in 1999-2010 ...... 66 LIST OF CHARTS 7

Chart 4.2.4 Comparison between the Ratio of State Debt to GDP of Ukraine and Some Other Countries Worldwide as of 31 December 2010 ...... 67 Chart 4.2.5 Dynamics of the State and State-Guaranteed Debt in 2001-2010 ...... 67 Chart 4.2.6 State Debt Structure in 2009 ...... 68 Chart 4.2.7 State Debt Structure in 2010 ...... 69 Chart 4.3.1 Growth Rates of GDP and Consolidated Budget Expenditures in 2007-2010 ...... 71 Chart 4.3.2 Dynamics of State Budget Expenditures by Functional Classification in 2008-2010 ...... 76 Chart 4.3.3 Structure of Actual State Budget Expenditures ...... 80 by Economic Classification in 2009 ...... 80 Chart 4.3.4 Structure of Actual State Budget Expenditures ...... 80 by Economic Classification in 2010 ...... 80 Chart 4.3.5 Structure of Credits Issued at the Expense of the Funds Mobilized by the State or under State Guarantees as of 1 January 2011 ...... 84 Chart 4.3.6 Status of Borrowers’ Overdue Debt to the State under the Credits Mobilized by the State or under State Guarantees as of 1 January 2011 ...... 84 Chart 4.4.1 Shares of State and Local Budget Revenues in Consolidated Budget Revenues in 2007-2010 ...... 85 Chart 4.4.2 Per Capita Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) by Administrative Area in 2009-2010 ...... 87 Chart 4.4.3 Structure of General Fund Revenues of Local Budgets in 2006-2010 ...... 87 Chart 4.4.4 Structure of General Fund Tax Revenues of Local Budgets in 2009-2010 ...... 88 Chart 4.4.5 Dynamics of Revenues from Personal Income Tax in 2006-2010 ...... 89 Chart 4.4.6 Intake of Revenues from Personal Income Tax by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 89 Chart 4.4.7 Dynamics of Revenues from Payment for Land in 2006-2010 ...... 90 Chart 4.4.8 Dynamics of Revenues from Land Tax and Rent in 2006-2010 ...... 90 Chart 4.4.9 Dynamics of Revenues from Single Tax on Small Businesses in 2006-2010 ...... 91 Chart 4.4.10 Dynamics of Revenues from Single Tax on Legal Entities and Individuals in 2006-2010 ...... 91 Chart 4.4.11 Dynamics of Revenues from Local Taxes and Fees in 2006-2010 ...... 92 Chart 4.4.12 Structure of Local Taxes and Fees in 2006-2010 ...... 92 8 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.4.13 Structure of Non-Tax General Fund Revenues of Local Budgets in 2006-2010 ...... 93 Chart 4.4.14 Revenues Taken into Account when Determining Intergovernmental Transfers, by Region, in 2009-2010 ...... 94 Chart 4.4.15 Second Basket Revenues, by Region, in 2009-2010 ...... 95 Chart 4.4.16 Structure of Special Fund Revenues of Local Budget in 2006-2010 ...... 97 Chart 4.4.17 The Share of State and Local Budget Expenditures in Consolidated Budget Expenditures in 2007-2010 ...... 98 Chart 4.4.18 GDP Redistribution via Local Budget Expenditures in 2009-2010 ...... 99 Chart 4.4.19 Per Capita Expenditures of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 100 Chart 4.4.20 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Functional Classification in 2009-2010 ...... 101 Chart 4.4.21 General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Functional Classification in 2009-2010 ...... 101 Chart 4.4.22 General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2009-2010 ...... 102 Chart 4.4.23 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2009 ...... 103 Chart 4.4.24 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2010 ...... 103 Chart 4.4.25 Structure of Special Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets in 2006-2010 ...... 104 Chart 4.4.26 Special Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 105 Chart 4.4.27 The Share of Development Budget Revenues in Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2009 ...... 105 Chart 4.4.28 The Share of Development Budget Revenues in Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2010 ...... 106 Chart 4.4.29 Structure of Development Budget Revenues by Region in 2010 ...... 107 Chart 4.4.30 Development Budget Revenues by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 107 Chart 4.4.31 Dynamics of Development Budget Expenditures in 2006-2010 ...... 108 Chart 4.4.32 Development Budget Expenditures by Region in 2009-2010 ...... 108 Chart 4.4.33 Dynamics of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2006-2010 ...... 109 Chart 4.4.34 Structure of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2009 ...... 110 Chart 4.4.35 Structure of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2010 ...... 111 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Presented herein is the Budget Monitoring, a periodical publication prepared by experts of the Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER) as part of the implementation of the Municipal Finance Strengthening Initiative Project (USAID). The Monitoring materials are based on official reports of the State Treasury of Ukraine, information of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, and data of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, and the Committee on Budget of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as well as on data from other official sources. As usual, the publication provides a brief review of changes in the legislative framework, describes the key macroeconomic indicators, and identifies trends in the banking system development. A detailed analysis is provided of the results of the execution of the State budget and local budgets, which enables a determination to be made of the impact of the fiscal decisions on their status. Special focus is made on evaluating the performance of local budgets as the key financial mechanism for providing social services and guarantees to the population. The macroeconomic situation was characterized by a gradual recovery of economic growth throughout 2010, which was accompanied by a moderate increase of inflation and minor variations of the national currency exchange rate against U.S. dollar and the euro. Real GDP amounted to 104.2% in 2010 year-on-year1. This growth offsets only a third of the 2009 economic slump (-15.1%). Also, nominal GDP totaled Hr 1,095.0bn in 2010, having grown by Hr 180.3bn or 19.7% year-on-year. Thus, it is still too early to expect the value added to reclaim the level existing before the global financial and economic crisis. The real GDP growth is explained by an 11.0% increase in industrial output against a drop of -21.9% in 2009. This is related to a renewed demand for Ukrainian products on world markets. In particular, the production of mechanical engineering goods increased by 34.5% year-on-year, chemical and petrochemical industry grew by 21.%, metals and metal products rose by 12.3%. These industries account for more than 10.0% in the overall structure of gross value added (GVA) of key industrial activities. The renewed demand for Ukrainian products has caused a noticeable growth in the volume of exported goods and services (by 29.5% and 22.2%, respectively). At the same time, import of goods increased by 33.7% year-on-year. The volume of imports, however, continues to significantly exceed the volume of exports, with a negative foreign trade balance of Ukraine recorded at about $3.1bn since the beginning of the year. The 2009 indicator was also negative at $1.3bn. Real wages increased by 10.2% (they decreased by 9.2% in 2009). This, in turn, is helping to gradually restore domestic consumer demand. A confirmation of this is seen in the 7.6% growth of retail trade turnover year-on-year (to compare: this indicator dropped by 17.4% in 2009). The nominal average monthly wage level per full-time employee amounted to Hr 2,239 in the reviewed period, which is 17.5% more year-on-year. Thus, certain signs of overcoming the effects of the financial and economic crisis became noticeable in 2010, which was manifested in a gradual growth of GDP, personal income, and the export and import of goods and services. This created the foundation for the further stabilization of the macroeconomic situation in the country and the revival of economic activity.

1 http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ 10 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The Ukrainian banking system was characterized by the NBU conducting a strict money and credit policy and taking steps to limit pressures on the current exchange rate, and banks pursuing a more flexible interest-rate policy in order to attract client funds in the national currency. The banking system of Ukraine developed at an accelerated pace throughout 2010, in particular, with regard to growth of its aggregate assets. Thus, the total assets of the Ukrainian banking system increased by 8.8% in 2010 year-on-year, and reached Hr 1,090.0bn or $136.9bn. Commercial banks’ financial performance was negative in 2010,, at -Hr 13.0bn. This was primarily due to the reduced growth of operating income of banks and deductions into reserves to cover banks’ problem debts. Consolidated budget revenue intake in 2010 rose year-on in nominal terms. This trend is logical in the light of the overall economic recovery observed since the outset of the year. This is evidenced, among other things, by the statistics on the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, export and import figures and the increase in average wages. The execution of the consolidated budget expenditure plan was the highest in the last five years in 2010 at 97.3%. At the same time, significant changes occurred in the qualitative structure of both the expenditures, and sources of their funding. For instance, with consolidated budget expenditures increasing by Hr 70.5bn or by 23.0%, social expenditures grew at a faster rate and increased by Hr 50.2bn or by 26.4%. As the result, they totaled Hr 240.6bn or 63.7% of all budget expenditures, which is 1.7ppt more than in 2009. Ukrainian law puts the greatest burden of social expenditures on local budgets. As a result, local budgets allocated 84.6% of all expenditures to social purposes in 2010. The share of social expenditures in the State budget also increased substantially. It reached 49.6% of all State budget expenditures, which is 1.8ppt more than in 2009. This growth is mainly due to increased costs of labor, the granting of preferences and allowances, increased amounts of minimal social standards, and covering the Pension Fund deficit related to an increased subsistence level. Expenditures for the housing and communal services sector decreased by 27.3% in the period under review. Such changes in the structure of expenditures are indicative of the limited opportunities available for implementing any infrastructure development projects using budget funds. Therefore, the challenge once again is to create a legislative environment for revitalizing the financial services market and attracting credits and private resources both at the central and local levels. Accounting the amount of the internal government bond intended for reimbursing the value-added tax totaling Hr 16.4bn as budget revenues was a distinct feature in the execution of State budget revenues. Even though the issuance of VAT refund debt only presents the State’s recognition of its obligations and as such has no impact on budget revenues, the bond issue amount has been accounted as a realized refund, which has reduced the overall indicator of budget revenues in terms of accounting. A sharp cut in the amount of value-added tax budget refund occurred in 2010: the amount of refunded VAT more than halved compared to both 2008 and 2009 (Hr 15.4bn vs. Hr 34.4bn and Hr 34.5bn, respectively). Excise tax remains the most reliable source of State budget revenues, showing a trend towards sustainable growth thanks to the raising of its rates. In the period of 2009-2010, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 excise tax rates were increased on five occasions, and the revenues generated by this source more than doubled. The reverse side of this increase in the taxation level, which started to manifest itself only in 2010, consisted in a gradual increase in the volume of imported excise goods, and, hence, the replacement of domestic products, as well as the growth in illegal production and smuggling of excise goods2. Actual enterprise profit tax revenue was close to the estimated level. This was primarily due to an 81.0% greater payment of this tax by the private sector year- on-year. At the same time, banks and insurance companies more than halved their payment of this tax. Thus, despite some positive trends in the development of the Ukrainian economy in 2010 and signs of overcoming the consequences of the financial and economic crisis, certain problems, primarily linked to the administration of the budget tax revenues, have emerged in the execution of budget revenues. The nominal expenditures of the State budget increased by Hr 61.2bn or 25.3% year-on-year (up to Hr 303.6bn). Actual expenditures reached 98.6% of the annual plan, thus exceeding the 2009 figure by 13.5ppt. Against the backdrop of the growth in social expenditures mentioned above, the increase is also observed in State budget expenditures by economic category for nearly all the protected items, except medicines and bandaging materials3. A positive development is that capital expenditures increased by Hr 10.7bn or 2.0 times. The significant growth in the amount of capital expenditures occurred mainly as the result of the preparations for hosting the European 2012 Football Championship finals in Ukraine. Thus, a total Hr 6.2bn was allocated from the Stabilization Fund in the reporting period to the National Agency of Ukraine for the Preparation and Hosting of the European 2012 Championship in Ukraine for building and reconstructing sports stadiums and airports. In addition, the Ukravtodor (Ukrainian Motor Roads Service) received funding for work related to EURO 2012. Alongside the growing expenditures, there was a lack of revenue for their funding. This issue was especially acute for the budget’s General Fund, which was the main source for the upkeep of budgetary institutions in 2009-2010, given that nearly all development expenditures were moved to the Stabilization Fund included in the Special Fund. Hence, the resources borrowed for the General Fund were used for consumption rather than development. Any economic effect was indirect, with virtually no sources for future debt repayment created. The State budget deficit amounted to 5.9% of GDP, which is the highest figure for the last seven years. At the same time, debt as a percentage of GDP also reached its highest level. This confirms that borrowing was the main source of financing the State budget deficit in 2010. The amount of State budget borrowing totaled Hr 124.3bn, which is 2.7% more than in 2009, and 3.7 times more than in 2008. Debt repayment totaled Hr 26.7bn, which is Hr 97.6bn less than the amount borrowed. As a result, the State and State guaranteed debt increased by 36.4% year-on-year and reached Hr 432.3bn at the end of December 2010.

2 http://markets.eizvestia.com/full/eda-stanovitsya-nedostupnoj 3 The protected expenditure items by their economic structure include expenditures for: payroll of budgetary institutions with taxes, medicines and bandaging materials, foodstuffs, payment for communal services and energy- carriers, payment of interest/income on obligations, current transfers to the population, and current transfers to government units of other levels. 12 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The costs of State debt servicing also increased by 67.6% year-on-year or by Hr 6.6bn. The budget proceeds from the privatization of State property totaled Hr 1.1bn or 17.2% of the plan. This, however, is quite justified, given the decline in the market value of assets during the crisis and the inadvisability of selling State property before the situation in the economy stabilizes. Local budget revenues increased by 18.8% and reached Hr 158.3bn. A growing dependence, however, is observed in local budgets on intergovernmental transfers from the State budget. Their share in the structure of local budgets has been growing annually in recent years, reaching 49.1% in 2010. The key factor in the increased amount of transfers consisted in remitting a Hr 43.6bn equalization grant, which is 30.8% more than in 2009. At the same time, the revenues of local development budgets decreased by 6.9%. This led to their share in the total amount declining to 4.7%. The main sources of development budget revenues include the proceeds from the sale of land, disposal of municipally-owned property, and the resources remitted from the budget’s General Fund. However, compared to 2009, one can see an increase in nominal earnings only from the sale of land (by 4.1%), with the remaining sources decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. As usual, personal income tax is the largest source of local budget revenues. It increased by 14.7% and reached Hr 51.0bn. By budget level, the 2010 proceeds from this tax were allocated as follows: 68.6% for base-level budgets4; 11.6% for district budgets; and 19.8% for oblast budgets. Payment for land is another significant source of local budget revenues (Hr 9.5bn). These earnings rose by 14.1%. Proceeds from the single tax on small businesses and local taxes and fees were nearly equal to 2009 (Hr 1.9bn and Hr 0.8bn, respectively). Based on the 2010 figures, there is a rather substantial difference among the own- source revenues garnered by various oblasts. At the same time, according to the Budget Code of Ukraine, such revenues are to be used as sources for financing the housing and communal services sector, infrastructure improvement projects, environmental programs, construction, capital repairs and reconstruction of social and cultural assets. Granting intergovernmental transfers from the State budget is meant to act as one of the tools for leveling out such disparities. However, the data indicates that this mechanism is not currently used to its full extent, and the allocation of capital transfers is carried out without consideration for regional variations. A significant (more than tenfold) regional differentiation is noted with regard to the sufficiency of the revenue base for long-term expenditures. This is one piece of evidence of that the distribution mechanisms of capital transfers need to be improved. Local budget expenditures increased by 17.6% and totaled Hr 158.6bn. As usual, the majority of local budget expenditures are used for social and cultural activities. In this instance, there was a 9.6% decline in the expenditures for the housing and communal services sector. More than 96.9% of General Fund expenditures were allocated for the upkeep of budgetary institutions. Note should be made of the further growth in the share of expenditures for payroll with taxes, which is consistently the largest item from among all local budget expenditures, amounting to 45.6% in 2010 (53.5% of General Fund expenditures of local budgets). At the same time, the percentage of capital expenditures remains almost at the 2009 level

4 Budgets of villages, settlements, district-significance cities, oblast-significance cities, cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 and amounts to 7.7% of all local budget expenditures. In nominal terms, capital expenditures increased by 20.4% and totaled Hr 12.1bn. The dynamics of local budget expenditures differed somewhat from the trends of recent years. Thus, a year-on-year decline in monthly local budget expenditures was recorded in April 2010; however, they increased as usual by the end of the year. The level of GDP redistribution via local budget expenditures of Ukraine amounted to 13.89% in 2010, which is almost the same as 2009. At the same time, when considering this indicator by tiers of local budgets, note should be made of a 0.3ppt decrease in expenditures financed by base-level budgets4. 14 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF THE NORMATIVE-LEGAL BUDGET FRAMEWORK FOR DECEMBER 2010 – MARCH 2011

1.1. REVENUES OF THE STATE BUDGET OF UKRAINE

LAW OF UKRAINE The Law of Ukraine “On Certain Issues of Organization OF 3 DECEMBER of the Budget Process in the Year 2010” dated 3 December 2010, NO. 2774-VI 2010, No. 2774 was adopted in order to ensure the execution of the State budget of Ukraine in 2010 and in connection with the need to take into account the provisions of a decision issued by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. On 30 November 2010, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 22-rp/2010 to recognize as unconstitutional several provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for the Year 2010” with regard to Articles 14, 24, 64, items 7-13 of Section VII “Final Provisions,” which had amended and supplemented a number of legislative acts and suspended the effect of several laws for the year 2010. The Constitutional Court states in its Decision that the Law on the State Budget of Ukraine as a legislative act is clearly based on an interpretation of the budget as a plan of accumulation and use of financial resources; it has a special subject-matter of regulation, which is different from those of other laws of Ukraine, as it relates exclusively to setting the State’s revenues and expenditures to satisfy the general needs of society. Therefore, this law may not amend or suspend any existing laws of Ukraine, and may not establish any other (additional) legal regulations of the relations, which are the subject matter of other Ukrainian legislation. Therefore, the Verkhovna Rada passed a decision to make the appropriate amendments to legislation in order to ensure the implementation of the 2010 budget process. Among other things, Law No. 2774 sets the following provisions by amending the relevant laws: – it allows making payment in a freely-convertible currency in the process of privatizing State property; – it clarifies the composition of immediate family of a person entitled to benefits, for the purpose of benefit provision; – it sets the coefficient applied to the standard charge for geological prospecting carried out at the expense of the State budget at 3.19; – it sets the obligatory minimal amount of a dividend to be distributed by a stock company to shareholders from its net or undistributed profits at 30%. The Law came into force as of 30 November 2010. SECTION 1 15

LAW OF UKRAINE The Law of Ukraine dated 21 December 2010, No. 2797 OF 21 DECEMBER approved a new version of the Law of Ukraine “On the Customs 2010, NO. 2797-VI Tariff of Ukraine.” No revision of rates was made in the new version of the Customs Tariff, they were only brought into conformity with the 2011 Schedule of Ukraine’s tariff obligations for goods under the Protocol of Ukraine’s WTO accession when transferring the import duty rates. In addition, the Customs Tariff was brought in compliance with a new version of the Ukrainian classifier of goods in foreign economic activity, based on the 2007 harmonized system of description and coding of goods. The previous version of the Customs Tariff was based on the classification of goods formulated based on the harmonized system of description and coding of 2002. The Law came into effect as of 14 January 2011. 1.2. EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE BUDGET OF UKRAINE AND THE BUDGET PROCESS

ORDER OF THE The Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 25 November MINISTRY OF 2010, No. 1458 approved the Methodological Recommendations FINANCE OF for Preparing the Draft Procedures for Using State Budget UKRAINE OF 25 Funds. The Order was adopted for the purpose of bringing the NOVEMBER 2010, normative-legal acts of the Ministry of Finance into conformity with NO. 1458 the Budget Code and to replace the similar order of the Ministry of Finance dated 26 January 2008, No. 57, effective before. The new version of the Procedure mainly contains certain clarifications in connection with the enactment of the new version of the Budget Code as of 1 January 2011. At the same time, taking into account the need to introduce medium-term budgeting, which, according to international experience, should be based on strategic planning, IBSER experts note that a provision of the said Procedure incorporated according to Article 20 of the Budget Code stipulates that the procedure of using budget funds must contain the requirements with regard to the need for the received/created floating and fixed assets, including those resulting from centralized actions, to be recorded in the primary accounting and bookkeeping. It is the opinion of IBSER experts that the need for such accounting has been sufficiently regulated by the existing legislation. At the same time, for the performance indicators to reliably reflect the quality of implementation of the budget programs related to creation, reconstruction, and modernization of fixed assets, some other forms and procedures for asset accounting need to be introduced. This accounting must cover both the property of State enterprises and budgetary 16 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

institutions, and contain the information describing the status and market value of such properties. Taking into account the results of asset management when making budget decisions is an important component of strategic planning and medium- term budgeting in general.

ORDER The Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 1 December OF THE MINISTRY 2010, No. 1489 approved the Requirements to and Formats OF FINANCE of Public Presentation of Budget Information by Key OF UKRAINE OF Spending Units of the State Budget. According to this Order, 1 DECEMBER 2010, the complete information must contain: NO. 1489 – name of key spending unit, its mission and objectives; – analytical information about budget execution in general for the key spending unit, by implementing institution in charge, as well as by budget program with a breakdown of expenditures by economic classification of expenditures and crediting; – information about the achievement of performance indicators according to a format similar to the respective form included in reports on passports of budget programs, which contains the planning and actual indicators; – information about the performance of targeted programs, as well as investment projects, implemented as part of budget programs. A key spending unit shall publish the full information on its website; at the same time, a brief form of information may be published in mass media, including the goal, objectives, and analytical information about budget execution.

ORDER OF THE The Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 10 December MINISTRY 2010, No. 1536 “On Performance Indicators of Budget OF FINANCE Program” approved the General Requirements to Setting OF UKRAINE OF Performance Indicators of a Budget Program. The Requirements 10 DECEMBER 2010, envisage that performance indicators, among other things, must: NO. 1536 – be determined based on the indicators actually achieved; – characterize the dynamics of achieving the goal, and meeting objectives of a budget program; – be in agreement with the indicators set by strategic and program documents; – measure the results of the key spending unit’s performance; – be supported by official reports and accounting data. The Order stipulated that a model list of performance indicators shall be approved by the Ministry of Finance (MinFin Order dated 14 January 2011, No.15 approved such a list). SECTION 1 17

ORDER The Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 16 December OF THE MINISTRY 2010, No. 1568 amended the Order of the Ministry of Finance OF FINANCE dated 29 December 2002, No. 1098 “On Passports of Budget OF UKRAINE OF 16 Programs.” The amendments are mostly intended to bring the DECEMBER 2010, terminology and individual provisions of that order into conformity NO. 1568 with the new version of the Budget Code. As a positive aspect of the Order, note should be made that the periodicity of both plans and reports on the indicators approved by passports of budget programs was changed from quarterly to semiannually. IBSER had stressed repeatedly that the introduction of mandatory quarterly reports on the implementation of budget program passports only created an additional burden, but made no economic sense. As seen from international practice, quarterly reports are the prerogative of a key spending unit and it is such spending unit that decides on which programs should be monitored on a monthly basis, which quarterly, and which should have some other reporting intervals.

ORDER The Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 14 January OF THE MINISTRY 2011, No. 15 approved a Model List of Budget Program OF FINANCE Performance Indicators. OF UKRAINE OF The List describes performance indicators for each of the four 14 JANUARY 2011, categories (inputs, outputs, efficiency, and quality) by functional NO. 15 classification of expenditures and crediting. A key spending unit could use these indicators in drafting budget requests and passports for budget programs, which belong to respective codes of functional classification of expenditures and crediting. Mostly, the List contains the indicators that are currently applied by key spending units in the budget process. At the same time, it is the opinion of IBSER that the List needs to be further elaborated both based on the requirements already set, and in order to more accurately reflect the economic efficiency of individual budget programs. Thus, it is advisable to include in the List the indicators that would reflect a reduction in energy consumption resulting from energy-saving actions undertaken. For instance, the approved List contains an indicator for the number of approved energy-saving projects and level of their realization (Code of functional classification of expenditures and crediting KFKVKV 0434 – Other Sectors of Fuel and Energy Complex); however, it is lacking an indicator that would show the amounts of energy saved.

ORDINANCE The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated OF THE CABINET 19 January 2011, No. 148-r “The Issues of Strengthening OF MINISTERS Financial and Budgetary Discipline” directs the ministries and OF UKRAINE OF other central executive government authorities to take concrete 19 JANUARY 2011, actions towards strengthening financial and budgetary discipline NO. 148-R both at the budgetary institutions of respective departments, and 18 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

at State-owned enterprises (economic agents in the public sector of the economy). The heads of local State administrations are reminded about the need of complying with the legislative requirements related to State control over the preservation and efficient use of State-owned property. In IBSER’s opinion, a register of State assets needs to be created for achieving this goal, which would enable not only control their preservation, but also the efficiency of their use. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Ministry of Finance are directed to prepare their proposals with regard to making contributions to the statutory capital of economic agents at the expense of budget funds. The legislative provision authorizing the use of such contributions for capital expenditures only would strengthen significantly the financial capacity of enterprises and ensure economic growth in the regions.

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated CABINET OF 26 January 2011, No. 59 approved a Standard Regulation MINISTERS OF of Budgetary Institution’s Accounting Service. The Standard UKRAINE OF 26 Regulation was approved to implement Part Three, Article 56 of the JANUARY 2011, Budget Code of Ukraine. The Standard Regulation describes the NO. 59 main tasks and responsibilities of the Accounting Service and its rights, and the responsibilities and duties of the Chief Accountant. According to the Regulation, the State Treasury Service is charged with organizing and coordinating the activities of the Chief Accountant and with supervising his/her performance according to the procedure to be approved by the Ministry of Finance.

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 17 March CABINET OF 2011, No. 255 approved the Procedure of Reducing Budget MINISTERS OF Allocations for Budget Spending Units. The Procedure was UKRAINE OF approved according to item 4 Article 117 of the Budget Code of 17 MARCH 2011, Ukraine and it sets the mechanism of reducing budget allocations NO. 255 to spending units in case of their breach of budget legislation, as defined by items 24, 29, and 38 Article 116 of the Budget Code of Ukraine5. This Procedure is similar to the one in effect previously. Similarly to the prior version of the Procedure, it states that upon establishing the fact of a breach of the budget legislation, a supervisory body shall compile a protocol of said breach and issue a resolution to suspend transactions using budget funds. The Ministry of Finance (local finance agency, key spending units [with regard to lower-level spending units]) shall issue a decision to reduce budget allocations for the current budget period.

5 Such breaches include, in particular, use of budget funds for any purpose other than the intended purpose; incurring budget expenditures without the set budget appropriations or in excess of such appropriations; bearing expenses for the maintenance of a budgetary institution from various budgets simultaneously, contrary to the Budget Code or the State budget law. SECTION 1 19

Where it is needed to reduce budget appropriations, such a reduction is effected by amending the State budget law (resolution on local budget). The new version of the Procedure is different in that it does not contain a procedure for repaying the funds by the recipients of the budget funds in question into respective budgets, which had to effect such repayment from their own resources.

ORDINANCE The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 23 March OF THE CABINET OF 2011, No. 219-r “The Issues of Organization of Preparation of MINISTERS a Draft State Program of Economic and Social Development OF UKRAINE OF of Ukraine for the Year 2012” approved the Concept of this 21 MARCH 2011, program and confirmed the action plan for preparing its draft. NO. 219-R This Concept approves the goal, objectives, and tasks of the Program for all key functions of the State. The Concept emphasizes medium-term planning, in particular, on the need to establish an interrelation between economic and budget planning, using a common system of indicators of the outcome of executive government authorities’ activities. It states that the new system of program documents on the issues of country’s development must be based on a long-term strategy of socioeconomic development and a medium-term plan of its implementation. In IBSER’s opinion, it is also advisable to include the requirement of providing a financial justification and performance indicators, coordinated with budget indicators, for these documents. As regards the year 2012 specifically, the key tasks in seven priority areas for implementing government policy have been identified and described, viz.: – providing the conditions for socioeconomic growth; – modernizing production facilities and infrastructure; – raising social standards; – strengthening the role of the regions in ensuring economic growth and increasing their responsibility for tackling social problems; – strengthening country’s defense capacity; – protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, strengthening the lawfulness and law and order; – developing international cooperation. As regards the Action Plan above, compiling an approximate list of projects to be implemented in 2012 and the next two years using funds of the State budget or State guarantees as early as 19 April of this year should be noted as a positive move. This is an important step towards improving the procedure of compiling and selecting investment projects and their distribution within the State budget among key spending units, especially in terms of the phases of the medium-term budget process, which would facilitate achieving a higher efficiency in using the budget funds for the medium term. 20 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010 1.3. FINANCING AND STATE DEBT

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 23 February CABINET OF 2011, No. 131 approved the Regulation on Managing of MINISTERS OF the Risks Related to the Provision of State Guarantees, 23 FEBRUARY 2011, and Distribution of Such Risks between the State, Creditors, NO. 131 and Borrowers (the Regulation). The Regulation states the objectives, principles, and mechanisms for managing such risks. At the same time, it does not apply to the provision of State guarantees for obligations of economic agents, which result from borrowing from international finance organizations for the implementation of development projects, and from borrowing for implementing national programs with subsequent repayment and servicing of such credits at the expense of State budget funds. According to the Decree, the risks include the chance of unforeseen events arising that could lead to increased State budget costs for acting on guarantee obligations. This includes credit, operating, and liquidity risks. The Ministry of Finance shall implement risk management, in particular, by reviewing each project’s expediency and self- repayment, and each borrower’s financial position; monitoring the progress of project implementation, the borrower’s financial status, and payments under guaranteed obligations. The risk level is considered acceptable if project implementation is expedient and it is in compliance with the national objectives and priorities, when a project is self-repaying, when the borrower’s financial position is satisfactory, and it has a credit rating not below an average speculative level, as well as when a borrower has no overdue debts to the State.

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 2 March CABINET OF 2011, No. 170 approved the Medium-Term Strategy of State MINISTERS OF Debt Management for the Year 2011-2013 (the Strategy). UKRAINE OF The Strategy was developed pursuant to the Law “On the State 2 MARCH 2011, Program of Economic and Social Development of Ukraine NO. 170 for the Year 2010.” This document describes the current status of the State debt, sets the objectives and tasks of the Strategy, and actions aimed at implementing such tasks, as well as the expected results. A positive aspect of the Strategy is the measurability of the expected results and that they truly reflect the efficiency of State debt management for the medium term, as well as the availability of concrete actions to achieve the Strategy’s objective. Thus, the stated indicators include a ratio of State debt to GDP, share of internal State debt within its structure, average weighted period before complete repayment of the State debt etc. SECTION 1 21 1.4. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

ORDINANCE OF By issuing its Ordinance of 23 February 2011, No. 137-r THE CABINET OF “On Agreeing the Conclusion of an Agreement on Joint MINISTERS OF Activity,” the Cabinet of Ministers agreed with the proposal of UKRAINE OF the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry related to the conclusion 23 FEBRUARY 2011, of an agreement on joint activity between NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny NO. 137-R NJSC and TOV Interpipe Ukraine LLC. The following conditions for such cooperation have been set: the object of joint activity (creation and operation of a production base); the contribution to be made by NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny into the joint activity, its share in the manufactured product and revenues (75 percent, minimum); and kinds of contributions to be made by the parties to this agreement. Therefore, NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny is contributing cash, and TOV Interpipe Ukraine is contributing cash, property rights, technologies, and equipment. The Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry is instructed to determine the contribution amount and submit an agreement between the partners in the joint activity in a condition ready for signing for approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. This type of agreement is an example of a Public-Private Partnership, in which a private partner is the direct producer of products, used as its contribution into such partnership, and this partner is receiving compensation for the invested money and profit gradually from distribution of income between partners.

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 17 March CABINET OF 2011, No. 279 approved the Procedure of Providing State MINISTERS OF Support for Implementing Public-Private Partnerships. UKRAINE OF The Procedure was developed pursuant to Part Three Article 18 of the 17 MARCH 2011, Law “On Public-Private Partnership.” It determines the procedure of NO. 279 providing State support for implementing public-private partnerships with regard to State-owned properties,the basic conditions to be taken into account when providing State support, and the list of documents to be submitted in order for such support to be provided. As with the Law “On Public-Private Partnership.”, Decree No. 279 indicates that State support may be provided by means of granting State and local guarantees, by financing at the expense of budget funds or other sources according to national and local programs, as well as in other formats according to the law. A decision to provide State support shall be made by the Cabinet of Ministers or its authorized body, and a conclusion with regard to the advisability (or not)of granting State support, its format and scope for making such a decision shall be prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. In order to prepare such a conclusion, the said Ministry has to approve, upon agreement with the Ministry of Finance, the criteria and terms of providing such State support, and determine its formats and scope. 22 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

One of the key conditions to be taken into account in providing State support is determining the ratio of costs and expected benefits from implementing the actions/programs. There is no indication, however, who and based on which methodology is going to determine this ratio. Besides, it is not clear for which budget programs specifically and which methodology6 is to be used for taking into account the findings of the review of the efficiency of using budget funds. As regards the list of documents to be submitted for providing State support, it should be noted that the initiator has to present a certified copy of an agreement on public-private partnership, as well as a conclusion based on the results of review of the efficiency of such a partnership. This would suggest that according to the Procedure, this agreement would have been concluded even before a decision on providing State support is made. In IBSER’s opinion, this fact presents a certain risk for a private partner, as he has to resources would need to be invested into preparing quite a substantial set of documents, even before knowing the Government’s position with regard to the implementation of the project as such. The Decree recommends that local governments envisage funds in their local budgets for providing the State support and approve a procedure for providing such support with regard to municipal properties.

1.5. LOCAL BUDGETS AND INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 8 December CABINET OF 2010, No. 1149 “Certain Issues of Distribution of the Amount of MINISTERS OF Intergovernmental Transfers” approved new versions of: UKRAINE OF – the Formula for distributing intergovernmental transfers 8 DECEMBER 2010, (equalization grants and funds transferred to the State NO. 1149 budget) between the State budget and local budgets; and – the Formula for distributing intergovernmental transfers (equalization grants and funds transferred to a local budget) between a district or municipal (city of Sevastopol, republic- significance cities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or oblast-significance cities) budget and the budgets of territorial communities, of villages, their associations, settlements, and cities in administrative jurisdiction of the respective district or city. The list of decrees that used to regulate interbudgetary relations between the State budget and local budgets has been nullified according to the provisions of this Decree. In particular, those included the Cabinet Decree dated 5 September 2001, No. 1195 with revisions “On Approving the Formula of Distribution of the Amount

6 According to the Ministry of Finance Order dated 29 December 2011, No. 1098, the annual report on implementation of budget program passports is a ground for reviewing the performance efficiency of each budget program. SECTION 1 23

of Intergovernmental Transfers (Equalization Grants and Funds Transferred to the State Budget) Between the State Budget and Local Budgets” and the Cabinet Decree dated 31 December 2004, No. 1782 with revisions, which approved the Formula of Distribution of the Amount of Intergovernmental Transfers (Equalization Grants and Funds Transferred to a Respective Local Budget) Between a District Budget or a Municipal Budget of the City of Sevastopol, Republic-Significance Cities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or Oblast-Significance Cities, which Have Administrative Jurisdiction over other Cities, Villages, and Settlements, and Budgets of Territorial Communities of Villages, Settlements, Cities, and Their Associations. This Decree also stipulates that the amount of a grant for equalizing the financial sufficiency for the budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and oblast budgets for the planning budget period shall be set at the level of the year preceding the planning year. The formula for distributing intergovernmental transfers was enacted as of 1 January 2011. Certain changes have been made compared to the formula that was effective in 2010. For instance, with regard to the calculation of revenues assigned to local budgets, a coefficient for adjusting the revenues because of the impact of the financial crisis has been replaced with a coefficient of updating the relative tax capacity indices, and a coefficient of impact of the accrued labor remuneration fund has been introduced. Regarding the calculation of the amount of General Fund expenditures of a local budget, which are taken into account when determining the amount of intergovernmental transfers, new types of expenditures have been added: estimated expenditures for the development of the society and culture and the estimated additional financial resources of local budgets. However, the calculation of their amounts for each individual local budget is insufficiently transparent.

DECREE OF THE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 12 January CABINET OF 2011, No 7 provides clarifications to the formula for distributing MINISTERS OF intergovernmental transfers when calculating the amount of UKRAINE OF expenditures for maintenance of local governments for budgets of 12 JANUARY 2011, the district-significance cities and urban-type settlements, which NO. 7 are under administrative jurisdiction of a district.

JOINT ORDER OF The Joint Order of the Ministry of Finance and State Treasury THE MINISTRY dated 28 December 2010, No. 507 approved amendments OF FINANCE OF to the Procedure of Treasury Servicing of Local Budgets approved UKRAINE AND by the Order of the State Treasury dated 4 November 2002, No. 205. STATE TREASURY Among other things, the Procedure has been supplemented OF UKRAINE OF with regard to treasury servicing of the temporarily free funds of 28 DECEMBER 2010, local budgets placed into deposit accounts with banks, and the NO. 507 forms of Appendices Nos. 13, 23, 24, and 25 have been modified. 24 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated OF THE CABINET 12 December 2010, No. 1204 approved the Procedure of OF MINISTERS Covering Temporary Cash Gaps of Local Budgets, which was OF UKRAINE OF enacted as of 1 January 2011. 29 DECEMBER 2010, This Procedure sets the mechanism of covering by territorial NO. 1204 offices of the State Treasury Service the temporary cash gaps of local budgets related to the need for financing protected General Fund expenditures. Their financing is implemented by providing loans to local budgets on contractual terms from the single Treasury account, without charging any interest on such loans. Among other things, it is established that short-term loans shall be granted by offices of the State Treasury Service on the following terms: – existence of a temporary cash gap7; – absence of overdue accounts payable of a local budget under loans obtained from financial institutions; – absence of a local budget debt regarding the funds to be remitted to the State budget; – local budget has no General Fund assets placed in deposit accounts of banks, except for the banks, which are under a moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims and which are being investigated by a local financial body regarding claims to recover public funds from deposits. The loan repayment period may not exceed 60 days from the date of liquidation of a temporary cash gap. The deadline for loan repayment is 1 December of the current budget period.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 12 January OF THE CABINET 2011, No. 6 approved the Procedure of Placing Temporarily Free OF MINISTERS Funds of Local Budgets into Deposit Accounts with Banks. OF UKRAINE OF Among other things, the Decree allows the placement of 12 JANUARY 2011, temporarily free funds from local budgets with banks that satisfy NO. 6 the following requirements: – their authorized capital exceeds Hr 10.0bn; – they were not under any sanctions as per requirements of National Bank regulations during the year in question; – they satisfy the economic standards of capital and liquidity, and obligatory accumulation of reserves in their correspondent account with the National Bank; and – they discharge their obligations before clients in a timely manner. It should be noted that in 2010, placing temporarily free funds of local budgets was allowed only with State-owned banks and banks in which the State had helped capitalize.

7 If the balance of budget funds in local budget accounts and the amount of all expected revenues of the General Fund of local budget in the period as of the date of drafting a letter of application for obtaining a short-term loan and to the date of granting this loan is lower than the amount of budgetary financial obligations of spending units of the local budget under protected expenditure items. SECTION 1 25

Now, temporarily free funds may be placed at deposit accounts with banks only within the current budget period and must be returned into the budget accounts that they had been withdrawn from, not later than ten days before the expiry of such budget period.

DECREE OF The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 19 January THE CABINET OF 2011, No. 42 approved the 2011 Procedure and conditions of MINISTERS OF granting State budget subventions to local budgets for the socio- UKRAINE OF economic development of the regions. 19 JANUARY 2011, According to this Procedure, subventions shall be granted: NO. 42 – to all local budgets: • for socio-economic development; • for taking actions regarding socio-economic development of specific territories; – to the budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for the socio-economic development of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea; – to the district budget of Chernihiv district, Chernihiv oblast for the building of the Sedniv Training and Educational Center; – to the Kyiv city budget for maintenance and reconstruction of infrastructure networks and building a modern preschool and school establishment in the Holosiyivskyi district of the City of Kyiv. It is established that the list of assets to be funded by the said subventions shall be compiled by the Ministry of Finance based on the proposals submitted by local executive authorities, local governments, and National Deputies of Ukraine, coordinated with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. Based on this, the Cabinet of Ministers issued a number of ordinances in February and March 2011 to approve this list of assets.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 19 January OF THE CABINET OF 2011, No. 52 approved the 2011 Procedure and terms of granting MINISTERS State budget subventions to local budgets for constructing, OF UKRAINE OF 19 reconstructing, repairing, and maintaining streets and municipally- JANUARY 2011, owned roads within settlements. NO. 52 The Ukravtodor Motor Roads Service is appointed the key spending unit for this subvention and the implementer responsible for this budget program. The subvention is to be primarily used for assets, which: – are directly involved in preparing for and hosting the Europe 2012 football championship finals in Ukraine; – are more than 70% complete, need to have the work launched in 2009-2010 to be finished, and are to be commissioned in the current year; 26 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

– have outstanding socioeconomic importance for ensuring the operation of transport systems within settlements; – have construction documents approved according to the established order. This Decree also approved the distribution of the subvention throughout Ukraine and stated that the lists of construction, reconstruction, and repair projects, and maintenance of streets ORDINANCE and municipal roads within settlements shall be approved by OF THE CABINET decisions of local authorities. OF MINISTERS OF UKRAINE The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated OF 9 FEBRUARY 9 February 2011, No. 98-r approved an allocation by asset 2011, NO. 98-R, for the total amount of Hr 1,148.7mn.

OF 11 MARCH The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 11 March 2011, NO. 184-R, 2011, No. 184-r additionally approved an allocation by asset totaling Hr 84.7mn.

OF 21 MARCH The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 21 March 2011, NO. 257-R, 2011, No. 257-r additionally approved the allocation by asset totaling Hr 161.5mn.

OF 21 MARCH The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 21 March 2011, NO. 296-R, 2011, No. 296-r additionally approved an allocation by asset totaling Hr 48.6mn.

OF 21 MARCH The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 21 March 2011, NO. 297-R, 2011, No. 297-r added some clarifications to the previously approved list of assets and additionally approved an allocation by asset totaling Hr 423.3mn.

21 MARCH 2011, The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 21 March NO. 305-R 2011, No. 305-r additionally approved an allocation by asset totaling Hr 345.6mn.

DECREE OF The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 2 February THE CABINET 2011, No. 70 approved the 2011 Procedure and terms for OF MINISTERS granting State budget subventions to local budgets for a partial OF UKRAINE OF refund of interest rates on the credits obtained for renewing the 2 FEBRUARY 2011, bus and trolleybus fleets in the cities which will be hosting the NO. 70 European 2012 football championship finals. It states that the subvention shall be granted to the local budgets of the cities of Donetsk, Kyiv, Lviv, and Kharkiv to reimburse 50.0% of the costs related to the payment of interest on the credits obtained for renewing their fleets of buses and trolleybuses. SECTION 1 27

It should be noted, that according to the 2011 State budget, the amount of this subvention totals Hr 207.1mn and it is distributed in equal proportions between the cities mentioned.

AMENDMENTS New versions have been approved of the joint order of the TO JOINT ORDERS Ministry of Finance and line ministries with regard to standard OF THE MINISTRY lists of budget programs and their performance indicators for OF FINANCE OF local budgets in the areas of: UKRAINE AND LINE – Social Protection and Social Security (Order of the MINISTRIES Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labor and Social Policy dated 9 February 2011, No. 75/39); – Social Protection of Family, Children, and Youth (Order of the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labor and Social Policy dated 9 February 2011, No. 74/403); – Physical Culture and Sport (Order of the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Family, Youth, and Sports dated 9 February 2011, No. 73/404); – Public Administration (Order of the Ministry of Finance dated 22 December 2010, No. 1608). These lists of budget programs and their performance indicators have been prepared for use in the course of formulating and executing local budgets based on the Performance Program Budgeting method.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 16 OF THE CABINET February 2011, No. 110 approved the Procedure of local OF MINISTERS borrowing, which also nullified the Decree of the Cabinet of OF UKRAINE OF 16 Ministers dated 24 February 2003, No. 207. The new Procedure FEBRUARY 2011, is distinct in that: NO. 110 – alongside with a set of documents, the borrower must submit to the Ministry of Finance a copy of the decision on the local budget with a deficit in the development budget only. It means that, firstly, a city that intends to incur debt, must transfer the General Fund balance of funds at the end of the previous year to the development budget, rather than to be used for General Fund needs; and, secondly, even before applying for a loan, all the indicators related to its implementation and use must be confirmed in the decision on budget, which would serve as an incentive for improved planning; – no simplified procedure by the Ministry of Finance is available for borrowing for the cities whose local debt does not exceed 75% of development budget revenues, and the borrowing does not exceed 25% of these revenues; – there is no list of grounds for the Ministry of Finance to issue its conclusion on the draft decision’s failing to meet the requirements set by the budget legislation. 28 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

At the same time, the Budget Code sets exhaustive restrictions with regard to the terms and scope of local borrowing. Therefore, IBSER believes that this Decree in its current wording could lead to a situation, where the Ministry of Finance might not approve borrowing due to reasons that do not agree with the respective restrictions set by the Budget Code.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 28 February OF THE CABINET 2011, No. 165 approved the 2011 Procedure and terms of granting OF MINISTERS State budget subventions to local budgets for financing the winning OF UKRAINE OF programs in the pan-Ukrainian competition of local government 28 FEBRUARY 2011, development projects and programs. NO. 165 The Decree also approved the allocation amount for the subvention between local projects at Hr 25.0mn (the full scope envisaged for 2001), of which Hr 23.3mn is for development expenditures. The Ministry of Regional Development, Construction, and Housing and Communal Services is appointed as the key spending unit for the subvention.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 2 March OF THE CABINET 2011, No. 184 approved the Procedure and terms of granting State OF MINISTERS budget subventions to local budgets for financing socioeconomic OF UKRAINE compensation measures for the risks to people living in nuclear OF 2 MARCH 2011, surveillance zones. NO. 184 It specifies that the subvention shall be granted to the budgets of the administrative-territorial units that are included in the surveillance zones of nuclear power plants operated by the State- owned Energoatom National Nuclear Energy Generating Company, and shall be used for: – implementing projects that involve construction, reconstruction, capital and current repair of special social infrastructure assets, in particular, educational institutions, establishments of healthcare, culture, physical culture and sports, housing and communal services facilities, motor vehicle roads, telecommunications systems and civil defense structures that are employed in case of emergency situations, networks for the supply of electric power, water, gas, and heat, and sewage, and buildings and structures needed for their operation; – taking actions to provide the population with personal respiratory protective gear and stable iodine preparations. Also, this Decree approves the distribution of the financing of this subvention between administrative-territorial units, which depends on the population size and percentage of electric energy supplied) by each nuclear power plant. SECTION 1 29

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 17 March OF THE CABINET 2011, No. 253 approved the minimal standards of providing OF MINISTERS the population with solid fuel and liquefied gas, and their cost OF UKRAINE OF ceilings for the provision of benefits and housing subsidies 17 MARCH 2011, in 2010 at the expense of State budget subvention to local budgets. NO. 253 The provision standards and cost ceilings have been set for each oblast-equivalent administrative unit separately.

DECREE The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 28 March OF THE CABINET 2011, No. 371 approved the Procedure and terms of OF MINISTERS granting a State budget subvention to local budgets for OF UKRAINE OF purchasing consumables and medical equipment for healthcare 28 MARCH 2011, establishments. NO. 371 This Decree also approved the distribution of the subvention among the administrative units at the amount of Hr 150.0mn for procuring consumables and Hr 416.0mn for procuring medical equipment. 30 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

SECTION 2. ANALYSIS OF MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS IN 2010

GDP The macroeconomic situation in 2010 was characterized by a gradual pickup of economic growth, which was accompanied by a moderate increase in consumer inflation and minor oscillations of the national currency exchange rate against U.S. dollar and the euro. Real GDP rose 4.2% in 2010, year-on-year8. We must note, however, that the real GDP amounted to 84.9% of the respective previous year’s figure in 2009 (see Budget Monitoring: Analysis of Budget Execution in 2009). Therefore, the 2010 growth figure offset only one-third of the economic slump that occurred in 20099 (15.1%). Also, the nominal GDP totaled Hr 1,095.0bn in 2010, which is Hr 180.3bn or 19.7% more than in 2009. The GDP growth is explained by increased industrial output, which amounted to 11.2% against a 21.9% drop in 2009. This is linked to a resumption of demand on the world market for Ukrainian exports. In particular, the production of machinery increased by 34.5% against 2009, that of chemical and petrochemical products rose by 21.5%, the production of metals and finished metal products gained 12.3%. These sectors account for more than 10.0% in the overall structure of gross value added (GVA) of the main types of industrial activity. At the same time, the minerals extraction sector; production of food, beverages, and tobacco, and production and distribution of electric energy, gas, and water make up over 15.0% of the GVA structure and on average grew about 6.0%. Other industries also showed fairly low rates of growth in output compared to the 2009 figures. The manufactured goods accounted for more than 85.0% of all exported goods, and the growth rate of GVA in the extraction industry exceeded that in the manufacturing industry. This structure of Ukrainian industry, with a dominance of export- oriented sectors and insufficient use of domestic market capacity, as well as industrial production focusing on primary goods, are all suboptimal for the future sustainable development of Ukraine’s economy. The dynamics of industrial and agricultural production indices are shown in Chart 2.1 below.

8 http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ 9 http://www.erstebank.ua/ SECTION 2 31

Chart 2.1 Dynamics of Industrial and Agricultural Production Indices in 2008-2010    

        

                    

               





JOEVTUSZ

"HSJDVMUVSF

-JHIU
JOEVTUSZ

.JOFSBM
NJOJOH

ESJOLT
BOE
UPCBDDP

1SPEVDUJPO
PG
PUIFS

1SPEVDUJPO
PG
DPLF

FYDFQU
GPS
GVSOJUVSF

8PPEXPSL
QSPEVDUJPO

1SPEVDUJPO
PG
GPPETUVGG

.FDIBOJDBM
FOHJOFFSJOH

FYDFQU
GVFMFOFSHZ
POFT

BOE
QVCMJTIJOH
BDUJWJUJFT

PG
GJOJTIFE
NFUBM
BSUJDMFT

.FUBMMVSHZ
BOE
QSPEVDUJPO

1SPEVDUJPO
BOE
EJTUSJCVUJPO

'VFMFOFSHZ
NJOFSBM
NJOJOH

SFGJOFE
QFUSPMFVN
QSPEVDUT

$IFNJDBM
BOE
QFUSPDIFNJDBM

OPONFUBMMJD
NJOFSBM
QSPEVDUT

$FMMVMPTF
BOE
QBQFS
QSPEVDUJPOT
PG
FMFDUSJDJUZ
OBUVSBM
HBT
BOE
XBUFS

In terms of the country’s economy sectors, a decline in industrial output year-on-year was recorded in the production of fuel and energy minerals (by 3.1%), agriculture (by 1.0%), as well as the production of coke and petroleum products (by 0.1%). Overall, production volume has not returned to the pre-crisis level.

CONSUMER AND The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 9.1% in 2010 vs. 12.3% PRODUCER PRICE in 2009 (see Graph 2.1). In other words, inflationary processes INDICES slowed down in 2010. Also, the average annual CPI growth rate also dropped to 9.4% compared to 15.9% in 200910. The CPI figure was mainly driven by higher food prices, since they account for about 55.0% of the consumer basket used for calculating CPI. Among other things, the prices of cheese and curds increased by 25.8%, butter by 23.7%, vegetables by 20.9%, and sugar by 20.3% (growth of sugar prices is partially due a 24.7% increase in Producer Price Index). In addition, the price of bread and bakery products increased by 16.5% and that of alcoholic beverages and tobacco by 22.1%. Also, the retail price of natural gas increased by 50.1% during 2010 (especially, in its third quarter) against December 2009. In addition, the prices of services in the area of preschool education rose by 19.3% and those of fuel and lubricants by 13.9%. At the same time, the price of telephone and facsimile services decreased by 9.0% in the period under review, that of audio equipment, photographic equipment, and data-processing equipment dropped 3.0%, and household appliances fell by 1.3%. These reductions

10 http://www.bank.gov.ua/publication/econom/Mon_review/2010/2010.pdf 32 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

occurred due to plummeting demand on the domestic market, given that consumers had to spend the greatest part of their income on food. The Producer Price Index (PPI) rose 18.7%, which is 4.4ppt more than in 2009. A steep upward dynamic of the PPI from the outset of 2010 through March was caused by a price hike for commodities and energy, which, in turn, influenced production costs. Thus, the prices of extraction and manufacturing industry products increased in 2010. The highest PPI growth against December of 2009 was in the extraction of minerals, except for fuel and energy minerals (by 49.3%), production of coke (by 48.6%), and extraction of fuel and energy minerals (by 39.1%). Also, a resumption of demand for Ukrainian products both on the internal and external markets occurred thanks to the growth in business activity in the real sector of the economy after its slump. On the whole, prices in the extraction industry increased by 44.4%, manufacturing industry by 17.1%, and in the production and distribution of electric energy, gas, and water by 12.5%11.

Graph 2.1 Dynamics of Price Indices in 2007-2010

 1SPEVDFS
1SJDF
*OEFY
WFSTVT
%FDFNCFS
PG
QSFWJPVT
ZFBS $POTVNFS
1SJDF
*OEFY
WFSTVT
%FDFNCFS
PG
QSFWJPVT
ZFBS      

   

                    

                                                       

                   .BZ .BZ .BZ .BZ +VMZ +VMZ +VMZ +VMZ "QSJM "QSJM "QSJM "QSJM +VOF +VOF +VOF +VOF .BSDI .BSDI .BSDI .BSDI "VHVTU "VHVTU "VHVTU "VHVTU 0DUPCFS 0DUPCFS 0DUPCFS 0DUPCFS +BOVBSZ +BOVBSZ +BOVBSZ +BOVBSZ 'FCSVBSZ 'FCSVBSZ 'FCSVBSZ 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS /PWFNCFS /PWFNCFS /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS %FDFNCFS %FDFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

   

PERSONAL INCOME The structure of nominal personal income remained virtually AND SPENDING unchanged throughout 2010 compared to previous years. Salaries and wages comprised the largest portion (more than 40%), social allowances (more than 20%), profit and miscellaneous income (more than 15%). In-kind social transfers amounted to about 13% in the total income structure. The nominal average monthly pay per full-time employee amounted to Hr 2,239, which is 17.5% more than in 2009 (see Table 2.1). This is nearly 2.4 times higher than the State social standard, as the minimum monthly wage and subsistence level of an employable person is Hr 922.

11 www.ukrstat.gov.ua SECTION 2 33

Table 2.1 Nominal and Real Salaries and Wages by Region of Ukraine in 2008-2010

Average monthly pay (per Nominal wages Index of real wages and one full-time employee), and salaries salaries (against respec- Administrative- Hr growth rate, % tive period of p year),% territorial unit 2009 / 2010 / 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 Autonomous Republic 1 609.0 1 707.0 1 991.0 106.1 116.6 104.2 90.4 108.9 of Crimea Vinnytsya Oblast 1 404.0 1 511.0 1 782.0 107.6 117.9 108.7 94.7 111.9 Volyn’ Oblast 1 380.0 1 427.0 1 692.0 103.4 118.6 108.8 91.3 114.5 Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 1 876.0 1 963.0 2 369.0 104.6 120.7 102.3 89.1 112.8 Donetsk Oblast 2 015.0 2 116.0 2 549.0 105.0 120.5 104.6 89.4 112.1 Zhytomyr Oblast 1 404.0 1 493.0 1 785.0 106.3 119.6 107.7 92.7 111.0 Zakarpatska Oblast 1 453.0 1 562.0 1 846.0 107.5 118.2 111.6 95.5 109.0 Zaporizhya Oblast 1 812.0 1 843.0 2 187.0 101.7 118.7 102.7 87.4 110.2 Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 1 543.0 1 627.0 1 927.0 105.4 118.4 105.2 91.2 112.6 Kyiv Oblast 1 852.0 1 987.0 2 295.0 107.3 115.5 107.7 92.3 108.5 Kirovohrad Oblast 1 428.0 1 537.0 1 815.0 107.6 118.1 108.8 95.0 111.0 Luhansk Oblast 1 769.0 1 873.0 2 271.0 105.9 121.2 106.2 90.6 113.8 Lviv Oblast 1 570.0 1 667.0 1 941.0 106.2 116.4 104.0 90.1 108.1 Mykolaiv Oblast 1 621.0 1 806.0 2 122.0 111.4 117.5 105.3 95.8 108.2 Odesa Oblast 1 633.0 1 787.0 2 046.0 109.4 114.5 102.8 93.1 107.4 Poltava Oblast 1 661.0 1 733.0 2 102.0 104.3 121.3 104.2 90.0 114.1 Rivne Oblast 1 523.0 1 614.0 1 960.0 106.0 121.4 106.4 91.6 114.8 Sumy Oblast 1 472.0 1 593.0 1 866.0 108.2 117.1 108.6 94.5 107.9 Ternopil Oblast 1 313.0 1 412.0 1 659.0 107.5 117.5 110.3 92.8 111.0 Kharkiv Oblast 1 679.0 1 804.0 2 060.0 107.4 114.2 104.0 90.4 107.6 Kherson Oblast 1 375.0 1 482.0 1 733.0 107.8 116.9 104.5 93.6 107.9 Khmelnytskyi Oblast 1 429.0 1 521.0 1 786.0 106.4 117.4 106.4 91.7 111.7 Cherkasy Oblast 1 459.0 1 532.0 1 835.0 105.0 119.8 107.1 90.1 113.1 Chernivtsi Oblast 1 402.0 1 523.0 1 772.0 108.6 116.3 107.4 95.6 111.5 Chernihiv Oblast 1 370.0 1 465.0 1 711.0 106.9 116.8 107.5 90.8 111.1 City of Kyiv 3 074.0 3 161.0 3 431.0 102.8 108.5 107.8 88.2 105.2 City of Sevastopol 1 726.0 1 882.0 2 167.0 109.0 115.1 105.5 94.4 106.8 Ukraine 1 806.0 1 906.0 2 239.0 105.5 117.5 106.3 90.8 110.2

As usual, the highest monthly pay was recorded in the City of Kyiv (Hr 3,431.0), and the lowest in Ternopil Oblast (Hr 1,659.0). The types of economic activity with the highest nominal salaries and wages since the outset of 2010 included air transport (Hr 6,774.0), the financial sector (Hr 4,601.0), and water transport (Hr 2,987.0). At the same time, real salaries and wages increased by 10.2% (down 9.2% in 2009). This, in turn, facilitated a gradual recovery of domestic consumer demand. This is evidenced by the retail trade turnover figure, which increased by 7.6% year- on-year (to compare: this indicator decreased by 17.4% in 2009). A regional analysis of the average monthly pay dynamics points to disparities in the regional development of the Ukrainian economy. Against a backdrop of accelerating growth in nominal wages in the country’s economy in general, the least noticeable increases in 34 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

real wages were observed in the City of Kyiv (by 5.2%), Sevastopol (by 6.8%), and in Odesa Oblast (by 7.4%). The largest part of personal spending, over 80.0%, was used for the purchase of goods and services, which repeats the trend of previous years. The increase in financial assets, as well as current taxes and income on property account for about 5.0% in the general structure of personal spending.

FOREIGN TRADE Ukraine posted a negative foreign trade balance of about $3.1bn in 2010. In 2009, there was a negative balance of $1.3bn (see Chart 2.2).

Chart 2.2 Export and Import of Goods and Services in 2009-2010



(PPET 4FSWJDFT #BMBODF
 
 64%
NO

 


#BMBODF

  
 64%
NO

 
 


 64%
NO

 



  
 
 



 &YQPSU *NQPSU &YQPSU *NQPSU

 

According to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, the export of goods increased by 29.5% compared to 2009 and totaled $51.4bn. Ferrous metals and products comprised the core of Ukraine’s export of goods at 32.3% of total exports. Mineral products accounted for 13.1%, mechanical and electric machinery – 11.0%, products of plant origin – 7.7%, products of the chemical and related industries – 6.8%, transport vehicles and road machinery – 6.3%, animal fats and oils – 5.1%. In the total volume of export of goods, growth is noted against the respective 2009 figures for ferrous metal products from 25.8% to 28.4%; energy materials, crude oil and its refining products from 5.4% to 7.1%; animal fats and oils from 4.5% to 5.1%; ore, slag, and ash from 3.4% to 5.0%; and railroad or tram locomotives, road machinery from 2.0% to 4.7%. However, a decline was recorded in the share of mechanical machinery from 7.0% to 6.1%; electrical machinery from 5.6% to 4.9%; grains from 9.0% to 4.8%, and ferrous metals from 4.9% to 3.9%. In terms of geographic structure, the volume of exports to CIS countries amounted to 36.4% of total exports, to Europe – 25.9% SECTION 2 35

(including 25.4% to EU Member States), Asia – 26.7%, Africa – 6.0%, Americas – 3.9%, and Australia and Oceania – 0.1%. The main customers of Ukrainian products still include the Russian Federation (26.1%), Turkey (5.9%), Italy (4.7%), Poland (3.5%), and Germany (2.9%) (see Chart 2.3). In addition, significant volumes of commodities were exported to Belarus (3.7%) and India (2.8%) in 2010. The export of goods increased to all the key partner countries: by 96.5% to Italy, by 58.1% to the Russian Federation, by 50.9% to Belarus, by 47.9% to Poland, by 42.3% to Turkey, by 23.7% to India, and by 20.1% to Germany.

Chart 2.3 Structure of Foreign Trade in Goods by Key Partner Country in 2009-2010

 0UIFS
DPVOUSJFT

 -JUIVBOJB   )VOHBSZ       1PMBOE     $IJOB            *UBMZ            64"          5VSLFZ         (FSNBOZ     0UIFS
$*4
DPVOUSJFT      5VSLONFOJTUBO

,B[BLITUBO      3VTTJBO
'FEFSBUJPO &YQPSU *NQPSU

According to the State Statistics Committee, export of services totaled $11.6bn in 2010 (see Chart 2.2), showing a 22.2% year- on-year growth. The largest proportions of total export of services are comprised of transport (67.1%) and business, professional, and technical services (12.7%). The growth of the export of services year-on-year occurred due to the volume of royalty and licensing services increasing by 2.8 times, pipeline transport rising by 59.6%, financial services by 27.9%, other business services by 27.8%, travel services by 27.2%, miscellaneous business, professional, and technical services by 20.2%, computer services by 20.2%, rail transport by 17.4%, building services by 12.1%, telecommunications services by 7.4%, and air transport by 6.0%. At the same time, the export of marine shipping services decreased by 3.2%, insurance services by 25.5%, and government services by 6.7 times. The Russian Federation still remains the main partner country with 44.2% of the total volume of services. Also, the proportions of export to 36 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

CIS countries and European Union Member-States amount to 48.0% and 26.8%, respectively. The import of goods into Ukraine totaled $60.7bn, which is 33.7% more than the import of goods in 2009. As usual, mineral products account for more than a third of all imported goods at 34.8%. Deliveries of mechanical and electric equipment accounted for 13.4%, products of the chemical and related industries – 10.6%, base metals and products – 6.8%, transport vehicles and road machinery, as well as polymer materials, plastics, and rubber – 6.0% each of the total value of imports. Imports from CIS countries amounted to 44.0% of the total, 32.9% from Europe (including 31.4% from EU Member States), 16.5% from Asia, 4.8% from the Americas, 1.4% from Africa, and 0.4% from Australia and Oceania. The largest volumes of goods were imported from the Russian Federation (36.5%), China (7.7%), Germany (7.6%), Poland (4.6%), Belarus (4.2%), USA (2.9%), and Italy (2.3%). In the structure of Ukraine’s import of goods, the share of electrical machines increased from 5.1% to 5.9%, surface vehicles, except rail transport, from 4.3% to 5.5%, and ferrous metals from 2.5% to 3.2%. The share of mechanical machines decreased from 8.7% to 7.5%, pharmaceuticals fell from 4.7% to 4.0%, and paper and cardboard from 2.6% to 2.4%.

The import of services totaled $5.4bn, which is 5.3% more than in 2009. The geographical structure of the import of services is characterized by the dominance of services from the European Union Member States, the share of which approaches 54.0% of the total amount of imported services against 17.2% of services imported from the CIS countries. The latter increased by 18.8% against 2009, including by 19.8% for services imported from the Russian Federation, and by 44.4% from Belarus. At the same time, the volume of services received from Kazakhstan decreased by 28.1%. Transport services accounted for the largest share in the total Ukrainian import of services (21.1%), followed by financial services (19.9%), miscellaneous business, professional, and technical services (15.7%), and public services not otherwise categorized (11.3%). The volume increased in the import of public services by 33.6%, royalty and licensing services by 58.8%, air transport by 27.2%, other business services by 45.8%, and travel services by 21.9%. At the same time, a decrease was noted in the import of financial services by 17.8%, building services by 33.8%, miscellaneous business, professional, and technical services by 4.5%, insurance services by 25.2%, and telecommunications services by 19.5%. In general, foreign trade transactions were conducted with partners from 217 countries worldwide. SECTION 3 37

SECTION 3. ANALYSIS OF UKRAINIAN BANKING SYSTEM INDICATORS IN 2010

The Ukrainian banking system was characterized in 2010 by: – the NBU pursuing a strict money and credit policy and taking steps to limit pressure on the currency exchange rate, and banks conducting a more flexible interest rate policy in order to attract clients’ assets in the national currency; – growth in the total assets of the banking system. In 2010, growth amounted to +8.8%, driven by increased investment by banks into transactions with government and corporate securities and a minor resumption of lending to legal entities; – an increasing trend in the clients’ loan portfolio, which was mainly caused by an increase of the amount of credits issued to legal entities in 2010 (+7.6% or +Hr 36.7bn); – further growth of client deposits. Corporate deposits increased by Hr 26.0bn in 2010 or by 22.3%, and personal deposits increased by Hr 60.3bn or by 28.5%; – a reduction in the level of banking system operational losses from Hr 28.0bn in 2009 to Hr 13.0bn in 2010. Losses in 2010 were mainly due to the significant losses of the banks under temporary administration and the banks being liquidated, as well as a slower growth of operational results due to a lack of lending; – preservation of the overdue debt share in the total client credit debt at the level of 11.24%. In absolute terms, the overdue debt decreased by 6.1% to Hr 84.85bn in December 2010, and by 21.3% or by Hr 14.91bn from the outset of the current year; – a growth in the share of foreign capital in the total authorized capital of the Ukrainian banking system by 4.8ppt to 40.6% (35.8% at the outset of 2010). Also, the total number of operating banks with foreign capital increased by four banks and totaled 55 banks as of 1 January 2011. The number of banks with 100% foreign capital has not changed and stays at 20. In December 2010, two foreign financial groups simultaneously announced their departure from the Ukrainian banking market: on 6 December the Czech Home Credit Group announced the sale of its subsidiary to Platinum Bank; and on 24 December, Renaissance Capital (Russia) announced the sale of Renaissance Capital (Ukraine) to the SCM-Finance holding.

MONEY AND The National Bank kept the expansion of money supply within CREDIT POLICY moderate limits in 2010. A faster pace of growth in the money AND LIQUIDITY supply compared to the monetary base (11.2%) testifies to a restart of the mechanism of the multiplication of funds. 38 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The liquidity of the banking system was influenced by a decision to strengthen the requirements for mandatory reserves with regard to the accumulation of reserves into a separate account with the National Bank of Ukraine as of 1 May 2010. At the end of December 2010, banks had remitted Hr 7.7bn to the separate account, which reduced the surplus of liquidity accordingly. Based on the December 2010 performance, the amount of funds at banks’ correspondent accounts of decreased slightly — by 3.8% to Hr 16.7bn (down 3.9% since the outset of 2010). The reduction of the amount of funds at correspondent accounts of banks led to a decrease in the monetary base by 1.3% in the fourth quarter, while its amount increased by 11.2% in 2010 in general. The rising growth rate trend continued to 18.0% in annual terms as of the end September compared to 4.4% at the beginning of the year. The amount of mandatory reserves accumulated by banks as of 1 January 2011 (including the Hr 7.7bn transferred to the separate account) totaled Hr 12.4bn. A significant increase of cash outside of banks of 5.6% occurred in December (up +16.5% from the outset of the year) and its amount reached Hr 183.0bn as of 1 January 2011. A high rate of growth in client deposits in the last months of 2010 and cash outside of banks influenced the dynamics of the money supply, the amount of which increased by 4.2% in the period under review (up +22.8% from the beginning of the year) to Hr 598.4bn.

MONEY SUPPLY Personal deposits at banks increased in 2010, with the main growth noted for national currency deposits. The return of deposits to the banking system has influenced the dynamics of the money supply, the amount of which showed a monthly increase starting in February. Thus, its amount increased by 22.7% in 2010 (following a decline of 5.5% in 2009). The faster growth of the money supply compared to the monetary base (15.8%) was driven by the onset of the money multiplier effect. The money multiplier value increased from 2.5 as of 1 January 2010 to 2.6 on 1 January 2011 (it was down 9.5% in 2009). The multiplier effect of expanded money supply by the banking system was ensured thanks to a faster growth in the deposit component of the money supply compared to the cash component. The amount of cash outside of banks increased by 16.5% in 2010. The share of cash in the money supply decreased accordingly from 32.2% as of 1 January 2010 down to 30.6% at the end of 2010. The increase in the money supply volume was influenced by the dynamics of its other component, i.e., cash outside of banks, the amount of which increased by 7.2% to Hr 168.3bn since the beginning of 2010. At the same time, in light of the accelerated growth of deposits compared to cash, the structure of the money supply SECTION 3 39

was improving. The share of cash in the money supply structure decreased from 32.2% to 31.5% since the outset of the year.

KEY TRENDS IN THE As of 1 January 2011, 176 banks had licenses from the National BANKING SECTOR Bank of Ukraine for conducting the banking business. Eighteen banks are in the process of liquidation, including seventeen banks liquidated by decision of the National Bank and one bank liquidated by decision of commercial/arbitration courts. Four banks continued under temporary administration. The number of operating banks with foreign capital remains nearly unchanged at 55. The number of banks with 100% foreign capital remained unchanged throughout 2010 and consisted of 20 financial institutions as of 1 January 2011. Taking into account the sufficiently high level of liquidity of the banks, the National Bank has significantly reduced the volume of their refinancing transactions. Compared to early 2010, the banks had low demand for refinancing transactions in the second half of 2010: growth amounted to Hr 0.41bn in December (Hr 0.4bn in October-November). In December 2010, refinancing was implemented via credits obtained by participating in a tender and issued for a period of up to 90 days (totaling Hr 0.4bn) and overnight credits (totaling Hr 9.4mn). Since the outset of 2010, refinancing transactions increased by Hr 5.2bn. The interest rate on refinancing transactions equaled 10.42% per annum in December 2010 (against 11.25% per annum in November). The rate of development of the Ukrainian banking system accelerated throughout 2010, in particular, with regard to increasing total assets. Compared to 2009, the total assets of the Ukrainian banking system increased slightly (by 8.8%) in 2010 and reached Hr 1,090.0bn or $136.9bn (see Chart 3.1 and Chart 3.2).

Chart 3.1 Dynamics of Total Bank Assets in the National Currency in 2008-2010



 5PUBM
CBOLJOH
BTTFUT
OPU
BEKVTUFE
UP
QSPWJTJPOT 7PMVNF
PG
NPOFZ
IFME
XJUI
CBOLT
JODMVEJOH
/#6
BOE
DBTI
PG
CBOLT 4FDVSJUJFT
SFGJOBODFE
CZ
/#6 -PBO
QPSUGPMJP
PG
CPUI
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT
BOE
QSJWBUF
JOEJWJEVBMT 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 



 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 )S
NO





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


          40 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 3.2 Dynamics of Total Bank Assets in Foreign Currencies in 2008-2010


 

 
  
 
 

   



  
 
 

 
 



 
   
 64%
NO 
 


 


 




          

5PUBM
CBOLJOH
BTTFUT
OPU
BEKVTUFE
UP
QSPWJTJPOT 2VBSUFSMZ
CBOLJOH
BTTFUT
HSPXUI

SBUF
XJUIPVU
DVSSFODZ
BEKVTUNFOU

The amount in clients’ loan portfolios increased slightly (by 0.8%) and reached Hr 724.6bn in 2010; a negative dynamic in the loan portfolio of retail clients continues to play a role here. Despite a still substantial proportion of foreign-currency credits, their share continued to decline to 46.6% at the end of 2010 (compared to 52.0% at the beginning of 2010). A high level of problem debts, high interest rates, the large size of the down payment, and low creditworthiness of the majority of borrowers are still the main reasons behind banks’ low lending activity. As of 1 January 2011, the loan portfolio of legal entities totaled Hr 520.1bn or 71.8% of the total clients’ loan portfolio, and the loan portfolio of individuals totaled Hr 204.5bn or 28.2% of the total clients’ loan portfolio. Despite the stalled lending to clients, growth rate of loans issued to legal entities was positive at +7.6% for whole-year 2010 (compared to a negative value of -0.54% in the first six months of 2010) (see Chart 3.3).

Chart 3.3 Dynamics of Bank Credits Issued to Legal Entities in 2008-2010


      
     
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
   
        )S
NO


     

  
   


 

          

-POHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT 4IPSUUFSN
MPBOT
UP
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT 4IBSF
PG
MPOHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT 4IBSF
PG
MPOHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT
JO
'$
JO
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT
MPBO
QPSUGPMJP
4IBSF
PG
'$
JO
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT
MPBO
QPSUGPMJP SECTION 3 41

The corporate lending increased in 2010. The leaders in the growth of credits issued to corporate clients in the fourth quarter included: PrivatBank, which increased its portfolio by Hr 9.6bn or by +13.0%, mostly lending to companies controlled by Privat Group; VTB Bank took second place (with a growth of Hr 4.4bn or 19.0%). Delta Bank is lending aggressively (growth amounted to Hr 1.5bn or 22.0%), as well as Russia’s State-owned Sberbank (growth of Hr 1.5bn or 24.0%). At the same time, the corporate loan portfolios fell quite significantly at Alfa-Bank (-Hr 2.0bn or -10.0%), Ukrgasbank (-Hr 1.3bn or -14.0%), and UkrSibbank (-Hr 1.2bn or -8.0%). The suspension of lending resulted in the volume of credits issued to individuals falling by 9.3%, reaching Hr 204.5bn in 2010 (see Chart 3.4). As of 1 January 2011, the deposit portfolio of economic agents totaled Hr 142.5bn or 17.7% of total liabilities, and the deposit portfolio of individuals totaled Hr 271.7bn or 33.8%. The age structure of deposits improved in 2010. Long-term deposits amounted to 31.4% of the total volume as of 1 January 2011 (compared to 24.4% at the beginning of 2010).

Chart 3.4 Dynamics of Bank Credits Issued to Individuals in 2008-2010


  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
   
       
 
          

 )S
NO         
 


 


 

          

-POHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
JOEJWJEVBMT 4IPSUUFSN
MPBOT
UP
JOEJWJEVBMT 4IBSF
PG
MPOHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
JOEJWJEVBMT 4IBSF
PG
MPOHUFSN
MPBOT
UP
JOEJWJEVBMT
JO
'$
JO
JOEJWJEVBMT
MPBO
QPSUGPMJP
4IBSF
PG
'$

The funds of legal entities increased to Hr 142.5bn or by 22.3% in 2010 (see Chart 3.5.) Also, the foreign currency funds of legal entities in dollar equivalent increased slightly – by $0.1bn or by 1.9%, and those in the national currency increased by Hr 25.3bn or by 33.7%. 42 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 3.5 Dynamics of the Balance of Funds of Legal Entities at Bank Accounts in 2008-2010


      
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
   


  )S
NO 
 


 


 


 

          

-FHBM
FOUJUJFT
DVSSFOU

EFQPTJU
BDDPVOUT
6") 4IBSF
PG
GPSFJHO
DVSSOFDZ
JO
MFHBM
FOUJUJFT
EFQPTJU
QPSUGPMJP
-FHBM
FOUJUJFT
DVSSFOU

EFQPTJU
BDDPVOUT
'$

Experts believe that the significant growth of funds in corporate accounts over the course of 2010 (especially of national currency assets) was linked to increased earnings of exporters and increased receipts from the sale of VAT bonds by the companies that received these internal government bonds as payment for overdue VAT refund. The significant growth of the corporate deposit portfolio was led by Prominvestbank (Hr 4.0bn or 41.6%), PrivatBank (Hr 3.2bn or 11.5%), and Dongorbank (Hr 2.6bn or 42.4%). It should be noted, however, that some banks experienced an outflow of corporate deposits. The highest outflow figures were noted for VTB Bank, with a portfolio fall of 30% or by –Hr 2.2bn), Raiffeisen Bank Aval (-Hr 1.5bn or -7.4%), and UkrSibbank (-Hr 1.02bn or -11.2%). Personal deposits increased to Hr 271.7bn or by 28.5% in 2010. Also, the personal deposits in the national currency increased by Hr 41.12bn or by 41.6%, and those in foreign currencies in the dollar equivalent by $2.46bn or by 17.4% (see Chart 3.6.). The banks’ personal deposits have the following age structure: time deposits amount to Hr 207.3bn or 76.3% of all personal deposits, and call deposits amount to Hr 64.4bn or 23.7%. SECTION 3 43

Chart 3.6 Dynamics of the Balance of Funds of Individuals at Bank Accounts in 2008-2010


 


    
    
 
 

 
   
 
 
 
 
  



  )S
NO


 


 

          

*OEJWJEVBMT
EFQPTJU
BDDPVOUT *OEJWJEVBMT
DVSSFOU
BDDPVOUT 4IBSF
PG
GPSFJHO
DVSSOFDZ
JO
JOEJWJEVBMT
EFQPTJU
QPSUGPMJP

The increase in the share of national currency personal deposits in total personal deposits is a telling phenomenon. They increased from 47.0% at the beginning of 2010 to 51.5% at the end of 2010, which testifies to a gradual restoration of the populace’s trust in the national currency in an environment of its stable exchange rate against foreign currencies. Alongside the growth in personal deposits, their age structure also improved. In particular, the share of long-term deposits increased to 31.4% of the total as of 1 January 2011, compared to 24.4% at the outset of 2010. A significant part of the growth of he personal deposit portfolio in 2010 was shown by PrivatBank (Hr 15.5bn or 50%), Oshchadbank (Hr 2.8bn or 39%), Ukreximbank (Hr 2.6bn or 39%), and Delta Bank (Hr 2.0bn or 26%). The authorized capital of the Ukrainian banking system increased by 21.3% (or by Hr 26bn) to Hr 145.9bn in 2010. As of 1 January 2011, the equity of banks totaled Hr 141.7bn or 15.0% of their liabilities. The equity of the banks has the following structure: registered authorized capital accounts for 102.0% of the equity, with 0.3% for the dividends used to increase the authorized capital; 6.0% for issue difference; 8.9% for general provisions and other funds of banks; -20.5% for the results of previous years; -0.3% for the results of the reporting year pending approval; -6.2% for the results of the current year; and 8.3% for the revaluation of fixed assets, intangibles, securities for sale in bank portfolios, and investments into associated companies. As seen from the data shown in Chart 3.7, commercial banks again posted a negative financial result, though the 2010 figure of Hr 13.0bn was one-third of the 2009 result, which had chalked up banking system losses of Hr 38.4bn as of 1 January 2010). 44 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 3.7 Financial Results of Banks in 2006-2010

 
 
  


     






  )S
NO 







 




The banks’ income decreased by 4.3% year-on-year and totaled Hr 136.8bn. The banks’ costs decreased by 17.4% and totaled Hr 149.9bn. Interest income makes up 82.8% of their incomes and 11.2% comes from commission income. The main cost items of banks include interest costs of Hr 61.4bn or 41.0%, deductions into reserves of Hr 46.2bn or 30.8%, and administrative costs of Hr 29.1bn or 19.4%. Banks increased their income before reserves, which is mostly caused by their increased volume of interest and commission income. Based on the operational results of banks as of 1 January 2011, banks’ profit before reserves totaled Hr 32.8bn, which is Hr 7.2bn more than over January-September 2010. The reduction of banking system losses is primarily linked to the fact that the pace of reserve accumulation for active transactions and the amount of negatively classified assets have both significantly decreased, thus, giving banks an opportunity to cut their losses by the end of 2010, and for a number of banks to even show some profit. In experts’ opinion, the main reason for the losses was banks’ inefficient management of problem debts, in particular, in regard to the process of realizing collateral property placed as security for the issued credits. Based on the 2010 performance, 35 banks or 20.0% of the total number of banks in Ukraine showed a negative financial result. The largest share of losses is borne by Rodovid Bank (-Hr 4.3bn), which is now controlled by the State. The top ten most unprofitable banks also include banks with foreign capital, with the largest losses recorded for Forum Bank (-Hr 3.3bn), UkrSibbank (-Hr 3.1bn), Sberbank of Russia (-Hr 1.5bn), and Prominvestbank (-Hr 0.8bn). The most profitable performances in 2010 came from PrivatBank (+Hr 1.37bn), OTP Bank (+Hr 0.61bn), Oshchadbank (+Hr 0.5bn), and Citibank Ukraine (+Hr 0.3bn). SECTION 3 45

CURRENCY Dynamic changes, typical for the currency market throughout MARKET AND 2010, required that the National Bank of Ukraine take quick and EXCHANGE RATE balanced action in order to level out sharp oscillations of the hryvnya exchange rate to forestall the unbalancing of the situation in the foreign-currency segment of the money and credit market. The most significant factors that influenced the status of the currency market in 2010 included: • a 20.1% greater inflow of foreign currency from non- residents compared to 2009, and the formation of a net inflow of foreign currency into residents’ accounts from outside the country ($10.6bn) compared to its net outflow in 2009 ($4.2bn); • expansion of the interbank currency market: the volume of transactions increased by 13.1% compared to 2009; • less active use by residents of their own foreign reserves. In 2010, 50.7% of the foreign currency received from non-residents was sold at the interbank currency market, compared to 56.7% in 2009. At the same time, 58.3% of external foreign-currency payments by residents were made in 2010 at the expense of their own foreign currency, compared to 61.5% in 2009; • non-residents’ increased interest in internal government bonds: the amount of bonds they own increased 23.5 times during the year; • reduced risks of lending to Ukraine and respective raising of Ukraine’s international ratings in foreign currency: from B- to B according to Fitch Ratings; and from CCC+ to B+ according to Standard&Poors. Thanks to the above, the hryvnya consolidated its position against U.S. dollar by 0.38% in 2010 to Hr 7.9617 to $1. The official hryvnya exchange rate also strengthened accordingly by 0.29%. The strengthening of the official hryvnya exchange rate against the euro and Russian ruble amounted to 7.65% and 1.05%, respectively. The positive trends on the currency market allowed the National Bank of Ukraine to not only minimize its negative interventions, but also again buy foreign reserves. The total positive balance of NBU interventions exceeded $1.3bn (equivalent) in 2010, This had become one of the factors for the replenishing of international reserves lost during the crisis, with their amount totaling $34,576.4mn (equivalent) as of 1 January 2011. This amount was sufficient for financing future imports of goods and services for a period of 5.2 months.

INTEREST RATE The sufficient level of liquidity in banks and restoration of the POLICY banks’ resource base combined to create an appropriate basis for reducing the cost of loans in the national currency and resuming banks’ lending activity. 46 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

In order to facilitate the consolidation of positive trends on the money and credit market and create incentives for improving the situation in the real sector of the economy, the NBU reduced its discount rate on three occasions in the period of January- September 2010. It was set at 7.75% as of 10 August 2010. The rates of active and passive NBU transactions were being adjusted accordingly. The average weighted interest rate for refinancing transactions amounted to 11.6% in 2010, and it was lower than the average weighted refinancing rate in 2009 in general (16.7%). The average weighted rate for mobilization transactions in this period (3.2%) was also lower than the average weighted rate in 2009 (6.6%). This policy supported the trends of lowering the cost of resources in all segments of the money and credit market: • deposits in the national currency – from 14.0% in December 2009 to 8.1% in December 2010, and from 9.5% to 6.0% for foreign currency deposits, respectively; • credits in the national currency (without overdraft credits) – from 18.0% in December 2009 to 15.0% in December 2010, and from 12.7% to 10.6%, respectively, for foreign currency credits; • funds at the interbank credit market – up to 6.6% in December 2010 compared to 7.0% per annum in December 2009.

STOCK MARKET In 2010, Ukraine’ PFTS Stock Exchange index grew by 402.17 points since the outset of the year and amounted to 975.08 points as of 1 January 2011. The volume of trading at the PFTS Stock Exchange site increased more than 3.9 times in 2010 against 2009 and totaled over Hr 61.4bn. The main factor behind this increase was a significant growth in the volume of trade in internal government bonds, as well as municipal bonds. The volume of trading in 2010 vs. 2009: • increased 7.1 times to Hr 54,640.9mn for internal government bonds; • showed a minor change (up 1.2% to Hr 4,224.8mn) for stocks; • decreased by 32.2% for corporate stocks down to Hr 2,247.2mn; • increased 4.3 times for municipal bonds up to Hr 141.6mn. The Ministry of Finance placed Hr 70,657.1mn worth of internal government bonds in 2010, with an average weighted yield of 10.4% per annum. In particular: the amount of funds received by the State budget as the result of holding the auctions for the initial placement of internal government bonds totaled Hr 40,424.4mn (or 57.2% of the total volume of SECTION 3 47

internal government bonds placed throughout the year) with an average weighted yield of 12.69% annual; Hr 16.442.7mn worth of internal government bonds issued for covering the overdue budget debt on value-added debt, with an average weighted yield of 5.50% per annum; Hr 6,390.0mn worth of internal government bonds issued for the increased accumulation of the authorized capital of banks, with an average weighted yield of 9.50% per annum; Hr 7,400.0mn worth of internal government bonds issued for the increased accumulation of the authorized capital of the NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny National Joint Stock Company, with an average weighted yield of 9.50% per annum.

FINANCIAL PrivatBank and State-owned Oshchadbank and Ukreximbank POSITION OF were the leaders in terms of net assets as of 1 January 2011. UKRAINIAN BANKS Compared to the data of the early 2010, the situation had changed somewhat. As of the outset of 2011, Ukreximbank occupied the second rung, and Oshchadbank moved down to the third (see Table 3.1). PrivatBank’s market share amounted to 12.0% of the banking system net assets as of 1 January 2011 (the market share changed by +2.33% in 2010, with a simultaneous growth of assets by $3,459mn. Ukreximbank’s market share amounted to 7.7% (the market share changed by +1.32% in 2010, with a simultaneous growth of Hr 2,027mn in dollar equivalent).

Table 3.1 Change in Assets of Largest Banks and Their Share in the Total Amount in 2010

As of As of Growth of assets 1 January 2011 1 January 2010 Share Name of bank Absolute change, Assets, $ Share, Assets, Share, Growth growth, ppt mn % $ mn % rate, % $ mn PrivatBank 14 248 12.00 10 778 9.66 3 470 32.2 2.34 Raiffeisen Bank Aval 6 921 5.83 6 769 6.07 152 2.2 –0.24 UkrSibbank 5 794 4.88 5 804 5.20 -10 -0.2 –0.32 Ukrsotsbank 5 225 4.40 5 467 4.90 -242 -4.4 –0.50 Ukreximbank 9 190 7.74 7 163 6.42 2 027 28.3 1.32 Prominvestbank 4 347 3.66 3 812 3.42 535 14.0 0.24 Nadra Bank 2 877 2.42 3 112 2.79 -235 -7.6 –0.37 Oshchadbank 7 413 6.24 7 505 6.73 -92 -1.2 –0.49 OTP Bank 3 100 2.61 3 681 3.30 -581 -15.8 –0.69 Alfa-Bank 3 340 2.81 3 593 3.22 -253 -7.0 –0.41 Erste Bank 1 235 1.04 1 063 0.95 172 16.2 0.09 Other banks 55 065 46.37 52 800 47.33 2 265 4.3 –0.96 Banking system total 118 756 100 111 547 100 7 209 6.5 x 48 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

There was an overall growth in net assets of banks throughout 2010 (+$7,209mn). It should be noted, however, that 76.2% of the growth was provided by an increase in the net assets portfolio of the market leaders: PrivatBank (+$3,469mn) and Ukreximbank (+$2,027mn). Changes in the amounts of net assets and shares of banks in the banking system in 2010 are shown in Chart 3.8.

Chart 3.8 Change in Net Assets and Shares of Banks in the Banking System in 2010

#BOLJOH
4ZTUFN  
0UIFS
CBOLT   &STUF
#BOL  
"MGB#BOL 

051
#BOL 

0TDIBEOZ
#BOL 

/BESB
#BOL 
 1SPNJOWFTUCBOL   6LSFYJNCBOL  
6LSTPUTCBOL


4IBSF
DIBOHF
QQU
6LS4JCCBOL 

"NPVOU
DIBOHF
 3BJGGFJTFO
#BOL
"WBM
  1SJWBU#BOL 



    

According to the National Bank’s data, the amount of problem debts exceeded 11.24% of the banks’ loan portfolio as of 1 January 2011 and reached Hr 84.9bn (see Chart 3.9). It should be noted that the growth rate in problem debts slowed down significantly in 2010 and amounted to 21.4%, compared to a nearly threefold increase in 2009.

Chart 3.9 Dynamics of Problem Debts on Credits in 2006-2010

  

 

    

  

 )S
CO

                

                

"NPVOU
PG
CBE
EFCUT
PO
DSFEJUT
)S
CO (SPXUI
SBUF
PG
CBE
EFCUT
PO
DSFEJUT
 SECTION 3 49

Throughout 2010, in order to reduce the proportion of negatively classified assets, banks were gradually writing off bad credits debts of clients at the expense of accumulated reserves and sold out bad credits to collectors. Thus, substantial amounts of bad debts were written off by Prominvestbank (Hr 4.4bn), UkrSibbank (Hr 326.0mn), PrivatBank (Hr 254mn), VTB Bank (Hr 190mn), and Alfa-Bank (Hr 174mn). Bad credits were sold to collection agencies with an approximate discount of 80-95% of the nominal debt value by Alfa-Bank (Hr 600mn), Pravex Bank (Hr 520mn), Svedbank (Hr 190mn), Indexbank (Hr 160mn), Kredobank (Hr 170mn), UkrSibbank (Hr 50mn), and VTB Bank (Hr 25mn). In 2010, commercial banks again posted a negative financial result, this time totaling Hr 13.0bn (see Chart 3.10). The banks’ income totaled Hr 136.8bn, with the costs of Hr 149.9bn. A negative financial result was posted by 35 banks or 20.0% of their total number in 2010. For the first group of banks, based on NBU classification, losses decreased by Hr 11.9bn (or by 70.1%), by Hr 64mn (or by 0.9%) for the second group, by Hr 2.6bn (or 4.1 times) for the third group, and by Hr 3.8bn (or 44.6 times) for the fourth group. The number of loss-bearing banks decreased by six compared to the third quarter. Most of this (Hr 12.16bn or 93.35%) was borne by two banks from the first group and two banks from the second group of banks by asset size. Rodovid Bank, which is now controlled by the Government of Ukraine accounts for most of the losses (-Hr 4.26bn). The group of top ten most unprofitable banks also includes banks with foreign capital, the most unprofitable of which are: Forum (-Hr 3,282mn), UkrSibbank (-Hr 3,145mn), Sberbank Russia (-Hr 1,468mn), and Prominvestbank (-Hr 845mn).

Chart 3.10 Financial Performance Losses in 2010


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

3PEPWJE
#BOL


 
 'PSVN


 6LS4JCCBOL


 4CFSCBOL
3VTTJB

 1SPNJOWFTUCBOL

 7"#
#BOL

 6OJWFSTBMCBOL

 75#
#BOL

 ,SFEPCBOL

)S
NO  1JSBFVT
#BOL 50 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The standard minimal size of regulatory capital totaled Hr 160.89mn as of 1 January 2011, and the actual adequacy of regulatory capital was significantly above the standard and amounted to 20.8%. This testifies to a sufficient size of the banking system regulatory capital and the banks’ ability to provide timely coverage of risky active transactions. Banking sector profitability trended upward in 2010; the profitability of assets increased by 2.9% and return on equity by 22.33%. However, both indicators remained negative due to the banks’ loss-bearing operations. Commercial banks were actively reducing their branch networks in 2010: -26% compared to -16.5% in 2009. Of the 247 closed branches (about 1000 offices), 47 were closed due to the liquidation of banks, with the remaining 200 branches shut down by decision of operating banks. SECTION 4 51

SECTION 4. ANALYSIS OF BUDGET INDICATORS IN 2010

4.1. INTAKE OF REVENUES OF CONSOLIDATED BUDGET AND STATE BUDGET OF UKRAINE IN 2010

CONSOLIDATED The actual intake of consolidated budget revenues totaled AND STATE Hr 314.4bn in 2010, which is Hr 25.8bn or 8.9% more year-on-year BUDGET REVENUES (see Table 4.1.1). The 2010 annual plan was executed by 98.4%. The annual plan was executed by 88.8% in 2009.

Table 4.1.1 Revenues of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budget of Ukraine in 2007-2010

2010 vs. 2009 Absolute Indicators 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth growth, rate, % Hr bn Consolidated budget, 219.9 297.9 288.6 314.4 25.8 8.9 Hr bn, including: у % of GDP 30.5 31.3 31.6 29.0 х х – General Fund 167.2 238.5 224.3 268.7 44.4 19.8 – Special Fund 52.7 59.4 64.3 45.7 –18.6 –28.9 State budget (without intergovernmental 161.6 224.0 217.6 233.9 16.3 7.5 transfers), Hr bn, including: share in the consolidated 73.5 75.2 75.4 74.4 х х budget revenues, % – General Fund 122.3 178.6 164.7 201.1 36.4 22.2 – Special Fund 39.3 45.4 52.9 32.8 –20.1 –38.0 Local budgets (without intergovernmental 58.3 73.9 71.0 80.5 9.5 13.4 transfers), Hr bn, including: share in the consolidated 26.5 24.8 24.6 25.6 х х budget revenues, % – General Fund 44.9 59.9 59.6 67.6 8.0 13.4 – Special Fund 13.4 14.0 11.4 12.9 1.5 12.9

State budget revenues (with intergovernmental transfers) totaled Hr 240.5bn, which is Hr 15.2bn or 6.7% more than in 2009. Of this amount, the General Fund of the State budget received Hr 207.5bn and the Special Fund received Hr 33.0bn.

The actual intake of State budget revenues (without intergovernmental transfers) totaled Hr 233.9bn, which is Hr 16.3bn or 7.5% more than in 2009. 52 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

In 2010, 94.3% of the annual State budget plan was executed. The dynamics of monthly State budget revenues differed somewhat in the reporting period from the previous year. This manifested itself in a slower growth of revenues in August- September 2010, which was related to activities of settling the issue of overdue VAT refund amounts. The solid lines in Graph 4.1.1 represent the trend of revenues according to official data from the State Treasury, and the dotted line shows the trend without accounting for the amounts of VAT refund from the budget, which were covered by the issue of internal government bonds.

Graph 4.1.1 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues in 2005-2010



       




 


  
 
 
 
 
 )S
NO  
 
 
 
  
 


 

 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

*Without accounting the VAT refund debt of Hr 16.4bn.

Therefore, the execution of the State budget revenues was characterized by the following: – stabilization of budget revenue intake from key taxes; – lower amounts of VAT refund compared to the previous two years; – increased intake of budget revenues from the excise tax, primarily, from the excise tax on tobacco and products. On the whole, the trend of State budget revenues, in particular with regard to tax revenues, is similar to trends in 2009, except for the period of the financial and economic crisis. At the same time, accounting the amount of Hr 16.4bn issued as internal government bonds for reimbursing the value-added tax with a “-“ sign as budget revenues in the third quarter has led to a sharp decline in the State budget revenues figure. As with 2009, the excise tax, which thanks to the raising of its rates shows a sustainable upward trend, remains the most stable source of State budget revenues. SECTION 4 53

THE STRUCTURE In response to the factors that influenced the budget OF THE revenues, the structure of consolidated and State budget revenues CONSOLIDATED experienced certain changes compared to 2009. AND STATE The share of tax revenues in the overall revenue structure BUDGET REVENUES of the consolidated budget increased by 2.5ppt to 74.6% in 2010. At the same time, the structure of tax revenues themselves also changed. Thus, the shares of practically all key revenues increased, except for the share of the value-added tax, which decreased by 1.8ppt. In particular, the enterprise profit tax increased by 1.3ppt, excise tax by 1.5ppt, personal income tax by 0.8ppt, and taxes on foreign trade and external transactions by 0.7ppt. The share of non-tax revenues in the consolidated budget decreased by 2.2ppt and amounted to 23.4%. Also, the shares of the following components of non-tax revenues have decreased: revenues from property and business activity by 1.6ppt and other non-tax revenues by 0.6ppt. At the same time, the share of administrative fees and own revenues of budgetary institutions were virtually unchanged. The share of tax revenues in the structure of total State budget revenues increased by 3.0ppt in 2010. Changes in the State budget revenues structure are in general similar to those in the structure of consolidated budget revenues. The main factor for the increase of the share of tax revenues in the overall structure of State budget revenues was an increase in the share of revenues from the enterprise profit tax (by 2.2ppt), excise tax (by 2.0ppt), taxes and foreign trade and external transactions (by 0.7ppt). The value-added tax was the only source of revenues whose share in the overall structure of State budget revenues decreased (down 2.0ppt). The share of non-tax revenues in the revenues of the State budget decreased by 2.7ppt and amounted to 27.8%. The main reason for this was a decline of revenues from property and business activity (by 1.9ppt), as well as of other non-tax revenues (by 0.7ppt). The structure of consolidated and State budget revenues is shown in Table 4.1.2.

Table 4.1.2 Structure of Consolidated and State Budget Revenues in 2008-2010 (%) Consolidated budget State budget Revenues 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 Tax revenues, including: 76.3 72.1 74.6 74.9 68.4 71.4 – personal income tax 15.4 15.4 16.2––– – enterprise profit tax 16.1 11.5 12.8 21.2 14.9 17.1 – fee for special use of natural resources, 3.1 3.9 4.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 including: • payment for land 2.2 2.9 3.0––– – value-added tax 30.9 29.3 27.5 41.1 38.9 36.9 – excise tax 4.3 7.5 9.0 5.7 9.8 11.8 54 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Consolidated budget State budget Revenues 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 – taxes on foreign trade and external 4.1 2.4 2.9 5.5 3.2 3.9 transactions – other tax revenues 2.4 2.1 2.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 Non-tax revenues, including: 20.3 25.6 23.4 23.6 30.5 27.8 – income from property and business 7.5 11.3 9.7 9.5 14.6 12.7 activity – administrative fees and charges, income from noncommercial and inci- 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 dental sale – own revenues of budgetary institutions 6.9 9.0 9.1 6.8 9.4 9.4 – other non-tax revenues 4.9 4.4 3.8 6.4 5.7 5.0 Income from capital transactions 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 Special-purpose funds 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 Other revenues 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1

STATE BUDGET TAX The State budget received Hr 166.9bn in tax revenues in 2010, REVENUES which is Hr 18.0bn or 12.1% more year-on-year. The actual intake of tax revenues amounted to 87.5% of the annual plan, which is 2.8ppt less than the level of execution in 2009. Notably, the majority of tax items failed to reach their annual plan targets.

ENTERPRISE The State budget received Hr 40.0bn in enterprise profit tax, PROFIT TAX which is Hr 7.4bn or 22.7% more year-on-year. This amounts to 99.8% of the annual revenue plan for this tax (77.7% of the planned revenues were generated in 2009). In general, the monthly dynamics of the enterprise profit tax revenue intake follows the trends of previous years (see Graph 4.1.2).

Graph 4.1.2 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues from Enterprise Profit Tax in 2005-2010



     



 



  )S
NO 



  



 
 
 
  
 
 

 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

Growth in revenues from the enterprise profit tax primarily occurred thanks to a Hr 9.6bn greater tax remittance by the private sector of the economy. In addition, the tax amount paid SECTION 4 55

by State-owned enterprise also increased (by Hr 0.8bn year- on-year). Notably, the State sector discharged a half of all tax obligations in paying this tax in Q1 2010. At the same time, the amount of the tax paid by the financial sector dropped by nearly two thirds – from Hr 3.0bn to Hr 1.1bn. These trends are summarized in Chart 4.1.1.

Chart 4.1.1 Revenues from Enterprise Profit Tax Paid by Enterprises of Various Forms of Ownership in 2009-2010

  4UBUFPXOFE
&OUFSQSJTFT



&OUFSQSJTFT
XJUI
'PSFJHO
$BQJUBM



 #BOLT
BOE
*OTVSBODF
$PNQBOJFT  )S
CO

     1SJWBUF
&OUFSQSJTFT

    0UIFST 

  

VALUE-ADDED TAX The State budget received Hr 86.3bn from value added tax in 2010, which is Hr 1.7bn or 2.0% more year-on-year. The value added tax revenues amounted to just 80.6% of the annual plan, compared to 89.2% of the plan in 2009. In 2010, 90.4% of the plan targets for value added tax on goods imported in Ukraine was met, and the plan for value added tax on goods made in Ukraine was implemented by 100.3%. Thus, the main reason for VAT revenues underperforming was a nearly 1.5 times growth in the amounts of this tax refund. The monthly dynamics of State budget revenues from value- added tax in 2005-2010 is shown in Graph 4.1.3. The solid lines in the Graph shows a trend of revenues as per official data of the State Treasury, and the dotted line shows the trend, without accounting for the amounts of VAT refund from the budget, which were covered by issuing internal government bonds. 56 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.1.3 Dynamics of Monthly State Budget Revenues from Value- Added Tax in 2005-2010



      

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 




 )S
NO

 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS  'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS




 

The situation with VAT refunds is explained by the amount of Hr 16.4bn, issued as internal government bonds for reimbursing the value added tax, was credited to the budget revenues with a «-» sign in August 2010. Without the amount of debt for VAT refund issued as internal government bonds, the amount reimbursed in 2010 amounted to Hr 24.3bn, which is 11.6% less than the plan. The shares of VAT refund from the budget decreased in the general structure of this tax in 2010 accordingly (see Chart 4.1.2).

Chart 4.1.2 Value-Added Tax Reimbursement from the Budget in 2008-2010




 
   
 #VEHFU
SFGVOE
PG
7"5
JTTVFE
BT JOUFSOBM
HPWFSONFOU
CPOET 
 




#VEHFU
SFGVOE
PG
7"5 


   



 7"5
PO
HPPET
JNQPSUFE
JO
6LSBJOF





    7"5
PO
HPPET
XPSLT
TFSWJDFT 
 NBEF
JO
6LSBJOF


    SECTION 4 57

TAXES ON The State budget received Hr 9.1bn from taxes on foreign FOREIGN TRADE trade and external transactions in 2010, which is Hr 2.1bn or AND EXTERNAL 30.9% more year-on-year. TRANSACTIONS The revenues from taxes on foreign trade and external transactions amounted to 102.2% of the annual plan (this amounted to 63.6% in 2009). Compared to 2009, the structure of taxes on foreign trade experienced some changes, viz.: – the share of receipts from the import duty increased by 3.0ppt; – the share of receipts from the export duty decreased by 2.2ppt (among other things, due to a gradual reduction of export duty rates in accordance with Ukraine’s commitments in joining the World Trade Organization); – the share of receipts from consular fees decreased by 0.8ppt and amounted to 2.4%. This information is summarized in Chart 4.1.3. The main factor in the fulfillment of the revenue plan for taxes on foreign trade and external transactions involved growth in revenues from the duty on petroleum products, transport vehicles and tires for them, the amount of which increased by Hr 1.0bn in 2010 or by 88.0% year-on-year.

Chart 4.1.3 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Taxes on Foreign Trade in 2009-2010

$POTVMBS
*NQPSU
%VUZ $POTVMBS
*NQPSU
%VUZ 4FSWJDFT
'FFT  4FSWJDFT
'FFT   

&YUFSOBM
%VUZ &YUFSOBM
%VUZ  




EXCISE TAX The revenues from excise tax totaled Hr 27.6bn in 2010, which is Hr 6.3bn or 29.8% more year-on-year. The annual plan was executed by 93.0% (the State budget received 87.7% of the annual plan from this source in 2009). The share of revenues from the excise tax on goods made in Ukraine increased by 0.8ppt in the reporting period compared to 2009. 58 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The structure of excise tax revenues is summarized in Chart 4.1.4.

Chart 4.1.4 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Excise Tax in 2009-2010

5PCBDDP
BOE
5 PCBDDP
BOE
QSPEVDUT QS PEVDUT  

5SBOTQPSU
WFIJDMFT  5SBOTQPSU
WFIJDMFT 

"MDPIPM
BOE
"MDPIPM
BOE
1FUSPMFVN
BMDPIPMJD
1FUSPMFVN
BMDPIPMJD
QS PEVDUT CFWFSBHFT QSPEVDUT CFWFS BHFT    




The revenues from the excise tax on goods made in Ukraine totaled Hr 23.0bn, with a growth of Hr 5.4bn or 30.9% compared to 2009. The main factor of this growth was a Hr 4.0bn greater intake of excise tax on tobacco products. This occurred due to raising the excise tax rates on this type of goods as of 1 January 2010, and another raising of rates for this type of excise product as of 1 July 2010: from Hr 15.6 per 1000 non-filter cigarettes and smoking tobacco to Hr 35; and from Hr 37.5 to Hr 60 per 1000 filter-tipped cigarettes. Another source of increase in revenues from the domestic excise tax included a rise in the excise tax rates for beer and liqueur and spirits. The total revenues from this source increased by Hr 1.5bn or by 25.5%. It should be noted that excise tax rates were raised on five occasions throughout 2009-2010, which has led to a dramatic growth of budget revenues from this source. As a result, excise tax revenues more than doubled against 2008. However, such raising of rates has started to negatively impact on the of production of excise goods inside the country with a gradual increase in illegal production and smuggling of excise goods resulting. According to some estimates, the grey market of vodka production has grown by 40%, and by 10% for tobacco12. These trends are reflected in the dynamics of excise tax revenues. In particular, the amounts of revenues from the excise tax on imported liqueurs and spirits increased nearly 2.5 times, wine 1.4 times, and beer 1.5 times.

12 http://markets.eizvestia.com/full/eda-stanovitsya-nedostupnoj SECTION 4 59

NON-TAX The State budget received Hr 65.1bn in non-tax revenues in REVENUES 2010, which is Hr 1.2bn or 1.2% less year-on-year. In 2010, 117.7% of planned non-tax revenue was received, compared to 115.6% in 2009). The structure of non-tax revenues of the State budget experienced some significant changes: the share of own revenues of budgetary institutions was the only component that increased significantly (up 2.9ppt); the remaining components of non-tax revenues either decreased or remained unchanged, with the share of income from property and business activity dropping 2.2ppt and the share of other non-tax revenues falling 0.7ppt. The structure of non-tax revenues is summarized in Chart 4.1.5.

Chart 4.1.5 Structure of Non-Tax Revenues of State Budget in 2008-2010



   0UIFS
OPOUBY
SFWFOVFT 

 

  0XO
SFWFOVFT
PG
CVEHFUBSZ
JOTUJUVUJPOT

     "ENJOJTUSBUJWF
DIBSHFT
BOE
GFFT

   

3FWFOVFT
GSPN
QSPQFSUZ
BOE
CVTJOFTT BDUJWJUZ

   

INCOME FROM The State budget received Hr 29.7bn in income from property PROPERTY AND and business activity, which is Hr 2.1bn or 6.6% less year- BUSINESS ACTIVITY on-year. In 2010, actual revenue intake of this type amounted to 116.2% of the annual plan compared to 119.8% in 2009). The main factors for exceeding the expected income from property and business activity included a part of the net profit of economic organizations (State-owned, unitary enterprises and their associations), which is remitted to the budget, the rent and receipts from the surplus of gross income over expenditures of the National Bank of Ukraine. Thus, the receipts of the part of profit of State-owned enterprises remitted to the budget increased by Hr 1.0bn against 2009, those of rent by Hr 1.8bn, and the NBU remitted to the budget Hr 10.0bn more in 2009. While the receipts from royalties for the extraction of oil and gas in the territory of Ukraine increased by Hr 1.1bn and Hr 1.3bn, respectively, the royalty for the transit of natural gas via Ukrainian territory decreased by Hr 0.1bn. 60 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

OWN REVENUES Own revenues of budgetary institutions totaled Hr 22.1bn OF BUDGETARY in 2010, which is Hr 1.5bn or 7.5% more than in 2009. In 2010, INSTITUTIONS actual revenue intake was 163.1% of the plan vs. 126.0% in 2009. The revenues from this source increased due to greater receipts from the fees for the services provided by budgetary institutions according to law; these receipts totaled Hr 17.0bn during the year, which is Hr 2.1bn or 14.5% more than in 2009.

OTHER NON-TAX The State budget received Hr 11.6bn in other non-tax REVENUES revenues in 2010, which is Hr 0.7bn or 5.5% less year-on-year. The decline was mostly caused by a lower intake of receipts from the sale of the established greenhouse gas quotas as envisioned by Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention. These receipts were 40% lower in 2010 than in 2009 (Hr 1.8bn vs. Hr 2.9bn). In addition, a decline was noted in the receipts from exchange rate differences (-Hr 0.3bn) and income from crediting transactions and the granting of guarantees (-Hr 0.3bn). The reduced receipts from this group of revenues were partially compensated by Hr 0.4bn or 15.3% higher receipts from additional charges for the payment of pensions.

REVENUES The revenues from capital transactions decreased in FROM CAPITAL 2010. The State budget received Hr 0.6bn in such revenues, TRANSACTIONS which is Hr 0.5bn or 44.6% less than in 2009. While the receipts from the sale of fixed capital increased by 41.6%, the revenues from the sale of the government stock of goods decreased by 53.7%, and revenue from the sale of land remained practically unchanged. Changes occurred in the structure of revenues from capital transactions: the share of revenue from the sale of the government stock of goods decreased by 13.8ppt, and the revenue from the sale of land and intangible assets, and from the sale of fixed capital increased by 11.4ppt and 2.4ppt, respectively. The information about the intake of revenues from capital transactions is summarized in Chart 4.1.6. SECTION 4 61

Chart 4.1.6 Structure of State Budget Revenues from Capital Transactions in 2008-2010 


 

 3FWFOVFT
GSPN
TBMF
PG
MBOE BOE
JOUBOHJCMF
BTTFUT 





3FWFOVFT
GSPN
TBMF
PG
HPWFSONFOU JOWFOUPSZ
PG
HPPET   
 


 3FWFOVFT
GSPN
TBMF
PG
GJYFE
DBQJUBM

  
    

4.2. FINANCING OF THE STATE BUDGET OF UKRAINE AND STATE DEBT IN 2010

FINANCING OF The State budget deficit reached Hr 64.3bn as of 1 January BUDGET DEFICIT 2011 (see Chart 4.2.1), which is 18.8% more than the ceiling set by the Law on the State Budget of Ukraine for 2010. This excess is mainly explained by the issue of Hr 16.4bn worth of internal government bonds for reimbursing the value added tax over the amounts established by the State budget law. The right to such reimbursement is granted by Article 25 of the 2010 State budget law. Year-on-year, the State budget deficit increased by Hr 28.8bn or 1.8 times.

Chart 4.2.1 Dynamics of State Budget Deficit (–) / Surplus in 2006-2010

  

     

    

   

     %FGJDJU


4VSQMVT

)S
CO 3FWFOVFT

&YQFOEJUVSFT
)S
CO      

 

        

3FWFOVFT
BOE
DSFEJU
SFUVSO
UP
4UBUF
#VEHFU
&YQFOEJUVSFT
BOE
DSFEJUJOH
GSPN
4UBUF
#VEHFU %FGJDJU
62 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The State budget deficit as percentage of GDP amounted to 5.9%, which is the highest amount in the last seven years (see Graph 4.2.1). At the same time, debt as percentage of GDP has also reached its highest level. This confirms the fact that borrowing was the main source of financing the State budget deficit in 2010. Thus, the financing of the State budget under debt transactions totaled Hr 97.6bn, which exceeds the annual plan by 16.4%. This is an increase of Hr 7.9bn, or 8.8% year-on-year. The borrowing amount totaled Hr 124.3bn, which is 15.4% more than the annual plan. The structure of the sources of financing also shows borrowing as the main source in 2010 (see Chart 4.2.3). Thus, internal borrowing amounted to 55.8% in the overall structure of sources of financing the budget deficit, and external borrowing amounted to 43.3%. A smaller proportion of 0.9% is provided by the proceeds from privatization.

Graph 4.2.1 Dynamics of the Ratio of State Budget Deficit and the State and State Guaranteed Debt to GDP in 2004-2010



  %FGJDJU 4UBUF
BOE
4UBUFHVBSBOUFFE
EFCU

 



 




(%1     



       

       

In general, the structure of the sources of financing does not show any sustainable trend throughout 2006-2010, even though it is quite similar in the last two years (see Chart 4.2.2). SECTION 4 63

Chart 4.2.2 Structure of State Budget Sources of Financing in 2006-2010

    

  

  

*OUFSOBM
CPSSPXJOH
GPS
 DBQJUBMJ[BUJPO
PG
6LSFYJNCBOL
BOE
JODSFBTJOH
UIF
BVUIPSJ[FE
DBQJUBM
PG
 UIF
/",
/BGUPIB[
6LSBZJOZ
/BUJPOBM
+PJOU
4UPDL
$PNQBOZ
BOE
UIF
  4UBUF
.PSUHBHF
™%PNFTUJD
*OTUJUVUJPO  MPBOT
GPS
  DBQJUBMJ[BUJPO
PG
CBOLT
BOE
JODSFBTJOH
UIF
 TUBUVUPSZ
GVOE
PG
/",
/BGUPIB[
0UIFS
EPNFTUJD
6LSBZJOZ   MPBOT

 0UIFS
  EPNFTUJD MPBOT
     

0UIFS
GJOBODJOH
JODMVEJOH
UIBU
EVF
UP
DIBOHFT
JO
BNPVOUT
PG
DBTI
DPNNPO
USFBTVSZ
BDDPVVOU DIBOHFT
JO
BNPVOU
PG
EFQPTJUT
BOE
TFDVSJUJFT

1SJWBUJ[BUJPO
QSPDFFET

*OUFSOBUJPOBM
MPBOT

%PNFTUJD
MPBOT

State budget borrowing totaled Hr 124.3bn in 2010 (see Graph 4.2.2), which is 2.7% more than in 2009, and 3.7 times more than in the pre-crisis year of 2008. Internal borrowing totaled Hr 70.0bn (Hr 33.6bn borrowed for the General Fund), with an 11.5% growth. The borrowing mainly consisted of the issue of internal government bonds, in particular, for: – financing the State budget deficit; – replenishing the Stabilization Fund by Hr 37.8bn; – increasing the authorized capital of Ukreximbank, NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny National Joint Stock Company, and State Mortgage Institution by Hr 15.8bn; – the abovementioned refund of the value-added tax by Hr 16.4bn. Short-term obligations amount to 32.7% or Hr 22.9bn of all internal borrowing. Of these, Ukraine repaid about Hr 16.0bn in December 2010. External borrowing totaled Hr 54.3bn, which is 6.8% less than in 2009. A significant part of the external borrowing consists of two tranches from the International Monetary Fund totaling Hr 16.1bn, external government bonds totaling Hr 19.8bn, and a commercial loan from VTB Bank of Hr 15.8bn.13 The funds from international economic development organizations totaled Hr 2.5bn or 69.1% of the planned annual sum. The said receipts were Hr 82.6mn or 3.4% greater than in 2009.

13 http://www.minfin.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=283755&cat_id=240945 64 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.2.2 Comparison Between State Budget Borrowing and State Debt Repayment in 2005-2010



#PSSPXJOHT %FCU
SFEFNQUJPO   



 )S
CO



   

              

The debt repayment totaled Hr 26.7bn, which is 12.1% more than the annual plan and 14.8% less than in 2009 (see Graph 4.2.2). The internal debt repayment totaled Hr 25.0bn or 12.5% more than the annual plan, and the external debt repayment totaled Hr 0.8bn or 100.0% of the annual plan.

Table 4.2.1 Financing of the State Budget of Ukraine in 2006-2010

Years 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 Execution, Plan Actual Indicators % General financing, 3.8 9.8 12.5 35.5 54.1 64.3 118.8 Hr bn, including: – General Fund 4.8 11.4 9.7 16.1 30.3 30.7 101.0 – Special Fund –1.0 –1.6 2.8 3.8 23.8 33.6 141.5 Financing for debt 2.0 3.9 27.3 89.7 83.9 97.6 116.4 transactions, Hr bn Borrowing, Hr bn, 11.9 10.4 33.3 121.0 107.7 124.3 115.4 including: – internal 1.6 3.6 27.1 62.8 73.6 70.0 95.2 borrowing share, % 13.4 34.6 81.4 51.9 68.4 56.4 х – external 10.3 6.8 6.2 58.2 34.1 54.2 159.2 borrowing share, % 86.6 65.4 18.6 48.1 31.6 43.6 х Repayment, Hr mn, –9.9 –6.5 –6.0 –31.3 –23.8 –26.7 112.1 including: – internal –4.2 –2.4 –3.7 –17.9 –17.1 –19.7 115.4 borrowing share, % 42.4 36.9 61.7 57.2 71.7 73.8 х – external –5.7 –4.1 –2.3 –13.4 –6.7 –7.0 103.7 borrowing share, % 57.6 63.1 38.3 42.8 28.3 26.2 х SECTION 4 65

Years 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 Execution, Plan Actual Indicators % Proceeds from privatization of State 0.6 2.5 0.5 0.8 6.4 1.1 17.2 property, Hr bn Financing for active 1.2 3.4 –15.3 –54.9 –36.1 –34.4 95.3 transactions, Hr bn

As seen from Table 4.2.1, the share of internal borrowing amounts to 56.4%, with external borrowing at 43.6%. The share of internal borrowing increased by 4.5ppt. The annual target for internal borrowing was implemented by 95.2%, that for external borrowing by 159.2%. In the structure of debt repayment, payments of internal debt amount to 73.8% and those of external debt to 26.2%. The deficit of Hr 30.7bn or 101.0% of the planned annual amount was financed for the General Fund of the budget (see Table 4.2.1). Also, 88.1% of the General Fund deficit was used for current expenditures.

STATE DEBT The expenditures for servicing the State debt totaled REPAYMENT Hr 15.5bn, which is 9.4% more than the annual plan and 1.7 times AND SERVICING more than in 2009. The expenditures for servicing the external EXPENSES debt totaled Hr 4.7bn, which is 15.3% more than the annual plan; and those for servicing the internal debt totaled Hr 10.9bn, which is 7.1% more than the annual plan (see Table 4.2.2).

Table 4.2.2 Budget Expenditures for Repayment and Servicing of State Debt in 2008-2010

Years 2008 2009 2010 Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Indicators Hr bn Hr bn % Hr bn Hr bn % Hr bn Hr bn % STATE DEBT PAYMENTS, 10.0 9.8 98.0 41.6 40.4 97.1 38.0 42.2 111.1 total, including: – internal debt 4.7 4.5 95.7 23.7 22.6 95.4 27.2 30.6 112.3 – external 5.3 5.3 100.0 17.9 17.8 99.4 10.8 11.6 108.1 debt State debt repayment 6.0 6.0 100.0 27.4 31.3 114.2 23.8 26.7 112.1 expenditures, including: – internal debt 3.6 3.6 100.0 14.5 17.9 123.4 17.1 19.7 115.4 – external 2.4 2.4 100.0 12.9 13.4 103.9 6.7 7.0 103.7 debt State debt servicing 4.0 3.8 95.0 14.2 9.1 64.1 14.2 15.5 109.4 expenditures, including: – internal debt 1.1 0.9 81.8 9.2 4.7 51.1 10.2 10.8 107.1 66 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Years 2008 2009 2010 Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Indicators Hr bn Hr bn % Hr bn Hr bn % Hr bn Hr bn % – external 2.9 2.9 100.0 5.0 4.4 88.0 4.0 4.7 115.3 debt BUDGET EXPENDITURES total (expenditures, 275.1 251.1 91.3 307.4 280.4 91.2 338.4 335.0 99.0 granting of credits, repayment of State debt) Percentage of State debt payments 3.6 3.9 х 13.5 14.4 х 11.2 12.6 х in budget expenditures, %

The total expenditures of State debt repayment and servicing amounted to Hr 42.2bn or 12.6% of all State budget expenditures, which is 1.8ppt less than in 2009.

STATE AND The ratio of the State and State-guaranteed debt of STATE- Ukraine to GDP amounted to 39.4% as of the end of 2010, which GUARANTEED is 4.8ppt more than at the end of 2009 (see Chart 4.2.3). DEBT

Chart 4.2.3 Ratio of the State and State-Guaranteed Debt to GDP in 1999-2010 


$SJUJDBM
MFWFM
PG
4UBUF
BOE
4UBUFHVBSBOUFFE
EFCU
UP
(%1
SBUJP 
 



 
 4UBUFHVBSBOUFFE
EFCU
UP
(%1 4UBUF
EFCU
UP
(%1 
 
 
  
 



 


 
    
 
  
  
  
  
                

           

According to the data published on The World Factbook14 webpage, the ratio of State debt to GDP in Ukraine is average for many countries worldwide (see Chart 4.2.4). Ukraine ranks 77th out of the 131 countries with data are published on this website, compared to 29th from among 129 countries at the end of 2009.

14 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html SECTION 4 67

Chart 4.2.4 Comparison between the Ratio of State Debt to GDP of Ukraine and Some Other Countries Worldwide as of 31 December 2010

 

   

   $SJUJDBM
MFWFM
PG
4UBUF
BOE
4UBUFHVBSBOUFFE
EFCU
UP
(%1
SBUJP   

                     

JB E JB JB JD Z N MZ UBO UBO JOB OJB DF BO T UJPO T I BEB F SLF MBOE ODF *UB Q BJKBO USBMJB W VBO VCM V P MHJV FF BOPO B $ FBMBO -BUWJB ONBSL OHBSZ SB + FSB BLI VT $BO PNBO JUI 6LSBJOF 5 1 V ' (S [FSC #VMHBS " .PMEPWB
; 3 4MP -
3FQ 4MPWBLJB %F ) #F -FC " FE B[ X I 6[CFLJ
' , D E
,JOHEPN /F UF JBO OJ TT $[F 6 3V

As a result of the significant increase in the volume of State budget borrowing throughout 2008-2010, the State and State- guaranteed debt of Ukraine totaled Hr 432.3bn as of the end of December 2010 (see Chart 4.2.5) (or $54.3bn), which is Hr 115.4bn or 36.5% more than in 2009. The State debt accounts for 74.8% of the combined State and State-guaranteed debt, and the debt guaranteed by the State accounts for 25.2%.

Chart 4.2.5 Dynamics of the State and State-Guaranteed Debt in 2001-2010



4UBUF
EFCU 4UBUFHVBSBOUFFE
EFCU 

 

 



 )S
CO



  

                

      

          

15 The value of the ratio of State debt to GDP for Ukraine has been brought in conformity with the official statistics of actual GDP and State debt. 68 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

As seen from Chart 4.2.5, the growth of the State debt continued to trend upward (by Hr 96.5bn since the outset of the year), however, the volume of the debt guaranteed by the State also increased by Hr 18.9bn in the period under review. The State debt ceiling for 2010 was set at Hr 315.7bn16, with its actual amount totaling Hr 323.5bn at the end of the year, having grown by Hr 96.5bn or 42.5% during the year. The internal State debt totaled Hr 141.7bn or $17.8bn at the end of December 2010, showing a growth of Hr 50.6bn or 55.6%. The external State debt totaled Hr 181.8bn or $22.8bn, with a growth of Hr 45.9bn or 33.8%. The State-guaranteed debt totaled Hr 108.8bn or $13.7bn, including internal guaranteed debt of Hr 13.8bn or $1.7bn, and external debt of Hr 95.0bn or $12.0bn. As mentioned above, the State- guaranteed debt of Ukraine increased by Hr 18.9bn or 21.0% in 2010. This is connected with the issue of external FININPRO Eurobonds totaling Hr 4.5bn for financing the activities related to hosting the Euro 2012 championship, Ukravtodor Motor Roads Service receiving a credit from VTB Bank (totaling Hr 3.5bn), and the receipt of tranches of the International Monetary Fund loan (totaling Hr 10.9bn). The structure of the State and State-guaranteed debt has changed (see Chart 4.2.6 and Chart 4.2.7). The share of external direct debt amounts to 42.1% in 2010, which is 2.1ppt more than at the end of December 2009. The internal direct debt accounts for 32.7%, which is 2.5ppt more than the respective 2009 figure. The State-guaranteed debt amounts to 25.2% of the total debt, which is 4.6ppt less year-on-year.

Chart 4.2.6 State Debt Structure in 2009

%PNFTUJD
EJSFDU
EFCU


PS
)S
CO
'PSFJHO
EJSFDU
EFCU JODMVEJOH 
 *OUFSOBM
HPWFSONFOU
CPOE

PS
)S
CO )S
CO JODMVEJOH EFCU
UP
/#6

&YUFSOBM
HPWFSONFOU
CPOE


)S
CO )S

CO (VBSBOUFFE
EFCU

 PS
)S
CO

16 Set by Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for the Year 2010” as of 31 December 2010. SECTION 4 69

Chart 4.2.7 State Debt Structure in 2010

%PNFTUJD
EJSFDU
EFCU

 PS
)SCO
JODMVEJOH 'PSFJHO
EJSFDU
EFCU *OUFSOBM
HPWFSONFOU
CPOE


 )S
CO PS
)S
CO EFCU
UP
/#6

JODMVEJOH )S
CO &YUFSOBM
HPWFSONFOU
CPOE


)S
CO

(VBSBOUFFE
EFCU

 PS
)S
CO

The internal State and State-guaranteed debt totaled Hr 155.5bn at the end of December 2010 and consisted of: • debt to legal entities of Hr 145.1bn, including Hr 138.4bn or 32.0% of the total State and State-guaranteed debt (both internal and external) in internal government bonds, which is 4.3ppt more than at the end of December 2009; Hr 3.0bn in bonds of the State Mortgage Institution or 0.7% (0.3ppt less than at the end of December 2009); and Hr 2.1bn in bonds of State-owned enterprises or 0.5% (no changes in the percentage); • debt to banking institutions of Hr 10.4bn, viz.: Hr 3.3bn to the National Bank of Ukraine (3.8% less than at the end of December 2009) or 0.8% of the total State and State- guaranteed debt (0.3ppt less); Hr 2.1bn to Ukreximbank or 0.5 of the total debt; Hr 5.0bn to Oshchadbank or 1.2% of the total State and State-guaranteed debt. The main items of the external State and State-guaranteed debt (Hr 276.7bn) are as follows: • loans granted by international economic development organizations of Hr 144.7bn (21.4% more than at the end of December 2009) or 33.5% of the total debt (4.1ppt less than at the end of December 2009), including Hr 113.4bn to the International Monetary Fund (26.2% or 1.5ppt less), Hr 25.3bn to the World Bank (5.9% or 2.3ppt less), and Hr 3.8bn to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (0.9% or 0.4ppt less); • loans provided by foreign government entities of Hr 12.8bn (3.0% or 1.0ppt less), including Hr 7.9bn provided by the Russian Federation (1.8% or 0.9ppt less); • Hr 56.5bn in external government bonds (13.1% or 0.4ppt less); • Hr 23.9bn in loans provided by foreign commercial banks (5.5% or 3.9ppt more). 70 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

By currency, the largest shares in the structure of the State and State-guaranteed debt are denominated in the Ukrainian hryvnya at 36.0% or 2.9ppt more than at the end of December 2009, with 30.0% for U.S. dollar or 2.0ppt more, accordingly; 30.0% for Special Drawing Rights (SDR) or 2.5ppt less; 3.7% for the Euro or 1.5ppt less; 0.3% for the Japanese yen or 0.9ppt less than at the end of December 2009. By interest rate, fixed-rate borrowing occupies the largest share in the structure of the State and State-guaranteed debt at 59.3% or 6.2ppt more than at the end of December 2009, borrowing at IMF rate accounts for 30.0% or 2.5ppt less, and LIBOR rate borrowing accounts for 10.2% or 3.4ppt less than the year before. 4.3. ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES AND CREDITING OF THE CONSOLIDATED AND STATE BUDGETS OF UKRAINE IN 2010

CONSOLIDATED The actual expenditures of the consolidated budget of BUDGET Ukraine totaled Hr 377.8bn, which amounts to 97.3% of the annual plan, including Hr 299.4bn or 97.8% for the General Fund, and Hr 78.4bn or 95.7% for the Special Fund (see Table 4.3.1). As seen from the data presented in Table 4.3.1, the level of execution of consolidated budget expenditures shows an upward trend compared to 2009. The 2010 indicator of expenditure execution, at 97.3% against the plan, is the highest figure in the last five years. General Fund expenditures were executed at a level 2.4ppt higher and those of the Special Fund at 32.8ppt higher in the period under review than in 2009. The latter is explained by the low level of revenue intake of the Special Fund of the State budget in 2009.

Table 4.3.1 Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010 Years Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Expenditures Hr mn Hr mn. % Hr mn Hr mn. % Hr mn Hr mn. % Consolidated 388 377 334 525.4 309 203.7 92.4 358 622.2 307 312.2 85.7 97.3 budget, including: 214.8 842.8 – General Fund 251 763.1 241 723.7 96.0 251 759.3 240 059.4 95.4 306 283.8 299 414.7 97.8 – Special Fund 82 762.3 67 480.0 81.5 106 862.9 67 252.8 62.9 81 931.0 78 428.1 95.7 State budget (without 227 225 intergovernmental 199 834.9 182 376.4 91.3 221 100.9 180 176.6 81.5 99.3 333.9 822.5 transfers), including: – General Fund 143 440.5 138 238.6 96.4 137 098.2 131 270.6 95.7 166 765.1 165 939.8 99.5 – Special Fund 56 394.4 44 137.8 78.3 84 002.7 48 906.0 58.2 60 568.9 59 882.8 98.9 SECTION 4 71

2008 2009 2010 Years Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Expenditures Hr mn Hr mn. % Hr mn Hr mn. % Hr mn Hr mn. % Local budget (without 160 152 intergovernmental 134 690.5 126 827.3 94.2 137 521.3 127 135.6 92.4 94.5 880.8 020.3 transfers), including: – General Fund 108 322.6 103 485.1 95.5 114 661.1 108 788.8 94.9 139 518.7 133 474.9 95.7 – Special Fund 26 367.9 23 342.2 88.5 22 860.2 18 346.8 80.3 21 362.1 18 545.4 86.8 State budget (with intergovernmental 307 303 263 355.8 241 490.1 91.7 284 664.7 242 356.7 85.1 98.6 transfers), 748.2 588.7 including: – General Fund 199 792.5 193 261.5 96.7 194 378.7 187 760.0 96.6 240 987.3 238 314.9 98.9 – Special Fund 63 563.3 48 228.6 75.9 90 286.0 54 596.7 60.5 66 760.9 65 273.8 97.8 Intergovernmental 63 520.9 59 113.6 93.1 63 563.8 62 180.1 97.8 80 414.2 77 766.2 96.7 transfers total

The rate of growth of consolidated budget revenues amounted to 123.0% compared to a 0.6% decline in 2009 (see Chart 4.3.1). This growth is explained by the gradual economic recovery throughout 2010.

Chart 4.3.1 Growth Rates of GDP and Consolidated Budget Expenditures in 2007-2010



(%1
OPNJOBM $POTPMJEBUFE
CVEHFU
FYQFOEJUVSFT $POTPMJEBUFE
CVEHFU
FYQFOEJUVSFT
GPS
TPDJBMDVMUVSBM
TFDUPS           



  

 







    

The monthly dynamic of actual expenditures of the consolidated budget throughout the reviewed period is shown in Graph 4.3.1. It differs from the dynamics of previous years by a reduction of expenditures in April followed by growth in May. 72 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.3.1 Dynamics of Monthly Consolidated Budget Revenues in 2005-2010




      
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


)S
NO 
 
 
 
 





 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

Thus, expenditures decreased by 6.9% in April against the previous month. This decrease occurred in the areas of economic activity, education, and healthcare for all items of economic classification, except for payroll of budgetary institutions with taxes, payment of interest on obligations, and capital transfers. An increase of consolidated budget expenditures in May is related to the approval of new amounts of budget appropriations of the State budget in connection with adoption of the State budget for 2010 at the end of April, and the financing of expenditure items within the amounts greater than those approved by a provisional apportionment for Q1-Q2 2010. In 2010, State budget expenditures amounted to 59.8% of all consolidated budget expenditures (see Budget and Economy. Key Trends of 2010). The growth of expenditures in June is due to the disbursement of vacation pay to the staff of budgetary institutions. In September, after the summer holiday season, State budget expenditures of the increased by 13.7% against the previous month, thus repeating the trends of recent years, due to a resumption of certain economic activities by economic agents and increases in prices of all groups of consumer basket goods, and in particular, also for those vulnerable groups in the population who receive allowances from the State budget. The December expenditures usually have the greatest significance during the year in connection with the payment of wages before New Year’s holidays. The social expenditures17 of the consolidated budget totaled Hr 240.6bn in 2010, which is Hr 50.2bn or 26.4% more year-on- year. The shares of consolidated budget expenditures for education, healthcare, and social protection and social security amounted to 21.1%, 11.8%, and 27.7%, respectively.

17 The social expenditures comprise expenditures for healthcare, education, spiritual and physical development, social protection and social security. SECTION 4 73

The share of social expenditures accounted for 49.6% of State budget expenditures (see Graph 4.3.2), which is 1.8ppt more than the respective 2009 figure (also, it has been showing an upward trend since 2007).

Graph 4.3.2 Dynamics of the Share of Social Expenditures in the Structure of Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2006-2010



 

  



 

   

    



4IBSF
PG

$POTPMJEBUFE
#VEHFU
FYQFOEJUVSFT
PO
TPDJBMDVMUVSBM
TFDUPS 4IBSF
PG

4UBUF
#VEHFU
FYQFOEJUVSFT
PO
TPDJBMDVMUVSBM
TFDUPS 4IBSF
PG

-PDBM
#VEHFU
FYQFOEJUVSFT
PO
TPDJBMDVMUVSBM
TFDUPS

     

As seen from Graph 4.3.2, local budgets allocate a significantly greater proportion of expenditures for society and culturee compared to the State budget. This is explained by the structure of local budget expenditures as per the Budget Code of Ukraine. In 2010, this portion of local budget expenditures increased by 2.6ppt and reached 84.6%. It comprises expenditures for ensuring the operation of budgetary institutions in the departments of education, healthcare, social protection and social security. It should be noted that society and culture is one of the realms delegated by the State to local governments. At the same time, the proportion of local budget expenditures allocated for the performance of local governments’ own functions and those, which are directly linked to the everyday life of citizens, including the housing and communal services sector, transport and road maintenance amounted to 3.0% (or 2.7ppt less than in 2009) and 1.8% (or 0.1ppt more), respectively. Such trends in the structure of local budget expenditures are connected with the changes in their growth rates (see Table 4.3.2). In particular, a sustained trend is observed of an increase in social expenditures of both local budgets, and the consolidated and State budgets. At the same time, there are intermittent increases of 74 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

expenditures for the housing and communal services sector, which needs stable funding to be able to qualitatively improve its obsolete fixed assets.

Table 4.3.2 Growth Rates of Certain Expenditures of the Consolidated, State, and Local Budgets of Ukraine in 2008-2010 Compared to Previous Periods (%)

Years 2008 2009 2010 Consolidated State Local Consolidated State Local Consolidated State Local Expenditures budget budget budgets budget budget budgets budget budget budgets Expenditures total (without intergovernmental 136.8 140.7 131.5 99.4 98.8 100.2 123.0 125.3 119.6 transfers), including expenditures for: – housing and communal 152.0 61.3 164.7 83.3 55.8 84.8 72.7 340.6 63.5 services – healthcare 125.6 116.6 128.4 108.9 102.2 110.8 122.4 116.3 124.0 – spiritual and physical 139.2 146.8 135.1 105.2 110.2 102.3 138.4 160.6 124.4 development – education 137.5 142.3 135.0 109.5 111.0 108.7 119.6 120.4 119.1 – social protection 152.7 173.8 120.6 106.3 101.4 117.1 132.7 134.6 129.2 and social security

In view of the above, so far, local budgets do not have sufficient resources for performing their own functions and implementing a policy aimed at assuring a high level of essential everyday services to the populace in their own jurisdictions. Thus, alongside with a 36.5ppt reduction of local budget expenditures for the housing and communal services sector in 2010, the State budget expenditures for this purpose increased by 40.6ppt. This occurred thanks to expenditures for energy saving activities, the development and reconstruction of heat supply systems, as well as for implementing investment projects intended for technological refitting and capital repairs of the residential buildings and elevators in apartment buildings that have newly established or already active associations of apartment building co-owners, which were funded by the State budget within the scope of the Stabilization Fund.

STATE BUDGET Expenditures of the State budget of Ukraine with intergovernmental transfers totaled Hr 303.6bn, which is 25.3% more than in 2009. The level of annual plan execution was 13.5ppt higher than the year before and amounted to 98.6% (see Table 4.3.1). General Fund financing totaled Hr 238.2bn, which is 26.9% more than the respective 2009 figure and amounts to 98.9% of the annual plan, with Special Fund financing of Hr 65.3bn or 19.6% more year-on-year. Annual plan execution for the Special Fund equaled 97.8% (60.5% in 2009). SECTION 4 75

Expenditures of the State budget of Ukraine without intergovernmental transfers totaled Hr 225.8bn, which is Hr 45.6bn or 25.3% more year-on-year. Annual plan execution amounted to 99.3%, which is 17.8ppt more than in 2009. General Fund financing totaled Hr 165.9bn, which is 26.4% more year-on-year and amounts to 99.5% of the annual plan appropriations, with the Special Fund financing of Hr 59.9bn, which is 22.4% more than in 2009. The level of annual plan execution for the Special Fund amounts to 98.9% (58.2% in 2009). The share of Special Fund expenditures of the State budget (without intergovernmental transfers) decreased by 0.6ppt in the sum total of expenditures compared to the 2009 figure and amounted to 26.5% (see Graph 4.3.3). This is mainly connected to a Hr 7.6bn fall in repayment by the Ukravtodor State Motor Roads Service of Ukraine of its obligations on credits obtained under guarantees of the Cabinet of Ministers and intended for expansion of the public motor roads network (such repayments totaled Hr 10.7bn in 2009 and Hr 3.1bn in 2010).

Graph 4.3.3 Dynamics of the Share of Special Fund Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine without Intergovernmental Transfers in 2005-2010



 





 



 



     

EXPENDITURES Expenditures of the State budget increased in all sectors in the BY FUNCTIONAL period under review (see Chart 4.3.2). CLASSIFICATION The social expenditures of the State budget totaled Hr 112.0bn, which is Hr 25.9bn or 30.0% more year-on-year. 76 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.3.2 Dynamics of State Budget Expenditures by Functional Classification in 2008-2010

   *NQMFNFOUBUJPO
PG
UIF
BOOVBM
QMBO
JO




  

 

                  )S
CO

                 

            

(FOFSBM 1IZTJDBM %FGFODF GVODUJPOT &EVDBUJPO 1SPUFDUJPO )FBMUIDBSF (PWFSONFOU 4QJSJUVBM
BOE 1VCMJD
0SEFS )PVTJOH
BOE %FWFMPQNFOU &OWJSPONFOUBM 4PDJBM
QSPUFDUJPO BOE
4PDJBM
TFDVSJUZ &DPOPNJD
"DUJWJUJFT $PNNVOBM
4FSWJDFT 4FDVSJUZ
BOE
+VTUJDF

The highest nominal growth of expenditures was noted in the following areas: • social protection and social security – by Hr 17.8bn or by 34.6%; • general government functions – by Hr 9.8bn or by 39.5%; and • education – by 4.9bn or by 20.4%. The significant growth in expenditures for social protection and social security is explained by higher spending for the payment of pensions (this expenditure item increased by Hr 16.2bn or 33.8%). This growth is mainly related to increased expenditures for covering the Pension Fund deficit (by Hr 12.8bn or 1.9 times). The growth in expenditures for general government functions is primarily linked to higher costs of debt servicing (by hr 6.5bn or by 71.9%) and growth in education spending is due to, along with increased payroll costs in connection with raised minimal wages, a bonus of 20% of base pay that has been set for teachers of vocational schools and higher educational institutions of accreditation levels I-II and for heads and deputy heads of such institutions, as well as due to the raising of the living allowances for students of vocational schools and higher educational institutions in connection with the adjustment of the students’ living allowances. The level of expenditure execution by function in 2010 should be analyzed separately for the General Fund and Special Fund, since Stabilization Fund expenditures (7.0% of all State budget expenditures) were planned as part of the Special Fund for one budget program, which is part of general government functions. In the process of budget execution, these expenditures are allocated in terms of the budget programs of the respective key spending units that belong to the respective sectors. SECTION 4 77

A similar approach is observed for the Reserve Fund and capital expenditures. Therefore, the level of expenditure execution in the functional classification section General Government Functions18, to which the said expenditures belong, amounted to 90.6% compared to 99.5% according to State budget expenditures (without intergovernmental transfers) in general. As regards expenditures in other functional classification sections, the approved indicators have been exceeded, except for defense spending, where the level of execution amounted to 99.9%. The highest amounts of under-execution of actual expenditures of the General Fund of the State budget compared to the approved figures are observed for the following expenditures: – other general government functions of Hr 3.9bn (the level of execution is 19.4%), due to the availability of the abovementioned expenditures of the Reserve Fund and State capital expenditures; – intergovernmental transfers of Hr 1.9bn (the level of execution is 97.5%, including Hr 0.9bn in under-execution for subventions for benefits and housing subsidies to the populace (the level of execution, 70.5%); Hr 1.0bn for subventions for allowances to families with children, low- income households, persons disabled from birth, disabled children, and temporary State assistance to children (the level of execution is 95.8%); – social protection of other categories in the populace, at Hr 0.2bn (the level of execution is 91.0% of the annual plan), due to the absence of actual expenditures for the activities intended for the gradual compensation to individuals of their losses from the depreciation of cash savings, with the approved amount of Hr 0.3bn); – foreign policy activities of Hr 0.1bn (the level of execution is 87.8%), mainly due to the under-funding of Ukraine’s diplomatic missions abroad (the level of execution is 89.2%). The highest levels of annual plan execution among all expenditures of the State budget (General Fund and Special Fund combined) are found in expenditures for housing and communal services (the actual execution exceeded the annual target 17.2 times). This is linked to allocating to the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction the amount of Hr 96.0mn from the Stabilization Fund for implementing the primary works of building a system for removing wastewater from the Pivnichna biological water treatment plant in Odesa, as well as granting Hr 123.6mn to the Ministry of Housing and Communal Services for energy saving activities, and for the development and reconstruction of heat supply systems. In addition, the plan was exceeded for expenditures for spiritual and physical development (197.5%). This is mostly explained by 78 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

allocating Hr 6.2bn from the Stabilization Fund to the National Agency of Ukraine for Preparing and Hosting the European 2012 Football Championship Finals in Ukraine, for the building and reconstruction of the facilities (sports stadiums and airports) needed for holding the championship. Also, expenditures for economic activity exceeded the plan (155.8%). In general, the structure of actual expenditures of the State budget in 2010 retains the trends of previous years (see Table 4.3.3). Thus, intergovernmental transfers have the largest share with 25.6%, followed by expenditures for social protection and social security (22.8%), as well as expenditures for economic activity (11.9%). Minor shares are noted for the expenditures for housing and communal services (0.3%), environmental protection (0.8%), and spiritual and physical development (1.7%). Also, the greatest changes in their proportions were noted for the expenditures for economic activity (down 1.8ppt), including for the fuel and energy complex (down 0.9ppt), social protection and social security (up 1.5ppt), general government functions (up 1.1ppt), including for debt servicing (up 1.4ppt).

Table 4.3.3 Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine by Functional Classification in 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010 Years

Plan, Actual, Hr Actual Plan, Actual, Hr Actual Plan, Actual, Hr Actual Expenditures by Hr mn mn share., % Hr mn mn share., % Hr mn mn share., % functional classification

General government 27 727.8 21 769.5 9.0 51 760.4 24 868.2 10.2 56 683.5 34 694.3 11.4 functions, including: debt servicing 4 384.7 3 774.7 1.6 14 227.3 9 038.7 3.7 14 202.9 15 539.0 5.1 Defense 11 009.0 11 733.0 4.9 12 255.8 9 654.4 4.0 12 012.9 11 347.1 3.7 Public order, security, and 22 883.6 24 871.1 10.3 23 651.5 24 164.1 10.0 26 140.0 28 570.7 9.4 judiciary

Environmental protection 2 115.3 2 230.2 0.9 1 492.2 1 824.3 0.8 2 002.6 2 292.7 0.8

Housing and communal 982.7 444.0 0.2 101.9 247.9 0.1 49.0 844.4 0.3 services Healthcare 7 266.1 7 365.5 3.1 6 738.3 7 530.5 3.1 7 418.4 8 759.0 2.9

Spiritual and physical 3 027.3 2 917.6 1.2 2 335.8 3 216.2 1.3 2 615.7 5 165.5 1.7 development Education 21 121.5 21 554.3 8.9 25 153.2 23 925.1 9.9 27 091.4 28 807.5 9.5

Social protection and social 51 892.7 50 798.3 21.0 53 646.5 51 512.3 21.2 70 199.9 69 311.3 22.8 security, including:

40 256.6 40 256.6 16.7 48 966.6 47 912.8 19.8 64 770.9 64 086.5 21.1 social protection of pensioners

42 469.3 38 693.0 16.0 35 537.6 33 233.6 13.7 23 120.6 36 030.0 11.9 Economic activity, including:

 agriculture, forestry and game-preserves, and 10 894.8 9 494.7 3.9 5 811.7 6 173.5 2.5 5 277.2 7 208.3 2.4 fisheries  fuel and energy complex 16 214.7 15 386.3 6.4 6 181.9 11 884.2 4.9 6 188.9 12 024.4 4.0  transport 11 713.7 10 461.7 4.3 11 497.4 11 627.8 4.8 7 640.8 12 608.4 4.2

 other expenditures for 3 646.1 3 350.2 1.4 12 046.5 3 548.2 1.5 4 013.6 4 188.8 1.4 economic activity Intergovernmental transfers 62 712.4 59 113.6 24.5 61 483.2 62 180.1 25.7 80 414.2 77 766.2 25.6 Total 253 207.9 241 490.1 100.0 274 156.4 242 356.7 100.0 307 748.2 303 588.7 100.0 SECTION 4 79

EXPENDITURES As seen from the data of Table 4.3.4, a growth occurred in BY ECONOMIC actual expenditures for all economic classification items, except for CLASSIFICATION expenditures for medicines and bandaging materials. Current expenditures in general increased by Hr 50.5bn in 2010 compared to the respective indicator of last year, or by 21.8%, while capital expenditures increased by Hr 10.7bn or more than doubled. At the same time, current expenditures increased by 30.9% and capital expenditures decreased by 17.8% in 2010 compared to 2008. Table 4.3.4 Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine (with Intergovernmental Transfers) by Economic Classification in 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010 Years Plan, Actual, Hr Execution, Plan, Actual, Hr Execution, Plan, Actual, Hr Execution, Expenditures by Hr mn mn % Hr mn mn % Hr mn mn % economic classification

Current expenditures 225 016.4 215 865.0 95.9 249 171.4 231 991.1 93.1 294 847.4 282 531.6 95.8 Payroll of budgetary institutions 33 151.2 32 930.0 99.3 34 584.7 34 318.5 99.2 39 125.1 39 000.6 99.7 Taxes on payroll 10 604.0 10 450.5 98.6 10 973.4 10 863.6 99.0 12 346.2 12 248.6 99.2 Medicines and bandaging materials 2 025.5 1 880.9 92.9 2 520.5 2 498.5 99.1 2 324.7 2 248.6 96.7 Foodstuffs 1 762.3 1 669.3 94.7 1 883.8 1 828.3 97.1 2 226.9 2 142.4 96.2 Payment for communal services and 2 730.6 2 631.7 96.4 3 179.1 3 105.8 97.7 4 527.2 4 164.3 92.0 energy carriers Payment of interest (income) on 4 565.1 4 418.8 96.8 12 855.0 9 907.3 77.1 16 656.0 16 639.5 99.9 obligations Subsidies and current transfers to 26 696.5 24 814.6 93.0 20 858.6 18 498.3 88.7 22 023.7 20 370.5 92.5 enterprises (institutions, organizations) Current transfers to government units 56 729.8 53 556.2 94.4 62 982.8 61 811.7 98.1 78 666.9 75 362.9 95.8 of other levels Current transfers to the population, 51 561.7 51 010.2 98.9 53 896.0 52 503.6 97.4 70 502.0 69 713.5 98.9 including:  payment of pensions and 41 997.8 41 919.9 99.8 50 634.2 49 573.9 97.9 66 765.7 66 074.0 99.0 allowances  student living allowances 787.0 776.8 98.7 886.1 877.2 99.0 1 004.1 1 001.9 99.8  other current transfers to 8 776.9 8 313.4 94.7 2 375.7 2 052.5 86.4 2 732.2 2 637.6 96.5 the population Other current expenditures 35 189.7 32 502.9 92.4 45 437.6 36 655.5 80.7 46 448.8 40 640.7 87.5 Capital expenditures, including: 32 144.8 25 625.1 79.7 18 208.5 10 365.6 56.9 29 729.6 21 057.1 70.8 Capital construction/acquisition 2 452.2 1 902.2 77.6 2 243.7 1 249.8 55.7 2 827.5 1 495.2 52.9 Capital repairs, reconstruction, and 2 778.9 2 397.0 86.3 1 687.0 1 127.4 66.8 4 288.5 1 472.9 34.3 restoration Capital transfers 21 006.5 16 437.9 78.3 11 287.8 5 964.6 52.8 18 813.8 15 111.0 80.3 Unallocated expenditures 6 194.6 – 0.0 17 284.8 – 0.0 208.2 – 0.0 Total expenditures (with 263 355.8 241 490.1 91.7 284 664.8 242 356.7 85.1 324 785.1 303 588.7 93.5 intergovernmental transfers)

A Hr 0.2bn or 10.0% reduction of expenditures under the Medicines and bandaging materials item is explained by a significant cut of expenditures under the budget program Actions to Overcome the TB and AIDS Epidemics (by Hr 112.6mn or by 98.6%). A significant increase in capital expenditures is connected with the growing cost of preparations for hosting the European 2012 football championship finals against a backdrop of decline in other capital expenditures. Thus, the total amount of actual expenditures for preparation for the Euro 2012 championship, including new expenditures for this purpose, increased by Hr 11.5bn year-on-year. 80 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

As regards individual items of capital expenditures by economic classification, growth was noted in the expenditures for capital construction and acquisition by Hr 0.2bn or by 19.6%, capital repairs, reconstruction, and restoration by Hr 0.3bn or by 30.7%, and for capital transfers by Hr 9.1bn or 2.5 times. The structure of State budget expenditures by economic classification changed somewhat in 2010 compared to 2009 (see Chart 4.3.3 and Chart 4.3.4). The share of current expenditures in the overall structure decreased by 2.6ppt and amounted to 93.1%.

Chart 4.3.3 Structure of Actual State Budget Expenditures by Economic Classification in 2009

$VSSFOU
USBOTGFST
UP
0UIFS
DVSSFOU
$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT
QVCMJD
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
FYQFOEJUVSFT
  CPEJFT
PG
PUIFS
MFWFMT 


1FOTJPOT
BOE
4VCTJEJFT
BOE
DVSSFOU
BMMPXBODFT 
 USBOTGFST
UP
FOUFSQSJTFT
JOTUJUVUJPOT
$VSSFOU PSHBOJ[BUJPOT 
 4UVEFOU
TUJQFOET 
USBOTGFST  UP
QPQVMBUJPO
 1BZNFOU
PG
JOUFSFTU
0UIFS
DVSSFOU
JODPNF
PO
USBOTGFST
UP
PCMJHBUJPOT 
 QPQVMBUJPO 
 1BZNFOUT
GPS
DPNNVOBM
TFSWJDFT
BOE
1BZSPMM
PG
CVEHFUBSZ
FOFSHZDBSSJFST 
 JOTUJUVUJPOT 


.FEJDBUJPOT
BOE
'PPETUVGGT 
 CBOEBHFT 


(VBSBOUFFE
&YQFOEJUVSFT




Chart 4.3.4 Structure of Actual State Budget Expenditures by Economic Classification in 2010

$VSSFOU
USBOTGFST
UP
0UIFS
DVSSFOU
$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT
QVCMJD
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
FYQFOEJUVSFT
  CPEJFT
PG
PUIFS
MFWFMT 


1FOTJPOT
BOE
4VCTJEJFT
BOE
DVSSFOU
BMMPXBODFT 
 USBOTGFST
UP
FOUFSQSJTFT
JOTUJUVUJPOT
$VSSFOU PSHBOJ[BUJPOT 
 USBOTGFST 4UVEFOU
TUJQFOET 
UP
QPQVMBUJPO
  1BZNFOU
PG
JOUFSFTU
JODPNF
PO

PCMJHBUJPOT 
 0UIFS
DVSSFOU
USBOTGFST
UP
1BZNFOUT
GPS
QPQVMBUJPO 
 DPNNVOBM
TFSWJDFT
BOE
FOFSHZDBSSJFST 
 1BZSPMM
PG
CVEHFUBSZ
JOTUJUVUJPOT 


'PPETUVGGT 
 .FEJDBUJPOT
BOE
CBOEBHFT 

(VBSBOUFFE
&YQFOEJUVSFT





The proportion of interest payments on obligations increased by 1.4ppt in the scope of current expenditures, which in nominal terms amounted to Hr 6.7bn or by 68.0%. In addition, the share of current transfers to the population increased by 1.4ppt, which SECTION 4 81

in nominal terms amounted to Hr 17.2bn or by 32.8%. The proportion of «other» current expenditures decreased by 1.7ppt, but in nominal terms, these expenditures increased by Hr 4.0bn or by 10.9% year-on-year. Also, the share of payroll in budgetary institutions decreased by 1.8ppt, with a nominal growth of expenditures for this item by Hr 4.7bn or by 13.6%; subsidies and current transfers to enterprises (institutions, organizations) by 0.9ppt, with the nominal expenditures for this item increasing by Hr 1.9bn or by 10.1%. The share of current transfers to public administration bodies of other levels also decreased by 0.7ppt in general, though in nominal terms these expenditures increased by nearly Hr 13.6bn or by 21.9%. Expenditures for protected items accounted for 73.0% of all State budget expenditures in 2010, which is unchanged year-on-year. Capital expenditures accounted for 6.9%, which is 2.6ppt more than in 2009. In particular, the share of capital transfers increased by 2.5ppt compared to the 2009 figure. In nominal terms, as already mentioned above, expenditures for this item increased by Hr 9.1bn or 2.5 times.

EXPENDITURES The status of execution of State budget expenditures by BY PROGRAM program classification in 2008-2010 is presented in Appendix A. CLASSIFICATION The highest levels of expenditure execution are noted for the following budget programs of key spending units: – programs of the Pension Fund “A grant to the Pension Fund of Ukraine for the provision of pensions to military personnel, payment of pensions, extra pay and bonuses to pensions appointed under various pension programs,” “Covering the deficit of the Pension Fund of Ukraine for paying pensions,” “Provision of pensions to the personnel employed full-time in underground works and to members of their families,” which are implemented by the Ministry of Finance – Hr 64.1bn or at 98.9% of the annual plan; – «Personnel training by higher educational institutions of accreditation levels III and IV” and “Training skilled workforce at vocational schools” of the Ministry of Education and Science – Hr 11.0bn or 6.8% higher than the annual plan, and Hr 4.0bn or 1.3% higher than the annual plan appropriations, respectively; – “Maintenance of personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine» of the Ministry of Defense – Hr 7.1bn or 97.9% of the annual plan; – “State support to coalmining enterprises for partial coverage of production costs” of the Ministry of Coal Industry – Hr 5.8bn or 100.0% of the annual plan (with changes); – “Compensating NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny for the difference between the buying price of imported natural gas and its selling price to economic agents for the production of heat energy 82 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

used by the population” of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy – Hr 3.4bn or 100.0% of approved annual appropriations; – “Repayment of obligations on the credits received under a guarantee of the Cabinet of Ministers for the development of a network of public motor roads” of the State Motor Roads Service – Hr 3.1bn or 95.7% of the annual plan. The lowest level of expenditure execution was noted for the Ministry of Environmental Protection at 72.8% of the planned annual appropriations and the Ministry of Defense at 90.4% of the annual plan. From among all the government ministries and departments, the highest year-on-year growth in expenditures was noted for: • Ministry of Internal Affairs – by Hr 2.1bn or by 19.8%; • Ministry of Education and Science – by Hr 3.4bn or by 19.4%; • Ministry of Finance (including general government expenditures) – by Hr 46.7bn or by 38.7%, including the total expenditures of the Pension Fund by Hr 20.2bn or by 45.9%. The greatest year-on-year cuts were noted for the following ministries and departments: • Ministry of Coal Industry – by Hr 2.8bn or by 26.7%; • State Motor Roads Service – by Hr 2.1bn or by 19.8%; • Ministry of Fuel and Energy – by Hr 1.0bn or by 18.2%.

PROVISION OF The indicators regarding the provision and repayment of credits BUDGET CREDITS to/from the State budget in the last three years are shown in / REPAYMENT OF Table 4.3.5. BUDGET CREDITS The amount of credits provided from the State budget totaled Hr 4.7bn or 68.8% of the annual plan, and the amount of repaid credits totaled Hr 3.4bn or 62.1%. The annual plan execution is lower than in 2009: by 45.9ppt for credit provision; and by 61.7ppt for credit repayment.

Table 4.3.5 Indicators of Budget Credit Provision and Repayment in 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010 Years Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Plan, Actual, Execution, Indicators Hr mn Hr mn % Hr mn Hr mn % Hr mn Hr mn % Crediting, 3 744.3 2 734.8 73.0 2 716.0 2 828.8 104.2 1 342.9 1 292.0 96.2 including: credit provision 5 311.9 3 483.4 65.6 5 844.0 6 702.8 114.7 6 860.7 4 719.0 68.8 credit repayment –1 567.6 –748.6 47.8 –3 128.0 –3 874.0 123.8 –5 517.8 –3 427.0 62.1

The greatest amounts of State budget credits were provided to the road building sector and finance, including: • Hr 2.2bn to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy for the budget program “Formation of State Intervention Fund by the SECTION 4 83

Agrarian Fund, as well as for procurement of material and technical resources for agricultural producers”; • Hr 1.5bn for the State Motor Roads Service (general government expenditures) for the budget program “Development of motor roads and road sector reform”; • Hr 0.3bn to the Ministry of Finance (general government expenditures) for the program “Financing development projects at the expense of the funds mobilized by the State”; and Hr 0.3bn for the program “Performance by the State of guarantee obligations on behalf of the borrowers who received credits under State guarantees.” Repayment of credits mainly occurred for the Economic activity function. – In terms of budget programs, the largest repayment of credits was noted for the following key spending units: • Ministry of Agrarian Policy: • Hr 2.4bn under the program “Repayment of funds provided to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine for the formation of State Intervention Fund by the Agrarian Fund, as well as for procurement of material and technical resources for agricultural producers”; – Ministry of Finance (general government expenditures): • Hr 0.5bn under the program “Repayment of loans provided for financing development projects at the expense of the funds mobilized by the State”; and Hr 0.2bn under the program “Repayment of subcredits issued to power generating companies for implementing the Electric Power Market Development Project”; – State Agency of Ukraine for Investments and Innovations: • Hr 0.1bn under the program “Repayment of credits issued in 2007 from the State budget of Ukraine for implementing innovation and investment projects in economy sectors, primarily, intended for implementing state-of-the-art energy saving technologies and alternative fuels production technologies.”

In general, the amount of credits issued at the expense of the funds mobilized by the State or under State guarantees totaled about Hr 25.0bn ($3.1bn) as of 1 January 2011, and the amount of overdue debt totaled Hr 15.5bn ($1.9bn), see Chart 4.3.5 and Chart 4.3.6. 84 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.3.5 Structure of Credits Issued at the Expense of the Funds Mobilized by the State or under State Guarantees as of 1 January 2011

0UIFS
LFZ
TQFOEJOH
VOJUT .JOJTUSZ
PG
)FBMUI
PG
 6LSBJOF
 .JOJTUSZ
PG
"HSBSJBO
1PMJDZ
BOE
'PPE
PG
6LSBJOF 

4UBUF
.PUPS
3PBET
4FSWJDF
PG
6LSBJOF 

4UBUF
"HFODZ
PG
6LSBJOF
GPS
.BOBHJOH
4UBUF
$PSQPSBUF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
&OFSHZ
BOE
3JHIUT
BOE
1SPQFSUZ
$PBM
*OEVTUSZ
PG
6LSBJOF .JOJTUSZ
PG
*OEVTUSJBM
 1PMJDZ
PG
6LSBJOF 

Chart 4.3.6 Status of Borrowers’ Overdue Debt to the State under the Credits Mobilized by the State or under State Guarantees as of 1 January 2011

"NPVOU
PG
DSFEJU
JTTVFE



0WFSEVF
EFCU
UP
UIF
4UBUF  

 



64%
CO 



 

  

.JOJTUSZ
PG
"HSBSJBO 4UBUF
"HFODZ
PG
6LSBJOF .JOJTUSZ
PG
)FBMUI
PG 0UIFS
LFZ
TQFOEJOH
VOJUT .JOJTUSZ
PG
&OFSHZ
BOE 4UBUF
.PUPS
3PBET
4FSWJDF 1PMJDZ
BOE
'PPE
PG GPS
.BOBHJOH
4UBUF 6LSBJOF
$PBM
*OEVTUSZ
PG
6LSBJOF PG
6LSBJOF 6LSBJOF $PSQPSBUF
3JHIUT
BOE 1SPQFSUZ
.JOJTUSZ
PG *OEVTUSJBM
1PMJDZ
PG 6LSBJOF

4.4. EXECUTION OF LOCAL BUDGETS IN 2010

LOCAL BUDGET According to State Treasury data, the General Fund and REVENUES Special Fund of local budgets (with intergovernmental transfers) received Hr 158.3bn in 2010, which is 18.8% or Hr 25.1bn more than in 2009. The amount without intergovernmental transfers totaled Hr 80.5bn, which is 13.4% more than in 2009. The level of execution of the Ministry of Finance 2010 estimate amounted to 108.2%. The annual revenue plan approved by local councils was executed by 96.4% (90.7% in 2009). SECTION 4 85

The actual revenues of local budgets are characterized by the data presented in Table 4.4.1.

Table 4.4.1 Dynamics of Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2008-2010

Execution Approved Execution of plans Actual in Actual in MFU 2010 by local Actual in Revenues of MFU approved 2008 2009 estimates councils 2010 estimates, % by local for 2010 councils, % Total, Hr mn, 73 872.1 71 028.6 74 431.7 83 525.4 80 515.8 108.2 96.4 including: General Fund 59 878.8 59 631.5 67 143.8 72 033.7 67 645.3 100.7 93.9 Special Fund 13 993.3 11 397.1 7 287.9 11 491.7 12 870.5 176.6 112.0

The share of local budget revenues in the consolidated budget amounted to 25.6%, which is 1.0ppt more year-on-year. At the same time, the share of revenues of the General Fund of local budgets in the consolidated budget revenues decreased by 1.4ppt and amounted to 25.2%. However, 10.4ppt growth to 28.1% is noted for the share of revenues of the Special Fund of local budgets (see Chart 4.4.1). Such abrupt changes in the Special Fund structure are primarily linked to the changes that occurred in the State budget revenues due to accounting the amount of VAT refund from the budget issued as internal government bonds totaling Hr 16.4bn.

Chart 4.4.1 Shares of State and Local Budget Revenues in Consolidated Budget Revenues in 2007-2010 







        

 







        



       

(FOFSBM
GVOE 4QFDJBM
GVOE

-PDBM
CVEHFUT 4UBUF
CVEHFU

Unlike the 2009 data, the monthly data regarding local budget revenues in 2010 shows year-on-year growth (see Graph 4.4.1). The main factor here is the increased monthly nominal intake of local budgets from personal income tax. 86 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.4.1 Dynamics of Monthly Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2005-2010



       




 


  
 
 
 
 
 )S
NO  
 
 
 
  
 


 

 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

The highest amounts of revenues (without intergovernmental transfers) were received by the budgets of the City of Kyiv (over Hr 14.8bn or 18.4% of all local budget revenue), Donetsk Oblast (Hr 8.6bn or 10.7%), Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (Hr 7.0bn or 8.8%), and Kharkiv Oblast (Hr 4.4bn or 5.5%). The lowest amounts of revenues were received by the budgets of the City of Sevastopol (Hr 836.3mn or 1.0% of all local budget revenues), Chernivtsi Oblast (Hr 944.2mn or 1.2%) and Ternopil Oblast (Hr 977.8mn or 1.2%). In per capita terms by administrative area19, the amounts of revenues received by respective budgets also differ significantly. The city of Kyiv ranks first (Hr 5,305.4 per resident), in Sevastopol (Hr 2,197.3), and in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Hr 2,121.6). The lowest figures come from Ternopil Oblast (Hr 900.1), Zakarpattya Oblast (Hr 915.5), and Volyn’ Oblast (Hr 1,019.8). The national average per capita local budget revenue amounted to Hr 1,572.3, which is 14.0% more than in 2009 (see Chart 4.4.2).

19 According to data of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2009/ds/kn/kn_u/kn0909_u.html http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2010/ds/kn/kn_u/kn0910_u.html SECTION 4 87

Chart 4.4.2 Per Capita Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) by Administrative Area in 2009-2010

$JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM $JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU ,ZJW
0CMBTU ,ZJW
0CMBTU ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU -VIBOTL
0CMBTU -VIBOTL
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
JO
6LSBJOF


-WJW
0CMBTU $IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
JO
6LSBJOF


)S



$IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU -WJW
0CMBTU )S



QFS
QFSTPO 4VNZ
0CMBTU 4VNZ
0CMBTU QFS
QFSTPO ,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU ,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU 7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU $IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU $IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU 7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU *WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU *WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU $IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU $IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU 7PMZOo
0CMBTU 7PMZOo
0CMBTU 5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU 5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU

                            )S )S  

GENERAL FUND The General Fund revenues of local budgets (without REVENUES intergovernmental transfers) totaled Hr 67.6bn, which amounts OF LOCAL to 100.7% of the annual Ministry of Finance estimate and 93.9% of BUDGETS the annual plan approved by local councils. Some growth in the share of tax revenues can be noted in the structure of General Fund revenues, alongside a reduction in non- tax revenues compared to previous years (see Chart 4.4.3).

Chart 4.4.3 Structure of General Fund Revenues of Local Budgets in 2006-2010

          

 $BQJUBM
5SBOTBDUJPOT 3FWFOVFT



/PO5BY
3FWFOVFT      



5BY
3FWFOVFT



      88 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

TAX REVENUES Tax revenues account for 97.1% in the structure of General Fund revenues of local budgets (without intergovernmental transfers). They totaled Hr 65.7bn, which is 14.0% more year-on- year (a decrease of 0.2% was noted in 2009). No major changes occurred in the structure of tax revenues compared to the 2009 data (see Chart 4.4.4).

Chart 4.4.4 Structure of General Fund Tax Revenues of Local Budgets in 2009-2010

   0UIFS
5BY
3FWFOVFT  

      1SFTVNQUJWF
5BY



-PDBM
5BYFT
BOE
'FFT

 

1BUFOU
'FF



  -JDFOTF
'FF
GPS
$FSUBJO
5ZQFT
PG &DPOPNJD
"DUJWJUZ

-BOE
1BZNFOU

   &OUFSQSJTF
1SPGJU
5BY

1FSTPOBM
*ODPNF
5BY 

 

PERSONAL The personal income tax continues to retain its position as INCOME TAX the most significant source of local budget revenues. Further, the nominal intake of this tax totaled Hr 51.0bn, which is Hr 6.5bn more year-on-year. The dynamics of revenues from the personal income tax is shown in Chart 4.4.5. As in previous periods, the greatest intake of revenues from the personal income tax across Ukraine was recorded in the city of Kyiv at Hr 10.2bn (20.0% of the total revenues from this tax), Donetsk Oblast at Hr 5.9bn (11.5), Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at Hr 4.4bn (8.6%), and Kharkiv Oblast at Hr 2.8bn (5.5%). It should be noted that unlike in 2009, the nominal intake of revenues from this tax across Ukraine grew, with the highest growth recorded in Donetsk Oblast (Hr 890.4mn) and the city of Kyiv (Hr 846.3mn). SECTION 4 89

Chart 4.4.5 Dynamics of Revenues from Personal Income Tax in 2006-2010


 

    
  


 


   )S
NO 



 
  
 



  


      

5PUBM
1FSTPOBM
*ODPNF
5BY
)S
NO 4IBSF
PG

1FSTPOBM
*ODPNF
5BY
JO
UIF
(FOFSBM
'VOE
3FWFOVFT


The lowest levels of revenues from personal income tax are observed in the budgets of the City of Sevastopol at Hr 488.2mn (1.0%) and Chernivtsi Oblast at Hr 503.0mn (1.0%) (see Chart 4.4.6).

Chart 4.4.6 Intake of Revenues from Personal Income Tax by Region in 2009-2010

 

 

 

  "WFSBHF
GPS
6LSBJOF
)S
NO JO


 

  
 

 

U U U U U U U U U U U U U
TU TU T T T TU BTU BTU B BTU BTU BT BT BT B BT BT B B BT BT MB M MBT M M MBTU M M MBT M MBTU M M M PQPM CM CMB C G
,ZJW $SJNFB
0CMBTU
0CMBTU
0CMBT
0C
0
0CM
0C M
0C 0
0
0C G
B L
0C O JB
0C L
0C F Z
0C J JW
0C Z
P WBTU T ZJW
0CM WB Q I JU
P WTL
0C [I JWTL
0CM ,ZJW
0CSBE O -WJW
0CB TTB JWO N TPO
JWUTJ
0CJ P PNZS I BSLJW
0CM ZUTLZ O SO $ G
4F MJD 7PMZOo
0CMUS OFUT IB 3 4V SOP I FS SLBTTZ C F ZU 0EF 1PMUB F , I MO FS
P 7JOOZUTJ Q %P SQBUIJB -V ZLPM 5 , F I QV P ;I . N $ $IF S ;BQPSJ ,JSPWP I $IF $JUZ T
3F , V %OJQ 5SBOTDB *WBOP'SBOL OPNP P VU "  

PAYMENT As usual, payment for land was the second largest source of FOR LAND revenues for local budgets. This source provided Hr 9.5bn, which is 14.1% more than in 2009. The 2009 figure had followed a rather significant increase in nominal revenues from all components of the payment for land in 2008, with the highest growth (more than double) coming in for rent paid by legal entities. Such significant increases were connected, among other things, to the imposition of restrictions on granting privileges in payment for land, the cancellation of a number of preferences for some payer categories, and raising the land tax rate for certain plots of land. 90 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The further development of this trend was observed throughout 2009 and at the beginning of 2010. At the same time, a gradual slowing down in the rate of growth in the revenues from payment for land became noticeable in Q2-Q4 2010. The proportion of the payment for land in the General Fund revenues of local budgets remains practically unchanged year-on- year and amounts to 14.1% (see Chart 4.4.7).

Chart 4.4.7 Dynamics of Revenues from Payment for Land in 2006-2010


  



 
 




 

 )S
NO 
 
  
 



  
 


      

-BOE
1BZNFOU
)S
NO 4IBSF
PG

-BOE
1BZNFOU
JO
UIF
(FOFSBM
'VOE
3FWFOVFT


Changes occur in the structure of payment for land on an annual basis due to a more dynamic increase in nominal revenues from rent and a slower growth in revenues from the land tax (see Chart 4.4.8). This dynamic reflects a gradual raising of rent rates, against a background of unchanged principles of land tax administration.

Chart 4.4.8 Dynamics of Revenues from Land Tax and Rent in 2006-2010


  

  
   


   


     
 )S
NO 
  


  
 
 
 



 
  
 
 
 


      

-BOE
5BY
)S
NO -BOE
3FOU
)S
NO -BOE
5BY
 -BOE
3FOU

SECTION 4 91

SINGLE TAX Local budgets received Hr 1.9bn from single tax on small ON SMALL businesses, which is 6.1% more than in 2009 (see Chart 4.4.9). BUSINESSES The share of this tax in the structure of General Fund revenues of local budgets showed a decline in the period under review.

Chart 4.4.9 Dynamics of Revenues from Single Tax on Small Businesses in 2006-2010


 



 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 )S
NO 
  
 
 
 
 


 



      

5PUBM
1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
)S
NO 4IBSF
PG

1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
JO
UIF
(FOFSBM
'VOE
3FWFOVFT


Shown in Chart 4.4.10 is the dynamic of revenues from the single tax on legal entities and individuals.

Chart 4.4.10 Dynamics of Revenues from Single Tax on Legal Entities and Individuals in 2006-2010


 

 

   



 


     )S
NO    
      
   

      

5PUBM
1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
PO
-FHBM
&OUJUJFT
)S
NO 5PUBM
1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
PO
*OEJWJEVBMT
)S
NO

4IBSF
PG

1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
PO
-FHBM
&OUJUJFT
 4IBSF
PG

1SFTVNUJWF
5BY
PO
*OEJWJEVBMT


LOCAL TAXES The intake of local taxes and fees totaled Hr 819.4mn, which AND FEES is nearly the same as the amounts received in the two previous years. Their share in the structure of General Fund revenues of local budgets continued to trend downward and only amounted to 1.3% (see chart 4.4.11). 92 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.4.11 Dynamics of Revenues from Local Taxes and Fees in 2006-2010

 


 


 
 

 

 
 

)S
NO   

 
     

 


 
     

5PUBM
-PDBM
5BYFT
BOE
'FFT
)S
NO 4IBSF
PG

-PDBM
5BYFT
BOE
'FFT
JO
UIF
(FOFSBM
'VOE
3FWFOVFT


The structure of local taxes and fees changed slightly (see Chart 4.4.12): – a 0.7ppt decrease in the share of the market fee to 62.7% of all local taxes and fees. The nominal receipts totaled Hr 513.5mn, which is almost the same amount as in 2009; – a 0.9ppt communal tax drop, which totaled Hr 151.2mn in nominal terms; – a 0.7ppt increase in the share of revenues from the fee for use of local symbols to 3.3%, which totaled Hr 27.1mn in nominal terms.

Chart 4.4.12 Structure of Local Taxes and Fees in 2006-2010

           'FF
GPS
*TTVBODF
PG
1FSNJUT  GPS
1MBDFNFOU
PG
3FUBJM
BOE     4FSWJDF

 1BSLJOH
'FF     

  .BSLFU
'FF      $PNNVOBM
5BY



'FF
GPS
UIF
3JHIU
PG
6TJOH      -PDBM
4ZNCPMT

 .BSLFU
'FF

     0UIFS 

     SECTION 4 93

In connection with adoption of the new Tax Code of Ukraine, the structure of local taxes and fees will be significantly changed as of 2011. For instance, the number of local taxes and fees will be reduced from the current 14 to just five, which will include property tax, single tax, and three fees: the fee for conducting certain types of entrepreneurial activity; parking fee; and tourist fee.

NON-TAX The nominal amount of non-tax revenues of the General Fund of REVENUES local budgets totaled nearly Hr 2.0bn, which is 1.5% less than in 2009. The structure of non-tax revenues of the General Fund of local budgets under comparable conditions20 is shown in Chart 4.4.13. The intake of revenues from administrative charges and fees decreased, as did income from noncommercial and incidental sales (by 8.0%). At the same tine, the income from property and business activity, as well as other non-tax revenues increased by 7.1% and 1.6%, respectively. The largest items of non-tax revenues of the General Fund of local budgets are as follows: – rent for lease of integral property complexes and other State- owned property (Hr 698.5mn); – administrative fines for traffic safety violations (Hr 520.8mn); – stamp duty (Hr 295.4mn); – income from temporarily free budget funds deposited at banks (Hr 169.8mn).

Chart 4.4.13 Structure of Non-Tax General Fund Revenues of Local Budgets in 2006-2010

      

   

   

     

     

3FWFOVF
GSPN
QSPQFSUZ
BOE
FOUSFQSFOFVSTIJQ
¡¡%
 "ENJOJTUSBUJWF
DIBSHFT
BOE
GFFT
¡¡%


0UIFS
/PO5BY
3FWFOVFT
¡¡%


20 The following change was introduced in the classification of revenues in February 2007: The revenues from “Administrative fines and other sanctions” were moved to the category of “Income from property and business activity.” 94 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

REVENUES Local budgets received Hr 57.3mn in revenue, which is taken TAKEN INTO into account when determining intergovernmental transfers ACCOUNT WHEN (“first basket”). This amounts to 101.2% of the annual estimate DETERMINING of the Ministry of Finance, which confirms the accuracy of the INTER- equalization grant amount calculation in general. GOVERNMENTAL The share of the first basket in the General Fund revenues of local TRANSFERS budgets amounted to 84.6%, which is nearly the same as in 2009. First basket revenues increased mainly due to growth in the nominal intake of its most important component, i.e., the personal income tax. This tax comprises 89.1% of the first basket At the same time, there was a significant regional variation in the nominal amounts of first basket revenues of local budgets (see Chart 4.4.14).

Chart 4.4.14 Revenues Taken into Account when Determining Intergovernmental Transfers, by Region, in 2009-2010


 


 


 


 


  "WFSBHF
GPS
6LSBJOF

  JO


)S
NO 
 


 


 


  
 


 

 

U U U U M B T TU TU TU TU TU TU TU T TU TU T P MBTU MB MB MB MBTU MBTU MBTU MBTU MBTU MBTU MB MB MBTU MB MBT MB B MB MBTU MBTU ZJW
C G
,
0C
0C
0CMB
0C
0C
0CMB
0C TUPQ G
$SJNF o O
0C E
0C F
0CMBTU JW JW
0C
P WB JB JB QJM
0C UTJ
0C F T UTL
0C JB JWTL -WJW
0C TTB NZ
0C SL TPO
0CTLZ
0CM ZU F UI L ,ZJW
0C BOTL MBZJW
0CMB S $JUZ MJD
P 7PMZO USPWTL
0CO B SJ[I I 3JWO 4V F ZU LBTTZ
0C SOJI ZUPNZS
0C O V S
PG
4 VC JOO %P SQ PWPISB - 0EF 1PMUBWB
0 5FSOP ,IB ,I F IF 7 ;I BQP .ZLP I $ PQF DB ; ,JS NFMO $ $IFSOJW $JUZ JQS T P'SB O O ,I VT
3FQ P % 5SB *WBO N P O P "VU  

The highest values were from Luhansk, Donetsk, and Mykolaiv oblasts, where they amounted to 115.1%, 110.1%, and 108.6%, respectively. On the whole, the Ministry of Finance estimates were exceeded in 22 oblasts, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the City of Simferopol. However, the estimates were fulfilled at 10.7%, 3.5%, and 3.3% below the estimates in the City of Kyiv, Kyiv Oblast, and Volyn’ Oblast, respectively.

REVENUES The revenues disregarded when determining intergovern- DISREGARDED mental transfers (“second basket”) totaled Hr 10.1bn, which WHEN is 7.6% more than in 2009. The annual estimate of the Ministry of DETERMINING Finance for these revenues for 2010 was implemented by 98.5% INTER- compared to 92.1% in 2009. GOVERNMENTAL The Ministry of Finance estimate for own-source revenues TRANSFERS (second basket) of local budgets has no impact on the amounts SECTION 4 95

of equalization grant. However, the overstatement of this indicator testifies to some overestimation of local government capacity to collect such revenues. The increased amount of second basket revenues was mainly influenced by higher intake of revenues from the payment for land, which is the most important source for the formation of this basket. This tax accounted for 76.0% of second basket revenues. The regional cross-section of second basket revenues of the General Fund of local budgets is presented in Chart 4.4.15.

Chart 4.4.15 Second Basket Revenues, by Region, in 2009-2010


 


 


 

"WFSBHF
GPS
6LSBJOF

 

)S
NO JO


 

   

 

U M B TU TU TU TU T TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU F MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB MB QP C C C C C C C G
,ZJW

0
0CMB
0
0CMB
0CMB
0
0CMB
0CMB
0C
0
0CMBTU
0 TUP
$SJN o O E
0C F
0CMB Z Z
0CMBTU J
0 B JB
0C ZS
0CMB JB B TL
0C ZJW
0CMB QJM JW
0C Z
P MZO WTL UTL
0 JB S -WJW BWB N TL TTZ I JU ZUT P P F N I J[I ,ZJW
0CI FTTB BSLJW
0CMB B $
4FW O O UP S LJWTL IBO 3JWO 4V SOP FSTPO ZU CMJD
PG 7 US Z BU O WP F MO FSOJWUT JO %P SB P -V ZLPMB 0E 1PMU 5 ,I ,I I 7 ;I BSQ BQP . $IFSOJ JUZ
PG SPQF D ; ' ,JS $IFSL $ $ JQ P T
3FQV O OT O ,INF V SB WB P % 5 * N OP P "VU  

As seen in Chart 4.4.15, there are rather significant differences among the own-source revenues of various regions. At the same time, according to the Budget Code, such revenue is to be used as a source for financing housing and communal services, infrastructure development projects, environmental programs, construction, capital repairs and construction of social and cultural assets. The provision of intergovernmental transfers from the State budget should be one of the tools for equalizing such disparities. However, the data of Table 4.4.2 indicates that this mechanism is not currently used to its full extent, and that the allocation of capital transfers is conducted without due consideration for regional differences. 96 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Table 4.4.2 Per Capita Local Budget Revenues Disregarded when Determining Intergovernmental Transfers and Capital Subventions by Region in 2009-2010 Hr

Revenues disregarded Name of when determining Capital subventions Total administrative- intergovernmental transfers territorial unit 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Autonomous Republic 216.2 238.4 1.3 258.4 217.5 496.9 of Crimea Vinnytsya Oblast 100.8 112.8 0.3 11.7 101.1 124.5 Volyn’ Oblast 76.9 90.3 0.6 40.0 77.5 130.3 Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 336.9 341.1 1.0 37.5 337.9 378.6 Donetsk Oblast 198.4 223.9 1.1 35.7 199.6 259.6 Zhytomyr Oblast 136.7 136.1 0.0 18.3 136.7 154.4 Zakarpatska Oblast 61.9 67.7 0.3 9.4 62.2 77.1 Zaporizhya Oblast 202.2 242.4 79.9 167.8 282.1 410.2 Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 111.8 119.5 0.0 47.8 111.8 167.3 Kyiv Oblast 178.5 198.2 0.5 101.0 179.0 299.2 Kirovohrad Oblast 107.5 129.5 0.7 9.6 108.2 139.0 Luhansk Oblast 126.4 126.0 0.6 64.2 127.0 190.2 Lviv Oblast 124.2 135.4 37.7 9.1 161.9 144.5 Mykolaiv Oblast 152.9 158.9 0.9 24.0 153.8 182.9 Odesa Oblast 231.5 262.0 0.0 105.4 231.5 367.5 Poltava Oblast 172.5 189.1 0.8 11.5 173.3 200.6 Rivne Oblast 97.0 103.4 0.4 48.4 97.4 151.9 Sumy Oblast 131.5 152.5 1.0 54.6 132.5 207.1 Ternopil Oblast 66.7 78.6 0.0 13.1 66.7 91.7 Kharkiv Oblast 216.3 217.3 0.1 14.5 216.4 231.8 Kherson Oblast 107.6 120.9 0.7 5.4 108.2 126.3 Khmelnytskyi Oblast 116.1 118.4 0.6 36.5 116.7 154.9 Cherkasy Oblast 149.0 167.9 0.5 46.3 149.5 214.2 Chernivtsi Oblast 129.7 149.9 66.1 78.7 195.8 228.6 Chernihiv Oblast 95.6 109.2 0.6 15.9 96.2 125.1 City of Kyiv 751.2 790.7 0.0 19.9 751.2 810.7 City Sevastopol 382.7 426.4 47.2 383.7 430.0 810.1 Ukraine 177.0 192.8 9.0 61.8 186.0 254.6

The Ukrainian average per capita amount of second basket revenues and capital subventions equaled Hr 254.6, which is 46.9% more than in 2009. The highest figures are observed in the cities of Kyiv at Hr 810.6 and Sevastopol at Hr 810.1 per person, with the lowest in Zakarpatska and Ternopil oblasts, with Hr 77.1 and Hr 91.7 per person, respectively. This data shows a significant (more than tenfold) regional differentiation in the sufficiency of the revenue base for the expenditures used for extended reproduction. This is an indication that the distribution mechanisms for capital transfers need to be improved. SECTION 4 97

SPECIAL FUND The Special Fund of local budgets (without intergovern- mental transfers) received nearly Hr 12.9bn, which is 12.9% more than in 2009. The plan approved by local councils for 2010 was fulfilled by 112.0%, and the estimate of the Ministry of Finance by 176.6%. The share of the Special Fund in local budget revenues (without intergovernmental transfers) amounts to 16.0%, which is almost the same as in 2009. Compared to 2009, the following Special Fund components grew: – revenues from taxes on property increased by 23.9% and amounted to Hr 1.9bn; – own revenues of budgetary institutions increased by 19.6% and reached Hr 6.6bn; – revenues of special-purpose funds set up by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local governments, and local executive authorities increased by 5.8% and reached Hr 1.6bn. At the same time, a decline by 1.2% to Hr 2.5bn was noted for revenues from capital transactions, and a decline by 17.8% to Hr 179.1mn in other revenues of the Special Fund of local budgets (see Chart 4.4.16).

Chart 4.4.16 Structure of Special Fund Revenues of Local Budget in 2006-2010

                     

       

       

 

     

       

 

                 

1SPQFSUZ
5BYFT 0XO
3FWFOVFT
PG
#VEHFUBSZ
*OTUJUVUJPOT

$BQJUBM
5SBOTBDUJPOT
3FWFOVFT 4QFDJBMQVSQPTFT
'VOET

0UIFS
SFWFOVFT

EXPENDITURES Total local budget expenditures (including the funds OF LOCAL transferred from local budgets to the State budget) amounted BUDGETS to Hr 158.6bn, which is 17.6% more year-on-year. The combined General Fund and Special Fund expenditures of local budgets (without the funds transferred from local budgets to the State budget) amounted to Hr 152.0bn, which is 19.6% more than in 2009. 98 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The Ministry of Finance estimates for the year 2010 were executed by 105.0%, including by 99.8% for General Fund expenditures, and by 167.4% for Special Fund expenditures. The level of execution of the targets approved by local councils for 2010 amounted to 94.5%. The actual local budget expenditures are represented by the data shown in Table 4.4.3.

Table 4.4.3 Dynamics of Local Budget Expenditures (without the Funds Transferred from Local Budget to the State Budget) in 2008-2010

Execution Approved MFU Execution of plans Actual in Actual in by local Actual in Expenditures estimate of MFU approved 2008 2009 councils 2010 for 2010 estimates, % by local for 2010 councils, % Total, Hr mn, 126 127 160 152 144 782.8 105.0 94.5 including: 827.3 135.6 880.8 020.3 – General Fund 103 485.1 108 788.8 133 702.9 139 518.7 133 474.9 99.8 95.7 – Special Fund 23 342.2 18 346.8 11 079.9 21 362.1 18 545.4 167.4 86.8

The share of local budget expenditures in the consolidated budget amounted to 40.2%, which is 1.1ppt less than in 2009. Also, the share of General Fund expenditures decreased by 0.7ppt and amounted to 44.6%, and the share of Special Fund expenditures decreased by 3.7ppt and amounted to 23.6% (see Chart 4.4.17).

Chart 4.4.17 The Share of State and Local Budget Expenditures in Consolidated Budget Expenditures in 2007-2010







         

 





         



       

(FOFSBM
GVOE 4QFDJBM
GVOE

-PDBM
CVEHFUT 4UBUF
CVEHFU

According to the 2010 data, the level of GDP redistribution via local budgets of Ukraine21 amounts to 13.89%, which is virtually

21 Share of local budgets in GDP SECTION 4 99

the same as in 2009. Local budget expenditures for housing and communal services decreased by 0.37ppt, education by 0.02ppt, and for other functions by 0.02ppt (see chart 4.4.18). Expenditures for social protection and social security grew the most, at 0.24ppt.

Chart 4.4.18 GDP Redistribution via Local Budget Expenditures in 2009-2010

 0UIFS
'VODUJPOT 

   )PVTJOH
BOE
$PNNVOBM
4FDUPS 

 &DPOPNJD
"DUJWJUJFT 

 1VCMJD
"ENJOJTUSBUJPO 

4PDJBM
1SPUFDUJPO
BOE
4PDJBM  4FDVSJUZ 

 &EVDBUJPO 

4QJSJUVBM
BOE
1IZTJDBM  %FWFMPQNFOU 

 )FBMUIDBSF 

           

The dynamics of monthly local budget expenditures was somewhat different from the trends of recent years. Thus, a drop in the amount of local budget expenditures was recorded in April 2010 year-on-year. However, they increased, as usual, at the end of the year22 (see Graph 4.4.2).

Graph 4.4.2 Dynamics of Actual Monthly Expenditures of Local Budget in 2005-2010


      


 






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 )S
NO 
 








 +VMZ .BZ "QSJM +VOF .BSDI "VHVTU +BOVBSZ 0DUPCFS 'FCSVBSZ /PWFNCFS %FDFNCFS 4FQUFNCFS

22 For more detail please refer to Section 4.3. Analysis of Expenditures and Crediting of the Consolidated and State Budgets of Ukraine in 2010. 100 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The national average expenditures of local budgets amounted to Hr 3,334.6 per person in the period under review, which is 21.2% more than in 2009. There was a regional variation in the distribution of the said expenditures. The highest amounts of local budget expenditures are in the City of Kyiv at Hr 4,095.7 per person (though this is Hr 121.2 less than in 2009), with the lowest figures noted in the Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kharkiv oblasts at Hr 2,980.5, Hr 3,038.3, and Hr 3,039.1 per person, respectively (see Chart 4.4.19).

Chart 4.4.19 Per Capita Expenditures of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010

$JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB 7PMZOo
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU ,ZJW
0CMBTU ,ZJW
0CMBTU 7PMZOo
0CMBTU $JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM *WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
JO
6LSBJOF
 *WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU


)S

$IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU 5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU QFS
QFSTPO 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
JO
6LSBJOF
 -WJW
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU


)S

5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU $IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU QFS
QFSTPO $IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU $IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU ,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU -WJW
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU ,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU $IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU $IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU 7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU 7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU 4VNZ
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU -VIBOTL
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU 4VNZ
0CMBTU -VIBOTL
0CMBTU

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 )S )S  

GENERAL FUND The General Fund expenditures of local budgets totaled Hr 133.5bn. compared to 0.8ppt less than in 2009.

STRUCTURE OF The majority of General Fund expenditures of local budgets are EXPENDITURES allocated for the social and cultural sphere (education, healthcare, BY FUNCTIONAL social protection and social security, culture and arts, physical CLASSIFICATION culture and sports). In the reporting period, the combined share of these expenditures amounted to 88.9% in the General Fund structure, which is 0.7ppt more than the respective indicator of 2009 (see Chart 4.4.20). The greatest changes in the structure of General Fund expenditures of local budgets by functional classification compared to the data of 2009 occurred in expenditures for social protection and social security, whose share increased by 1.5ppt to 23.3%. The key drivers of this growth included an increase in the expenditures for social protection of family, children, and youth by 35.1% (or by Hr 5.2bn) and expenditures for social protection in case of disability by 39.8% (or by Hr 1.0bn). Also, there was a 1.1ppt reduction in the share of expenditures for education and housing and communal services to 36.2% and 3.0%, respectively. SECTION 4 101

The amplitude of deviation in the shares of the remaining local budget expenditures was within 1.0ppt.

Chart 4.4.20 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Functional Classification in 2009-2010

   0UIFS
GVODUJPOT        (FOFSBM
HPWFSONFOU

   5SBOTQPSUBUJPO
BOE
SPBE  GBDJMJUJFT   )PVTJOH
BOE
DPNNVOBM  TFSWJDFT

 

  4PDJBM
QSPUFDUJPO
BOE
TPDJBM TFDVSJUZ

   1IZTJDBM
USBJOJOH

 4PDJBM
BOE
DVMUVSF
TQIFSF



4PDJBM
BOE
DVMUVSF
TQIFSF


 )FBMUIDBSF

   $VMUVSF 

&EVDBUJPO 

 

The actual amounts of General Fund expenditures of local budgets for society and culture increased by 23.6% and reached Hr 118.5bn. The largest among those expenditures were for education at Hr 48.3bn (see Chart 4.4.21) (or 36.2% of local budget expenditures), for healthcare at Hr 33.3bn (or 25.0%), and for social protection and social security at Hr 31.1bn (or 23.3%).

Chart 4.4.21 General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Functional Classification in 2009-2010

0UIFS
GVODUJPOT 
 
 
  

5SBOTQPSUBUJPO
BOE
SPBE
GBDJMJUJFT   
 (SPXUI
3BUFT %FDSFBTF

)PVTJOH
BOE
DPNNVOBM
TFSWJDFT 
 
 


1IZTJDBM
USBJOJOH 
 
 


$VMUVSF 
 
 


4PDJBM
QSPUFDUJPO
BOE
TPDJBM
TFDVSJUZ 
 
 


)FBMUIDBSF 
 
 



 &EVDBUJPO 
 

(FOFSBM
HPWFSONFOU 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 )S
NO 102 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

The expenditures for public administration were financed at Hr 7.1bn, which is 14.8% more than in 2009. Also, their share in the structure of General Fund expenditures changed somewhat and amounted to 5.3%. At the same time, the actual amounts of local budget expendi- tures for housing and communal services decreased by 9.6%.

STRUCTURE OF The current expenditures of local budgets (without the funds EXPENDITURES transferred from local budgets to the State budget) were financed BY ECONOMIC at Hr 129.4bn, which is 22.0% more than in 2009. More than 96.9% CLASSIFICATION of General Fund expenditures were allocated for current operation of budgetary institutions. The capital expenditures were financed at Hr 4.1bn, and their amount increased by 48.8% (see Chart 4.4.22). At the same time, the funding of subsidies and current transfers to enterprises (institutions, organizations) decreased by 4.7%.

Chart 4.4.22 General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2009-2010

0UIFS
$VSSFOU
&YQFOEJUVSFT 
 
 
   (SPXUI
3BUFT %FDSFBTF

$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT 
 
 


4VCTJEJFT
BOE
$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP &OUFSQSJTFT
*OTUJUVUJPOT
0SHBOJ[BUJPOT 
 
 


1BZNFOU
PG
*OUFSFTU
*ODPNF
PO
0CMJHBUJPOT
 
 

$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP
1PQVMBUJPO

 
 


1BZNFOU
GPS
$PNNVOBM
4FSWJDFT
BOE
&OFSHZDBSSJFST

 
 


'PPE

 
 


.FEJDBUJPOT
BOE
#BOEBHFT

 
 



 1BZSPMM
XJUI
5BYFT

 


 
 
 
 
 )S
NO

More than 86.6% of all local budget expenditures were allocated for the financing of protected expenditure items, which is practically the same as in 2009. The highest growth, 1.6ppt, in the structure of local budget expenditures by economic classification was in expenditures for current transfers to the populace (see Chart 4.4.23 and Chart 4.4.24). SECTION 4 103

Chart 4.4.23 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2009

$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT  0UIFS
$VSSFOU
&YQFOEJUVSFT  4VCTJEJFT
BOE
$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP
&OUFSQSJTFT
*OTUJUVUJPOT
0SHBOJ[BUJPOT 

1BZSPMM
XJUI
5BYFT
1BZNFOU
PG
*OUFSFTU
*ODPNF
 PO
0CMJHBUJPOT


$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP
1PQVMBUJPO


1BZNFOU
GPS
$PNNVOBM
4FSWJDFT
BOE
&OFSHZDBSSJFST


'PPE
.FEJDBUJPOT
BOE
#BOEBHFT
 

(VBSBOUFFE
&YQFOEJUVSFT




Chart 4.4.24 Structure of General Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Economic Classification in 2010

$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT 0UIFS
$VSSFOU
&YQFOEJUVSFT  

4VCTJEJFT
BOE
$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP
&OUFSQSJTFT
*OTUJUVUJPOT
0SHBOJ[BUJPOT 

1BZSPMM
XJUI
5BYFT
 1BZNFOU
PG
*OUFSFTU
*ODPNF
PO
0CMJHBUJPOT


$VSSFOU
5SBOTGFST
UP
1PQVMBUJPO


1BZNFOU
GPS
$PNNVOBM
4FSWJDFT
BOE
&OFSHZDBSSJFST

 'PPE
.FEJDBUJPOT
BOE
#BOEBHFT
 

(VBSBOUFFE
&YQFOEJUVSFT




The share of expenditures for payroll with taxes remains the highest in the structure of local budget expenditures at 55.5%, which is also 1.7ppt less year-on-year. There was also a 1.1ppt reduction in the share of expenditures for subsidies and current transfers to enterprises to 4.0% of all local budget expenditures. The share of payroll with taxes in the General Fund structure of local budgets varies from 49.3% (City of Kyiv) to 58.2% in Chernihiv Oblast (see Graph 4.4.3). 104 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.4.3 Share of Expenditures for Payroll with Taxes in the General Fund Structure of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010

 "WFSBHF
JO
6LSBJOF
JO







 





 


M TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU P B B B B B BTU B B B B B B M M M M MBTU MBTU M MBTU MBTU MBTU M M M M ,ZJW C C CM G

0CM 0C 0CMBTU
0C
0CM
0C
0C
0
0C 0C
0C
0C 0 P L
0CMB W
0CMBTU B Z
0CMBTUJM
W
0CMBTU J W
BTUPQ G
$SJNFB O TL
0CMB JW
0CMBTU F J UT J W
P MZOo
WTL
JB SBE
0 ZJ TTB WO W JI D ZUTJB P J[IJB
0CJW ,ZJW I -W B F TPO $JUZ
4F MJ O L IBOT 3J 4VN SOPQ SOJ SO G
C O 7P BUI PS O F MOZUTLZ
0C F F P V J %POFUTL SQ Q 0E 1PMUBW 5 ,IBSL F Z
Q 7 QFUS ;IZUPNZS
0C -V ,IFS $I U B ;B JSPWP .ZLPM N $IFSLBTTZ
0C$I SP TD P'SB , $J T
3F O ,I V P %OJQ 5SBO *WB N P O P "VU

SPECIAL FUND The Special Fund expenditures of local budgets were financed at Hr 18.5bn, which is 1.1% more year-on-year. At the same time, the Special Fund structure changed somewhat. Nominal capital expenditures of the Special Fund of local budgets increased by 9.5% and reached Hr 7.9bn. The share of capital expenditures in the Special Fund structure increased accordingly by 3.3ppt and amounted to 42.5% (see Chart 4.4.25).

Chart 4.4.25 Structure of Special Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets in 2006-2010





  

 

 

 

 

  

     

$BQJUBM
&YQFOEJUVSFT $VSSFOU
&YQFOEJUVSFT SECTION 4 105

A significant differentiation was observed across Ukraine in terms of the amounts and rates of growth in Special Fund expenditures of local budgets. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea demonstrated the highest growth in the said expenditures at +65.7% against 2009. However, six oblasts, and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol posted declines in nominal amounts (see Chart 4.4.26).

Chart 4.4.26 Special Fund Expenditures of Local Budgets by Region in 2009-2010




  (SPXUI
3BUFT %FDSFBTF  
  
  
 )S
NO       


                   

 U U U U U U U
M TU TU TU TU T T T TU TU TU TU T W MB MB MBTU MB MB MB MBTU MB MB MB QP CMBTU CMBTU CMB CMBTU CMB CMBT C CMBT CMB ,ZJ P 0
0
0CMB
0
0
0C
0 0CMBTU 0 0CMBTU 0 $SJNFBB
0C L
0C S
0 B
0C JM
0C Z
0CMBTUZ
J

PG
J Oo
0C TL
0C Z O
0 E TB F
0CMBTU Z UT WTL
ZJW SB T LJW PO
JUZ D
PG
PW J[IJ , OTL
0C-WJW
0C PQ T UTL $ OF UIJB B MUBWB 3JWO 4VNZ BS FS Z OJWUT SOJIJW
OZUT 7PM B FSO I I FUS %P Q QPS 0EF 1P 5 , FSLBTT 7JO ;IZUPN SPWPI -VI , I IFS $IF JUZ
PG
4FWBTU ;B 'SBOLJ J .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBT $ $ SPQ DBS P , $
3FQVCMJ Q T ,INFMO SBO WBO PVT %OJ 5 * N P UPO V "

DEVELOPMENT The development budget revenues of local budgets totaled BUDGET Hr 3.7bn, which is 6.9% less year-on-year. This led to a reduction in the share of such revenues in the overall structure of local budget revenues to 4.7%, which is 1.0ppt less than in 2009 (see Chart 4.4.27 and Chart 4.4.28).

Chart 4.4.27 The Share of Development Budget Revenues in Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2009

0UIFST 'VOET
GSPN
#VEHFUT
 (FOFSBM
'VOE
GPS
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU
GSPN
4QFDJBM
'VOE 0UIFS
3FWFOVFT 3FWFOVFT
GSPN
4BMF
PG
-BOE   

3FWFOVFT
PG
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU 

3FWFOVFT
GSPN
%JTQPTBM
PG
1SPQFSUZ  106 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.4.28 The Share of Development Budget Revenues in Local Budget Revenues (without Intergovernmental Transfers) in 2010

'VOET
GSPN
#VEHFUT
0UIFST (FOFSBM
'VOE
GPS
$BQJUBM
 #VEHFU
GSPN
4QFDJBM
'VOE 0UIFS
3FWFOVFT 3FWFOVFT
GSPN
4BMF
PG
-BOE   

3FWFOVFT
PG
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU 

3FWFOVFT
GSPN
%JTQPTBM
PG
1SPQFSUZ 

As seen in Chart 4.4.27 and Chart 4.4.28, the main sources of development budget revenues include the receipts from the sale of land (Hr 1.4bn), alienation of municipally-owned property (Hr 1.2bn), and the resources received from the General Fund of the budget (Hr 1.1bn). However, the growth in nominal receipts against 2009 was only noted for the proceeds from the sale of land (by 4.1%), while the receipts from the sale of municipally- owned property and the resources from the budget’s General Fund decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. In addition to the above sources of revenues, the development budget also includes other types of revenues: dividends/income from shares (stocks, interest) in economic companies; interest for use of loans granted from local budgets; and subventions from other budgets for implementation of investment projects. The receipts from all these sources combined for all local budgets only amounted to Hr 90.5mn or 2.4% of all development budget revenues. Significant differences are observed in the structure of development budget revenues by region (see Chart 4.4.29). SECTION 4 107

Chart 4.4.29 Structure of Development Budget Revenues by Region in 2010

















 U U U U U U U
M T TU TU TU TU T P FB BT BTU BTU B B BTU B BT B BTU BTU B BTU BTU BTU BTU N M MBTU MBTU M M M M PQ SJ C CM CM CMBT CM CMBTU C CM
,ZJW U 0CMBTU 0C 0C 0 0CM 0CMBT 0
0 0
0CM 0 0C 0C 0CM L
0CM O
0CMBTB
0CMB L
0CM W
0 W
0 B
0CM JM Z
J
G
$ TL
TL
T J TB
0C W Q TZ
UZ
PG WBT P UTJB
0 MZOo
W UT IJ ZJW
SBE
W T WOF
SLJW
PO TL JIJW
J D
[ , BO - MBZJ J B T O $ 4F LJW EF 3 4VNZ
SOP LBT SOJWUT OOZ 7P BUIJB OZU
PG
VCMJ J %POF Q QPSJ SBO -VI 0 1PMUB 5F ,I ,IFS FM IFS Z 7 ;IZUPNZS
0CMBS ' SPWPI .ZLP $ U SPQFUSP ;B  ,J $IFS $IF $J
3FQ TD T ,IN SBO WBOP PV %OJQ 5 * N OP VUP 0UIFST " 'VOET
GSPN
#VEHFUT
(FOFSBM
'VOE
GPS
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU
GSPN
4QFDJBM
'VOE

3FWFOVFT
GSPN
4BMF
PG
-BOE

3FWFOVFT
GSPN
%JTQPTBM
PG
1SPQFSUZ

In terms of the actual intake of development budget revenues by region, the budget of the City of Kyiv is the customary leader with 22.4% of the country’s total (24.3% in 2009). It should be noted that the nominal revenues of the development budget decreased in 14 oblasts, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol compared to 2009. At the same time, the highest growth rate in the nominal revenues, 91.8%, was observed in Odesa Oblast (see Chart 4.4.30).

Chart 4.4.30 Development Budget Revenues by Region in 2009-2010

$JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM $JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU $IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU $IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU   ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU 4VNZ
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU -WJW
0CMBTU -VIBOTL
0CMBTU ,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU ,ZJW
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
JOEJDBUPS
GPS
6LSBJOF
*WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU JO



)S
NO ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU 5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU 7PMZOo
0CMBTU 7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU )S
NO "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB

     


The amount of development budget expenditures of local budgets decreased by 8.6% and totaled Hr 3.5bn. The share of development budget expenditures in the total structure of local budget expenditures decreased by 0.7ppt and amounted to 2.3% (see Chart 4.4.31). 108 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Chart 4.4.31 Dynamics of Development Budget Expenditures in 2006-2010


 

  
   


   
 )S
NO




 


 
  
 
 


       

&YQFOEJUVSFT
PG
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU
)S
NO 4IBSF
PG
&YQFOEJUVSFT
PG
$BQJUBM
#VEHFU
JO
(FOFSBM
4USVDUVSF
PG
-PDBM
#VEHFUT
&YQFOEJUVSFT


The largest development expenditures are recorded for the Kyiv city budget. They totaled Hr 620.3mn or 17.8% of development budget expenditures of all local budgets (Hr 810.7mn or 21.2% in 2009). Also, the development expenditures of Zaporizhya Oblast (Hr 343.7mn) and Odesa Oblast (Hr 280.7mn) are significantly greater than the rest of the country. At the same time, compared to 2009, the actual amounts of development expenditures of local budgets decreased in 15 oblasts (see Chart 4.4.32).

Chart 4.4.32 Development Budget Expenditures by Region in 2009-2010

$JUZ
PG
4FWBTUPQPM $JUZ
PG
,ZJW
$IFSOJIJW
0CMBTU $IFSOJWUTJ
0CMBTU $IFSLBTTZ
0CMBTU ,INFMOZUTLZ
0CMBTU   ,IFSTPO
0CMBTU ,IBSLJW
0CMBTU 5FSOPQJM
0CMBTU 4VNZ
0CMBTU 3JWOF
0CMBTU 1PMUBWB
0CMBTU 0EFTTB
0CMBTU .ZLPMBZJW
0CMBTU -WJW
0CMBTU

-VIBOTL
0CMBTU "WFSBHF
GPS
6LSBJOF
,JSPWPISBE
0CMBTU JO


)S
NO ,ZJW
0CMBTU *WBOP'SBOLJWTL
0CMBTU ;BQPSJ[IJB
0CMBTU 5SBOTDBSQBUIJBO
0CMBTU ;IZUPNZS
0CMBTU %POFUTL
0CMBTU %OJQSPQFUSPWTL
0CMBTU 7PMZOo
0CMBTU

7JOOZUTJB
0CMBTU )S
NO "VUPOPNPVT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$SJNFB

          
  SECTION 4 109

INTER- According to the State Treasury, Hr 77.8bn in intergovernmental GOVERNMENTAL transfers from the State budget to local budgets were remitted TRANSFERS FROM in 2010, which amounts to 95.6% of the annual plan. Of these, the STATE BUDGET TO General Fund of local budgets received Hr 72.4bn or 98.8% of the LOCAL BUDGETS annual plan. The Special Fund received Hr 5.4bn or 66.7% of the planned annual amount. The status of transfers from the State budget to local budgets is characterized by the data presented in Table 4.4.4.

Table 4.4.4 Dynamics of Intergovernmental Transfers from the State Budget to Local Budgets in 2008-2010

Intergovernmental Actual in Actual in Actual in 2010 plan Plan execution, % transfers 2008 2009 2010 Total, Hr mn, including: 59 112.7 62 180.1 81 324.9 77 766.2 95.6 – General Fund 55 022.0 56 489.4 73 243.9 72 375.1 98.8 – Special Fund 4 090.7 5 690.7 8 081.0 5 391.1 66.7

The share of intergovernmental transfers in the structure of local budget revenues amounted to 49.1%, which is 2.4ppt more year-on-year (see Chart 4.4.33).

Chart 4.4.33 Dynamics of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2006-2010


   
  

 
 
   









 
  

)S
NO 



 



 
 
  
 



 


      

0UIFS
5SBOTGFST
)S
NO

4VCWFOUJPO
GPS
4PDJBM
1SPUFDUJPO
PG
1PQVMBUJPO
)S
NO

&RVBMJ[BUJPO
(SBOU
)S
NO

4IBSF
PG
5SBOTGFST
JO
(FOFSBM
4USVDUVSF
PG
-PDBM
#VEHFUT
3FWFOVFT 

The intergovernmental transfers increased by 25.1% year-on- year. Also, the own-source revenues of local budgets demonstrate a nominal 13.4% growth, year-on-year (see Graph 4.4.4). 110 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Graph 4.4.4 Rate of Growth of Transfers and Revenues of Local Budgets in 2005-2010



 







    

 



 



(SPXUI
SBUFT
PG
USBOTGFST

(SPXUI
SBUFT
PG
SFWFOVFT
XJUIPVU
USBOTGFST

      

As usual, the equalization grant has the largest share in the structure of transfers of 56.1% (it amounted to 53.6% in 2009). The share of social protection subventions increased from 36.7% to 38.3% (see Chart 4.4.34 and Chart 4.4.35).

Chart 4.4.34 Structure of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2009

4VCWFOUJPO
GPS
4PDJBM
"EEJUJPOBM
(SBOUT 1SPUFDUJPO
PG
 1PQVMBUJPO 

4VCWFOUJPOT
'SPN
UIF
4UBUF
#VEHFU 

0UIFS
5SBOTGFST &RVBMJ[BUJPO
(SBOU   SECTION 4 111

Chart 4.4.35 Structure of State Budget Transfers to Local Budgets in 2010

4VCWFOUJPO
GPS
4PDJBM
"EEJUJPOBM
(SBOUT 1SPUFDUJPO
PG
 1PQVMBUJPO 

4VCWFOUJPOT
'SPN
UIF
4UBUF
#VEHFU 

&RVBMJ[BUJPO
(SBOU  0UIFS
5SBOTGFST 

EQUALIZATION The equalization grant was remitted at Hr 43.6bn (Hr 33.4bn GRANT in 2009) (see Graph 4.4.5), which amounts to 100.0% of the annual plan.

The 2010 data shows a 30.8% increase in the nominal amount of the equalization grant from the State budget to local budgets. There was also a 15.6% decrease in the amount of funds transferred from local budgets to the State budget. The net equalization transfer23 totaled Hr 37.2bn (see Graph 4.4.5), or 44.5% more than in 2009.

Graph 4.4.5 Dynamics of Remittances of the Equalization Grant and Funds Transferred to the State Budget from Local Budgets in 2006-2010



&RVBMJ[BUJPO
(SBOU 5SBOTGFST
GSPN
-PDBM
#VEHFUT
UP
4UBUF #VEHFU 
 /FU
USBOTGFS




 


 


)S
NO 



  
 



 


 



 
 
 




    

23 The “net equalization transfer” means a difference between the equalization grant and the amount of funds transferred to the State budget. 112 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

OTHER GRANTS The Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for the Year 2010” provides for remittance of such additional grants from the State budget to local budgets: for equalizing the financial sufficiency of local budgets (the annual plan is Hr 538.7mn); for implementing the functions stipulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Approving the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea” (Hr 34.1mn); to the Slavutych city budget for maintaining the city’s social infrastructure (Hr 10.0mn). All the abovementioned additional grants were funded in full as planned for the year. At the same time, it should be noted that the funding of these grants only started in Q3 2010.

SUBVENTIONS The subventions for the social protection of the populace were FOR SOCIAL remitted at the amount of Hr 29.8bn, including: PROTECTION – subvention for paying out allowances to families with children, OF POPULATION low-income families, persons disabled from birth, disabled children, and temporary State allowances for children – Hr 22.7bn or 99.1% of the annual plan; – subvention for granting benefits and housing subsidies to the populace to pay for electric power, natural gas, heat supply, water supply, and water removal services, housing rent, removal of solid household waste and liquid sewage of Hr 1.7bn or 98.8% of the annual plan from the General Fund of the budget, and Hr 3.5bn or 96.3% of the annual plan from the Special Fund; – subvention for granting telecommunications benefits and compensation for fares for some categories of citizens – Hr 1.4bn or 92.8% of the annual plan; – subvention for granting benefits and housing subsidies to the population for purchasing solid and liquid household furnace fuel and liquefied gas – Hr 496.1mn or 80.9% of the annual plan.

OTHER In addition to social subventions, 22 other subvention types were SUBVENTIONS to be provided to local budgets in 2010 (see Appendix D). Their total funding amounted to Hr 17.9bn or 82.7% of the annual plan. The following subventions were remitted in their full amounts envisaged for the year: – for compensation of the loss in revenues due to the stationing of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet in the cities of Sevastopol and Feodosiya and the urban-type settlement Hvardiyske of Simferopol District (Hr 109.6mn); – to the Kalush city budget for socioeconomic development (Hr 30.0mn); – to the budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for paying the cost of the electric power used in 2010 for filling in the Mizhhirne water reservoir, and for repaying the debt for the electric power used for this purpose in 2008-2009 (Hr 24.0mn); – to the Zhovti Vody city budget for the radiation and social protection of city residents (Hr 3.5mn); SECTION 4 113

– to the Donetsk Oblast budget for the medical treatment of disabled spinal patients at the Donetsk Oblast Hospital of Medical Rehabilitation (Hr 3.0mn); – to the city budget of Kurakhove, Donetsk Oblast, for building the Cathedral of Our Lady (Hr 3.0mn). No funding was provided for the following subventions: – to the Slavutych city budget for activities preventing emergencies and catastrophes of technological origin in the housing and communal services sector of the city of Slavutych (the 2010 plan totaled Hr 2.4bn); – to the Lviv city budget for implementing activities intended to ensure a 24-hour water service in the city of Lviv (Hr 1.6mn planned for 2010).

TRANSFERS FROM The State budget of Ukraine received from local budgets LOCAL BUDGETS more than Hr 6.6bn in intergovernmental transfers, which is INTO STATE 14.7% less than in 2009. BUDGET Nearly the whole amount of intergovernmental transfers consisted of the funds subject to remittance by local budgets to the State budget. They were transferred at the amount of Hr 6.4bn or at 90.3% of the annual plan. In addition, the intergovernmental transfers from local budgets also include the subventions for implementation of socioeconomic and cultural development programs of the regions. Such subventions were remitted at the amount of Hr 226.0mn, which is 22.1% more than in 2009. On the whole, the total transfers to the State budget decreased by Hr 1.1bn against 2009 and totaled 4.2% of all local budget expenditures (see Graph 4.4.6).

Graph 4.4.6 Dynamics of the Share of Transfers to the State Budget in Local Budget Expenditures in 2005-2010



  



 

 

 

 



 



  114 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Appendix А Expenditures of the State Budget of Ukraine by Program Classification in 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010 Expenditures by program classification Plan, Actual, Annual plan Plan, Actual, Annual plan Plan, Actual, Annual plan Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine 9 226,7 10 293,9 111,6 11 166,0 10 805,4 96,8 11 806,6 12 942,1 109,6 Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine 8 266,6 8 083,8 97,8 3 773,8 5 587,4 148,1 4 708,7 4 570,9 97,1 Construction of power units, nuclear, pumped-storage, and other power stations, trunk, mountain, and rural power transmission lines, as well 352,0 328,2 93,2 653,5 481,3 73,6 616,6 522,2 84,7 as provision of cheaper credits for accumulating stocks of solid fuel for thermal power stations State support to coalmining enterprises (including brown coal mining 4 299,2 4 843,0 112,6 750,0 4 663,9 621,9 enterprises) for partial coverage of production costs Provision of pensions to the personnel employed full-time at underground 4 075,8 3 997,5 98,1 works and to members of their families Compensation to NAK Naftohaz Ukrayiny for the difference between the price of imported natural gas and its 7 535,5 7 383,2 98,0 1 613,9 4 130,1 255,9 3 423,5 3 423,5 100,0 selling price to economic agents for the production of thermal energy used by the population Ministry of Economy of Ukraine 276,1 258,6 93,7 245,2 272,6 111,2 300,7 282,2 93,8 Ministry of the Coal Industry of 7 737,7 7 496,7 96,9 6 021,2 10 474,3 174,0 1 249,2 7 681,1 614,9 Ukraine Restructuring of the coal and peat 803,7 667,4 83,0 903,5 788,7 87,3 811,3 1 059,2 130,6 industry Mine rescue measures at coal-mining 280,2 280,2 100,0 196,1 196,1 100,0 274,8 274,8 100,0 enterprises State support for coal-mining enterprises intended for partial coverage of production costs, including 4 299,2 4 843,0 112,6 750,0 4 663,9 621,9 5 807,3 for providing guarantees towards the repayment of budget loans State support for the construction and technological modernization of coal, 2 080,1 1 519,2 73,0 444,7 336,9 lignite (brown coal), and peat producing enterprises Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine 876,5 808,6 92,3 958,8 932,8 97,3 1 047,8 961,2 91,7 Ministry of Culture and Tourism of 1 280,8 1 247,7 97,4 1 366,3 1 366,4 100,0 1 637,4 1 688,7 103,1 Ukraine State Forestry Committee of Ukraine 552,8 639,2 115,6 526,5 503,9 95,7 613,6 643,2 104,8 Ministry of Defense 9 926,4 9 539,5 96,1 11 650,1 8 329,1 71,5 11 335,1 10 242,2 90,4 Maintenance of the personnel of the 5 851,5 5 971,9 102,1 6 097,3 5 989,6 98,2 7 262,5 7 109,7 97,9 Ukrainian Armed Forces Training of citizens for officers positions, improving qualifications and 545,1 534,5 98,1 515,9 515,8 100,0 598,8 606,2 101,2 retraining of officers’ cadres, basic military training of youth Implementing reform and development 707,1 531,2 75,1 587,6 89,9 15,3 498,1 150,4 30,2 of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Building (acquisition) of service housing for military personnel of the Ukrainian 509,3 509,5 100,0 755,7 93,3 12,3 399,6 157,6 39,4 Armed Forces Ministry of Education and Science 15 612,5 15 945,9 102,1 18 612,3 17 720,2 95,2 19 997,8 21 166,6 105,8 of Ukraine Training of skilled workers at vocational 2 908,6 2 935,4 100,9 3 256,0 3 211,2 98,6 3 987,9 4 039,6 101,3 schools Training of specialists at higher educational institutions of accreditation 1 767,0 1 770,4 100,2 2 130,6 2 078,9 97,6 2 464,6 2 612,7 106,0 levels I and II Training of specialists at higher educational institutions of accreditation 7 884,2 8 154,3 103,4 10 135,4 9 420,8 92,9 10 304,0 11 001,2 106,8 levels III and IV Ministry of Health of Ukraine 5 780,0 5 762,2 99,7 5 904,2 6 231,3 105,5 6 135,1 6 898,5 112,4 Training and improving the qualifications of medical and pharmaceutical, research and 1 033,8 1 071,3 103,6 1 385,6 1 221,9 88,2 1 328,8 1 433,0 107,8 academic personnel at higher educational institutions of accreditation levels III and IV State Sanitary and Epidemiological 1 243,2 1 311,5 105,5 1 427,4 1 373,1 96,2 1 699,8 1 722,3 101,3 Inspection and disinfecting measures APPENDIX A 115

2008 2009 2010 Expenditures by program classification Plan, Actual, Annual plan Plan, Actual, Annual plan Plan, Actual, Annual plan Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Hr mn Hr mn execution, % Providing medical measures for fighting TB, for the prevention and treatment 573,9 531,3 92,6 539,6 526,3 97,5 635,6 652,5 102,7 of AIDS, and the treatment of cancer patients Ministry for the Protection of the 1 732,4 1 460,6 84,3 1 608,4 1 448,9 90,1 1 973,1 1 436,0 72,8 Natural Environment of Ukraine Ministry of Labor and Social Policy 3 817,9 3 766,8 98,7 3 738,0 3 542,3 94,8 4 458,4 4 325,4 97,0 of Ukraine Fund for the Social Protection of 659,8 764,0 115,8 565,2 619,6 109,6 548,6 673,5 122,8 Disabled Persons Ministry of Housing and Communal 965,7 353,1 36,6 65,3 98,1 150,2 45,7 518,3 1 134,1 Services of Ukraine National program for implementing the reform and development of the housing 850,0 251,6 29,6 and communal services sector Reimbursing the interest rate on credits aimed at the implementation of energy- 25,0 0,0 0,0 saving projects in the housing and communal services sector Repaying the budget accounts payable for completed works, which emerged in 2007-2009 under the budget programs «Repair and reconstruction of heat networks and boiler houses,” “National program of reform and development 40,6 of the housing and communal services sector,” and Reimbursing the interest rates on the credits intended for implementation of energy-saving projects in the housing and communal services sector” Ministry of Agrarian Policy of 12 161,7 9 677,6 79,6 6 365,2 6 353,2 99,8 5 754,5 7 339,6 127,5 Ukraine Providing financial support to agribusiness companies through 1 650,0 1 021,3 61,9 300,0 373,8 124,6 621,6 cheaper short- and medium-term credits Providing compensation to the Pension Fund for losses incurred due to the application to fixed agricultural tax 1 167,1 1 167,1 100,0 626,2 626,2 100,0 payers of a preferential payment rate for mandatory pensions insurance Training the personnel for the agribusiness sector by higher 806,2 862,7 107,0 1 020,6 949,6 93,0 1 059,4 1 121,2 105,8 educational institutions of accreditation levels III and IV Expenses of the Agrarian Fund for storing the objects of State price 60,0 108,3 180,5 241,2 191,2 79,3 regulation, which are included in the State food reserves Preventing the spread of pathogenic 35,0 35,0 100,0 1,5 19,9 1 327,0 20,0 25,6 128,0 agents of animal infectious diseases Budgetary animal husbandry grant and 3 071,8 2 368,0 77,1 500,0 369,3 73,9 State support for crop production Ministry of Transport and 2 723,3 2 824,5 103,7 1 460,6 2 216,7 151,8 1 678,2 1 824,1 108,7 Telecommunications of Ukraine State Motor Roads Service of 9 468,2 8 526,1 90,0 11 309,7 10 664,9 94,3 7 416,9 8 555,9 115,4 Ukraine Development and maintenance of the 6 653,5 7 054,2 106,0 8 697,7 4 392,5 50,5 1 017,2 0,0 0,0 public motor roads network Repayment of obligations under credits obtained under the guarantee of the 1 603,7 1 304,7 81,4 2 452,8 6 260,0 255,2 3 246,5 3 106,5 95,7 Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for development of public motor roads Ministry of Ukraine for Emergency Situations and for the Protection of the Population from the 3 844,7 4 045,9 105,2 3 452,3 3 873,9 112,2 3 918,3 4 108,1 104,8 Consequences of the Chornobyl Disaster Ministry of Finance 20 766,9 19 955,9 96,1 23 163,6 17 850,7 77,1 22 862,9 27 157,1 118,8 Servicing of internal State debt 1 343,4 857,2 63,8 9 246,1 4 659,9 50,4 10 164,9 10 884,1 107,1 Servicing of external State debt 3 041,3 2 917,5 95,9 4 981,2 4 378,9 87,9 4 037,9 4 654,9 115,3 Ministry of Finance of Ukraine general government expenditures), 79 637,5 90 530,9 113,7 134 082,9 102 887,1 76,7 167 284,4 140 279,8 83,9 including intergovernmental transfers Equalization grants from the State budget to local budgets and additional 29 566,7 29 631,2 100,2 34 219,5 36 058,5 105,4 43 851,7 44 223,2 100,8 grants Pension Fund of Ukraine 40 256,6 40 256,6 100,0 44 890,8 43 915,3 97,8 64 770,9 64 086,5 98,9 Security Service of Ukraine 2 032,7 2 044,7 100,6 2 053,6 2 114,1 102,9 2 404,9 2 529,9 105,2 Other key spending units 56 520,8 38 227,9 67,6 26 632,4 29 163,9 109,5 31 118,9 38 437,8 123,5 Total 253 207,9 241 490,1 95,4 274 156,4 242 437,2 88,4 307 748,2 303 588,7 98,6 116 О cityAlushta m О1 1mcitySimferopol m О1 1mcityArmiansk m О1 1mcityDzhankoi m О1 1mcityKerch cityYevpatoriia m m О1 О1 1mcitySaky cityKrasnoperekopsk m m О1 О1 1mcitySudak m О1 1mcityYalta cityFeodosiia m m О1 О1 1rBakhchysarairaion r Totalforcitybudgets vm О1 О1 1rBiliHoryraion r О1 1rKirovraion raion Dzhankoi r r О1 О1 1rKrasnohvardiiskraion r О1 О1 r Nyzhnohiria raion Nyzhnohiria Leninraion r r О1 О1 r О1 1rRozdoliaraion Pervomaiskraion r r О1 О1 1rSakyraion r О1 1rSovietskeraion Simferopolraion r r О1 О1 1rChornomorskeraion vr О1 r О1 1vmr О1 1v О1 о O1 3m cityLutsk О3 m О3 3mcityKovel m О3 3v Totalforcitybudgets cityNovovolynsk vm m О3 О3 3rHorokhivsk raion r О3 r О3 cityVinnytsia m О2 2mcityKoziatyn cityZhmerynka m m O2 О2 2mcityLadyzhyn m О2 2mcityKhmilnyk cityMohyliv-Podilskyi m m О2 О2 2rBaryraion r Totalforcitybudgets vm О2 О2 2rBershadraion r О2 2rHairaion Vinnytsiaraion r r О2 О2 2rIllinetskraion Zhmerynkaraion r r О2 О2 2rKalynivraion r О2 2rKryzhopilraion Koziatynraion r r О2 О2 2rLitynraion Lypovetskraion r r О2 О2 2r О2 r О2 О2 r Orativ raion Orativ raion Nemyriv r r О2 О2 2rPohrebyschenkiraion Pischanka raion r r О2 О2 2rTeplytyraion r О2 2rTomashpil raion Tyvrraion r r О2 О2 2rTrostianetsk raion r О2 2rKhmilnytskraion Tulchyn raion r r О2 О2 2rSharhorodraion Chechelnyky raion r Chernivtsiraion r О2 r О2 О2 2rYampilraion r О2 2vmr О2 vr О2 2v Oblast budget O2 о O2

Oblast codes

budgets Total forraion Republic ofCrimea of Autonomous Consolidated budget budgets Total forraion of Vinnytsaoblast Consolidated budget raion Krasnoperekopsk Volynskyi city Volodymyr- city budgets Total forraionand of Crimea Autonomous Republic Budget of raion Volodymyr-Volynskyi raion Murovanokurylovetsk raion Mohyliv-Podilsky city budgets Total forraionand Administrative units Revenues includedinthecalculationof 2 2, 8 6, 0, 5 9, 14612 8, 302 4, 5 6, 1 4, 0, 883239,1 2585689,1 106,2 104,7 3263415,1 1313641,9 3073365,3 1254263,8 425024,6 25641,1 105,8 83,0 468383,1 26080,2 442817,5 31436,1 2160664,5 106,3 857598,0 2795032,0 105,3 2 630547,8 1287561,7 1 222827,7 4 9, 0 9, 0, 9 7, 7 4, 8 4, 0, 6 7, 1 3, 9 4, 0, 1363547,6 105,0 1590341,4 1515132,6 166776,4 107,7 185647,1 172441,7 1196771,2 104,6 1404694,3 1 342690,9 0 2, 0 7, 0, 0 6, 1 8, 4 0, 0, 9 8, 1 0, 4 7, 0, 1702450,1 107,2 1949773,2 1819101,5 399383,6 107,5 442302,9 411381,4 1303066,5 107,1 1507470,3 1 407720,1 8 4, 5 4, 0, 0 7, 4 0, 6 5, 0, 3 6, 2 5, 1 9, 0, 1335038,8 106,4 1519695,1 1427650,8 333666,2 105,7 366055,0 346305,5 1001372,7 106,7 1153640,1 1 081345,3 4 2, 1 1, 64166583 6, 03711283 4, 8 8, 5 8, 87231732,3 88,7 250383,5 282282,8 35046,4 102,8 40367,1 39262,4 196685,8 86,4 210016,4 243 020,4 7 4, 7 4, 0, 2 9, 44197 9, 0, 60564885949735125390824,3 102,5 449733,5 438825,9 66025,6 109,2 70391,8 64481,9 324798,7 101,3 379341,6 374 344,0 9 4, 1 0, 0, 4 2, 17185 5, 625 1, 5 4, 7 6, 0, 502338,9 102,6 570561,0 556249,7 53013,3 96,2 59352,0 61701,8 449325,6 103,4 511209,1 494 547,9 5 4, 9 3, 0, 1 1, 65298 6, 0, 35355474450068185492361,0 108,5 580096,8 534744,4 73543,5 108,7 83162,4 76502,9 418 817,5 108,4 496934,5 458 241,5 2 7, 5 3, 0, 0 9, 50597 4, 1, 57743140740081199367411,2 109,9 430078,1 391450,7 65717,4 117,2 76247,9 65075,9 301693,8 108,4 353830,2 326 374,8 3 9, 3 1, 0, 5 8, 27539 7, 1, 67286340169298126546748,6 102,6 629289,8 613460,1 86762,8 112,5 93075,8 82765,3 459985,8 101,0 536214,0 530 694,8 5 9, 1 7, 01232235 9, 92031015 5, 1 9, 7 5, 16345889,6 91,6 377052,5 411692,4 52657,3 100,1 59280,3 59197,1 293 232,3 90,1 317772,2 352 495,3 8 3, 3 4, 0, 7 0, 5 6, 7 3, 1, 6 0, 4 0, 0 8, 0, 1039109,6 105,3 1209386,6 1148204,5 160306,3 110,7 176238,2 159268,2 878803,3 104,5 1033148,5 988 936,3 5 5, 7 4, 0, 1 6, 313594897, 7, 6 2, 8 5, 0, 324438,0 103,8 380954,7 366928,1 6470,1 71,4 9408,9 13173,5 317 967,9 105,0 371545,8 353 754,6 5 9, 6 2, 0, 3 9, 3 9, 3 7, 0, 2 8, 8 8, 9 0, 0, 263880,7 103,2 294401,6 285282,8 123887,4 101,7 133574,6 131390,8 139993,3 104,5 160827,0 153 892,0 29942 0, 0, 984858131 1, 7, 0, 87073 1, 2, 29310,6 122,0 35113,6 28770,7 9505,9 174,8 10211,4 5841,3 19804,8 108,6 24902,2 22 929,4 42221 7, 1, 3596214718528, 0, 64691 0, 1, 15390,1 112,8 18508,4 16406,9 1 800,5 86,4 1835,2 2124,7 13589,6 116,7 16673,2 14 282,2 45354 1, 0, 8861229119998, 5, 68264 4, 0, 40786,9 101,3 47440,4 46842,6 1950,7 85,4 1929,9 2259,1 38836,1 102,1 45510,5 44 583,5 20939 8, 1, 69802 2, 11021853 2, 1 7, 3 6, 1, 109554,8 117,6 131469,8 111772,2 32626,8 138,5 41180,2 29722,9 76928,0 110,0 90289,6 82 049,3 40704 0, 0, 8630515950809, 6, 91294 6, 9943209,8 99,9 49162,5 49192,9 4566,8 98,1 5058,0 5155,9 38643,0 100,2 44104,5 44 037,0 20461 5, 1, 17502633282315623921 0, 656812614124,2 112,6 16566,8 14707,9 2379,2 105,6 2812,3 2663,3 11745,0 114,2 13754,5 12 044,6 28281 0, 1, 1872211219558, 9, 49401 2, 1, 13574,6 112,3 16822,2 14974,0 24932,1 1697,4 97,2 88,2 28211,6 1915,5 29033,8 2171,2 3 645,8 11877,2 79,2 116,4 3615,0 14906,6 4566,7 12 802,8 21286,2 100,5 24596,6 24 467,1 08283 4, 0, 9324513145418, 3, 60593 2, 0, 32817,1 106,1 38229,5 36045,9 3 434,7 88,6 4584,1 5173,1 29382,4 109,0 33645,4 30 872,8 98564 8, 874 8, 2, 4, 0, 4, 38005 2, 9146833,1 99,1 53326,5 53830,0 4048,3 103,0 4144,9 4024,4 42784,8 98,7 49181,6 49 805,6 58041 8, 1, 5041253623779, 2, 83402 9, 0, 17063,9 109,8 20194,9 18394,0 2 029,7 91,8 2307,7 2513,6 15034,1 112,6 17887,2 15 880,4 44051 4, 0, 32072624482319445121 7, 063210317791,9 120,3 20653,2 17172,9 4 511,2 179,4 4812,3 2682,4 13280,7 109,3 15840,9 14 490,5 30204 5, 274 5, 045799709, 7, 34775 6, 3055223,8 93,0 59064,8 63477,7 9 673,0 94,8 9907,0 10455,7 45550,8 92,7 49157,7 53 022,0 89093 4, 0, 5742551047128, 9, 45193 1, 0, 31842,4 104,5 36112,3 34561,9 6 098,3 85,6 4771,2 5571,0 25744,2 108,1 31341,1 28 990,9 40972 4, 0, 28606807853714967943 9, 430011129665,4 32154,7 111,1 111,3 34330,0 36922,9 30890,4 33179,1 6789,4 10531,2 113,6 124,9 11936,3 8583,7 10509,8 6870,7 21623,4 22876,0 110,2 107,2 24986,7 25746,3 22 669,3 24 019,7 18671 0, 871 8, 1, 1, 0221982 0, 15428, 20163,3 86,4 21524,2 24900,7 2179,8 70,2 2116,8 36231,3 3014,0 106,2 17983,5 42173,1 88,7 39698,5 19407,4 9194,9 21 886,7 87,4 8691,2 9938,7 27036,4 112,5 33481,9 29 759,8 21534 4, 0, 89425437708510055334 5, 072516744497,5 106,7 50732,5 47559,0 5 523,3 130,0 7088,5 5453,7 38974,2 103,7 43644,0 42 105,3 29772 9, 1, 2019305227058, 9, 60292 9, 1, 24512,0 114,8 29897,4 26052,9 2 490,1 87,5 2700,5 3085,2 22021,9 118,4 27196,9 22 967,7 19348 0, 0, 85414 6, 13081033 1, 2 2, 3 7, 0, 117232,4 76082,0 106,4 131079,3 108,6 123226,5 82319,7 38718,2 75830,3 100,3 33347,3 41370,8 100,8 41263,1 33566,2 78514,1 33310,7 109,4 42734,7 89708,4 114,7 81 963,4 48753,5 42 519,6 68951 5, 1, 63132845521717339441 5, 430313720275,6 123,7 24310,3 19654,0 3934,4 187,3 5251,7 2804,5 16341,3 113,1 19058,5 16 849,5 30012 9, 0, 0768257219707, 3, 56732 6, 0, 22635,5 105,8 27168,6 25667,3 1838,7 76,4 1977,0 2587,2 20796,8 109,1 25191,7 23 080,1 85461 3, 0, 6110277427519, 7, 13202 3, 0, 18302,7 105,8 22535,7 21302,0 2171,7 99,9 2705,1 2707,4 16131,0 106,6 19830,5 18 594,6 98732 8, 0, 6890410133408, 7, 39742 6, 9519705,9 99,5 23865,5 23997,4 2 876,9 81,5 3384,0 4150,1 16829,0 103,2 20481,5 19 847,3 47571 3, 0, 3539260521327, 5, 74621 4, 0, 15494,1 105,0 18346,5 17466,2 1 950,2 78,8 2113,2 2680,5 13543,9 109,8 16233,3 14 785,7 12532 0, 2, 9778378434399, 0, 50373 4, 2, 23091,4 121,4 30345,2 25003,7 3303,6 90,7 3443,9 3798,4 19787,8 126,9 26901,3 21 205,3 05893 4, 0, 77395600784117975983 8, 861916635303,7 106,6 38691,9 36288,9 7579,8 137,9 7844,1 5690,0 27723,9 100,8 30847,8 30 598,9 08581 4, 3, 13013009333819430551 9, 778817714405,6 127,7 17748,8 13896,7 3 025,5 109,4 3303,8 3020,9 11380,1 132,8 14445,0 10 875,8 55012 5, 752 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 98602 7, 8326116,4 98,3 29374,7 29886,0 4 503,2 102,7 4422,1 4305,9 21613,2 97,5 24952,7 25 580,1 29723 6, 0, 93326237684519366983 7, 142015736003,0 105,7 41402,0 39170,9 6609,8 109,3 6834,5 6253,7 29393,2 105,0 34567,5 32 917,2 69986 8, 1, 446893421 3, 3, 09216 8, 649815365348,9 115,3 76419,8 66284,0 10902,1 134,7 12536,5 9304,2 54446,8 112,1 63883,2 56 979,8 69752 7, 0, 3900479043739, 4, 16653 3, 0, 28014,9 103,7 32837,8 31676,5 4045,0 92,2 4367,3 4739,0 23970,0 105,7 28470,5 26 937,5 67461 1, 0, 49163846440717037092 6, 272810718672,5 110,7 22762,8 20569,2 3740,9 117,0 4450,7 3804,6 14931,6 109,2 18312,1 16 764,6 20631 2, 0, 10502422266919227231 4, 506214513707,3 104,5 15096,2 14448,5 2702,3 109,2 2666,9 2442,2 11005,0 103,5 12429,3 12 006,3 45761 1, 0, 3504250724659, 1, 70831 9, 0, 15703,3 106,8 18197,9 17038,3 2 112,9 99,4 2486,5 2500,7 13590,4 108,1 15711,4 14 537,6 6507193951329 5, 59262 4, 3, 87091243310712162113193,0 116,2 130751,2 112483,3 18740,9 134,7 21441,6 15912,6 94452,2 113,2 109309,5 96 570,7 66781 2, 0, 5557269326889, 6, 93712 4, 0, 17946,1 108,1 20940,1 19367,1 2 360,4 15778,7 98,1 97,9 2618,8 18374,2 2669,3 18769,8 15585,7 2683,3 109,7 18321,3 96,4 2960,6 16 697,8 3070,0 13095,4 98,2 15413,6 15 699,8 49511 3, 1, 4050305827909, 1, 79091 7, 0, 16614,1 107,7 19370,7 17980,9 2519,2 91,1 2739,0 3005,8 14095,0 111,1 16631,7 14 975,1 71561 7, 0, 57793146420916130252 9, 211519218830,4 109,2 22151,5 20290,2 3052,5 136,1 4280,9 3144,6 15777,9 104,2 17870,6 17 145,6 66571 6, 0, 61012835298511224891 7, 031414618629,0 104,6 20371,4 19479,2 2448,9 101,2 2908,5 2873,5 16180,1 105,2 17463,0 16 605,7 01863 8, 0, 56896726768413771223 7, 831414032761,1 12171,1 104,0 93,8 38361,4 13385,7 36871,2 14273,5 7112,2 2342,7 113,7 85,6 7678,4 2548,5 6752,6 2977,5 25648,9 9828,4 101,9 95,9 30683,0 10837,2 30 118,6 11 296,0 36501 8, 0, 15303306341814227731 0, 776514414340,3 104,4 17756,5 17005,6 2757,3 104,2 3471,8 3330,6 11583,0 104,5 14284,7 13 675,0 98912 0, 1, 92235935986513968642 2, 283217126088,7 127,1 32813,2 25822,6 40278,4 6826,4 104,4 46381,9 163,9 9806,5 44418,8 5983,5 5087,2 19262,3 107,6 6139,5 116,0 23006,7 5703,7 19 839,1 35191,3 103,9 40242,5 38 715,1 17153 6, 0, 87484249548416943363 6, 967319833108,4 109,8 39607,3 36066,4 4 353,6 126,9 5438,4 4284,9 28754,8 107,5 34168,9 31 781,5 90712 0, 1, 8572240520078, 2, 15762 6, 0, 20281,8 108,8 23464,6 21557,6 1724,7 82,7 2060,7 2490,5 18557,2 112,3 21403,8 19 067,1 15661 9, 0, 0856180217499, 6, 33681 6, 0, 12436,7 102,0 13669,0 13396,8 1561,1 98,6 1774,9 1800,2 10875,6 102,6 11894,1 11 596,6 4, 0235102765811171147147105596631 5, 1, 8691,3 118,4 11458,2 9676,3 1085,5 104,7 1184,7 1131,7 7605,8 120,2 10273,5 8 544,6 4, 4, 1, 6, 6, 7, 321150853789921487942,8 104,8 8919,2 8513,7 1175,0 73,2 1075,1 1469,1 6767,8 111,3 7844,1 7 044,6 1, 4, 1, 5, 0, 7, 0, 5, 03351 1, 1, 9115,3 112,5 11616,4 10323,5 1559,4 103,5 1976,3 1909,2 7555,9 114,6 9640,2 8 414,3 3, 5, 0, 0, 7, 6, 901147864292431717748,2 107,1 9224,3 8614,2 1144,7 99,0 1164,4 1175,7 6603,6 108,4 8059,9 7 438,5 3, 2, 1, 8, 0, 1, 8, 1, 3, 13331549901,7 125,4 11333,3 9039,7 2612,2 187,5 3010,2 1605,6 7289,5 112,0 8323,1 7 434,1 2, 5, 2, 4, 4, 7, 5, 9, 6, 2, 2, 8337,4 126,2 9927,6 7867,3 1395,9 150,8 1574,3 1043,6 6941,5 122,4 8353,3 6 823,7 2, 00851748529206519379, 3, 13241 8, 0, 10210,7 105,4 11982,2 11372,4 1637,8 96,0 1963,7 2046,5 8572,9 107,4 10018,5 9 325,9 9, 0474142748223793820169311591121 2, 5, 10569,7 157,4 14329,5 9101,2 3101,5 166,9 3852,0 2307,9 7468,2 154,2 10477,4 6 793,3 6, 050516691221303279028321771 7, 329518611359,9 118,6 13249,5 11175,4 2177,7 208,3 2729,0 1310,3 9182,2 106,6 10520,5 9 865,1

Estimates inter-governmental transfers Execution ofGeneralFundRevenues

Reports for 2010 of LocalBudgetsin2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 the calculationofinter-governmental Revenues, thatarenotincludedin

Estimates

Reports transfers ANALYSIS OFBUDGETEXECUTIONIN2010 for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009

Estimates General Fundrevenues:total

Reports for 2010 Appendix B

% of Hr thousand execution

Reports for 2009 APPENDIX B 117

Revenues, that are not included in Revenues included in the calculation of the calculation of inter-governmental General Fund revenues: total inter-governmental transfers transfers

Administrative units Oblast codes Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009

О3 r Ivanychiv raion 17 281,6 17 216,0 99,6 16 855,6 1 894,0 1 441,5 76,1 1 282,5 19 175,6 18 657,6 97,3 18 138,1 Kamin-Kashyrski О3 r 12 196,0 13 796,5 113,1 11 422,5 1 798,7 1 604,4 89,2 1 333,0 13 994,7 15 400,8 110,0 12 755,5 raion О3 r Kivertsivsk raion 19 792,8 20 899,4 105,6 17 671,4 2 252,8 2 292,6 101,8 1 868,6 22 045,6 23 192,0 105,2 19 540,0 О3 r Kovel raion 10 503,8 11 253,8 107,1 9 979,4 2 118,9 2 467,0 116,4 1 622,9 12 622,7 13 720,8 108,7 11 602,2 О3 r Lokachynsk raion 7 105,6 7 146,2 100,6 6 292,8 1 007,7 859,0 85,2 1 010,6 8 113,3 8 005,2 98,7 7 303,4 О3 r Lutsk raion 36 765,7 37 691,6 102,5 29 903,8 3 963,2 3 789,6 95,6 3 556,5 40 728,9 41 481,1 101,8 33 460,4 О3 r Liubeshivka raion 8 493,7 8 751,3 103,0 7 610,6 1 136,3 815,7 71,8 748,9 9 630,0 9 567,0 99,3 8 359,5 О3 r Liubomyshl raion 16 064,6 16 583,8 103,2 14 590,2 1 921,5 1 970,4 102,5 1 806,1 17 986,1 18 554,2 103,2 16 396,3 О3 r Manevytsk raion 13 879,0 16 189,6 116,6 13 245,8 3 331,7 3 090,1 92,7 2 267,0 17 210,7 19 279,7 112,0 15 512,8 О3 r Ratniv raion 12 790,2 12 613,8 98,6 11 193,8 1 918,2 1 408,2 73,4 1 421,5 14 708,4 14 022,1 95,3 12 615,2 О3 r Rozhyschensk raion 11 063,3 11 083,0 100,2 9 892,2 1 780,1 1 683,7 94,6 1 347,9 12 843,4 12 766,7 99,4 11 240,1 О3 r Starovyzhivske raion 7 244,9 7 157,1 98,8 6 262,6 1 203,2 969,5 80,6 822,4 8 448,1 8 126,6 96,2 7 085,1 О3 r Turiy raion 8 045,5 8 279,7 102,9 7 258,6 1 120,2 1 195,0 106,7 949,8 9 165,7 9 474,8 103,4 8 208,4 О3 r Shatske raion 6 584,8 6 263,7 95,1 5 569,1 1 267,1 1 294,5 102,2 1 178,3 7 851,9 7 558,2 96,3 6 747,4 Total for raion О3 vr 209 641,8 219 002,7 104,5 188 060,2 30 863,2 28 069,5 90,9 24 341,0 240 505,0 247 072,3 102,7 212 401,2 budgets Total for raion and О3 vmr 562 137,1 536 774,9 95,5 481 292,5 90 060,3 87 349,9 97,0 76 998,3 652 197,4 624 124,8 95,7 558 290,9 city budgets О3 о Oblast budget 191 610,4 192 120,9 100,3 171 033,6 3 697,6 6 262,3 169,4 2 733,9 195 308,0 198 383,2 101,6 173 767,5 Consolidated budget О3 v 753 747,5 728 895,8 96,7 652 326,1 93 757,9 93 612,1 99,8 79 732,2 847 505,4 822 507,9 97,1 732 058,4 of Volyn oblast О4 m city Dnipropetrovsk 1 469 198,1 1 380 630,5 94,0 1 174 790,9 451 472,1 556 502,7 123,3 555 764,5 1 920 670,2 1 937 133,2 100,9 1 730 555,4 О4 m city Vilnohirsk 24 456,6 29 427,4 120,3 22 799,4 4 529,4 8 032,7 177,3 11 040,6 28 986,0 37 460,1 129,2 33 840,1 city О4 m 224 001,5 235 578,8 105,2 192 843,6 75 596,6 91 149,1 120,6 59 505,3 299 598,1 326 727,9 109,1 252 348,9 Dniprodzerzhynsk О4 m city Zhovti Vody 42 609,8 40 639,5 95,4 37 156,1 7 270,3 6 426,3 88,4 6 494,4 49 880,1 47 065,8 94,4 43 650,6 О4 m city Kryvyi Rih 802 569,1 872 763,8 108,7 754 655,0 269 746,6 283 736,4 105,2 314 357,6 1 072 315,7 1 156 500,2 107,9 1 069 012,6 О4 m city Marhanets 26 462,6 31 576,3 119,3 23 856,0 5 103,4 4 194,3 82,2 4 022,4 31 566,0 35 770,6 113,3 27 878,5 О4 m city Nikopol 126 143,9 128 118,6 101,6 105 967,1 25 030,9 28 284,2 113,0 27 676,6 151 174,8 156 402,9 103,5 133 643,8 О4 m city Novomoskovsk 44 138,1 40 301,4 91,3 36 404,7 10 804,9 10 310,1 95,4 10 163,4 54 943,0 50 611,4 92,1 46 568,0 О4 m city Ordzhonikidze 33 648,8 42 061,3 125,0 30 324,5 7 356,0 9 862,7 134,1 11 801,8 41 004,8 51 924,0 126,6 42 126,2 О4 m city Pavlohrad 90 846,6 87 991,6 96,9 73 815,9 19 926,2 19 997,3 100,4 17 574,5 110 772,8 107 988,9 97,5 91 390,3 О4 m city Pershotravensk 28 558,6 31 875,2 111,6 32 251,5 1 556,6 2 688,0 172,7 7 317,8 30 115,2 34 563,2 114,8 39 569,3 О4 m city Synelnykove 25 310,7 25 429,9 100,5 21 287,2 2 383,8 2 462,5 103,3 2 113,9 27 694,5 27 892,4 100,7 23 401,1 О4 m city Ternivka 27 869,8 29 917,6 107,3 31 433,0 1 918,4 3 484,0 181,6 4 784,5 29 788,2 33 401,6 112,1 36 217,6 О4 vm Total for citybudgets 2 965 814,2 2 976 312,0 100,4 2 537 585,0 882 695,2 1 027 130,2 116,4 1 032 617,4 3 848 509,4 4 003 442,2 104,0 3 570 202,4 О4 r Apostoliv raion 34 206,3 38 636,1 113,0 31 550,5 3 779,6 3 600,2 95,3 3 359,6 37 985,9 42 236,3 111,2 34 910,1 О4 r Vasylkiv raion 14 034,1 15 066,5 107,4 12 730,6 2 869,2 2 892,1 100,8 2 696,5 16 903,3 17 958,5 106,2 15 427,0 Verkhnodniprovsk О4 r 32 505,5 34 408,0 105,9 29 327,8 4 630,6 5 107,9 110,3 5 052,9 37 136,1 39 515,9 106,4 34 380,7 raion О4 r Dnipropetrovsk raion 58 486,1 70 790,9 121,0 55 427,5 10 784,5 15 895,6 147,4 13 800,1 69 270,6 86 686,5 125,1 69 227,6 О4 r Kryvorih raion 23 677,3 27 589,2 116,5 23 239,8 8 602,6 10 012,4 116,4 7 622,2 32 279,9 37 601,6 116,5 30 862,0 О4 r Krynychansk raion 17 550,6 20 040,2 114,2 17 859,9 3 344,3 3 247,1 97,1 2 938,9 20 894,9 23 287,3 111,4 20 798,8 О4 r Mahdalyniv raion 22 303,5 24 832,4 111,3 21 835,0 2 962,1 2 742,5 92,6 2 665,2 25 265,6 27 574,9 109,1 24 500,1 О4 r Mezhive raion 10 725,8 13 141,2 122,5 10 896,0 1 990,7 2 554,1 128,3 1 975,2 12 716,5 15 695,2 123,4 12 871,2 О4 r Nikopol raion 22 688,6 26 358,9 116,2 21 801,0 9 131,9 8 435,4 92,4 5 185,0 31 820,5 34 794,3 109,3 26 986,0 О4 r Novomoskovsk raion 42 332,4 45 661,8 107,9 38 532,6 6 717,3 6 888,1 102,5 6 447,3 49 049,7 52 549,9 107,1 44 979,9 О4 r Pavlohrad raion 55 593,3 61 450,5 110,5 69 801,0 4 315,2 4 637,3 107,5 4 455,2 59 908,5 66 087,7 110,3 74 256,2 О4 r Petrykivske raion 15 065,9 15 104,8 100,3 13 945,9 1 653,9 2 241,8 135,5 1 731,7 16 719,8 17 346,6 103,7 15 677,5 О4 r Petropavlivsk raion 19 554,4 22 951,4 117,4 22 373,9 2 813,8 2 567,0 91,2 2 237,5 22 368,2 25 518,4 114,1 24 611,4 О4 r Pokrovsk raion 17 342,8 18 713,1 107,9 15 773,8 2 822,8 3 105,7 110,0 3 413,1 20 165,6 21 818,8 108,2 19 186,9 О4 r Piatkhat raion 26 015,0 28 905,3 111,1 24 126,2 4 483,5 4 338,3 96,8 4 277,2 30 498,5 33 243,6 109,0 28 403,4 О4 r Synelnykiv raion 16 100,1 17 924,9 111,3 15 108,3 3 302,9 3 100,3 93,9 2 981,2 19 403,0 21 025,2 108,4 18 089,5 О4 r Soloniany raion 18 840,7 21 091,8 111,9 18 014,0 3 181,8 3 045,7 95,7 2 734,1 22 022,5 24 137,5 109,6 20 748,1 О4 r Sofiivka raion 12 052,3 13 331,3 110,6 11 242,9 2 445,5 1 946,0 79,6 1 712,2 14 497,8 15 277,3 105,4 12 955,1 О4 r Tomakivka raion 12 550,0 13 549,7 108,0 11 406,5 3 717,6 2 884,1 77,6 2 994,4 16 267,6 16 433,8 101,0 14 400,9 О4 r Tsarychansk raion 10 864,3 12 647,3 116,4 10 865,5 2 091,4 2 408,8 115,2 2 206,0 12 955,7 15 056,2 116,2 13 071,5 О4 r Shyrokivka raion 12 412,6 13 897,1 112,0 12 345,0 5 747,5 5 139,8 89,4 4 736,8 18 160,1 19 036,9 104,8 17 081,8 О4 r Yuriv raion 6 776,2 7 810,3 115,3 6 131,0 1 189,3 843,3 70,9 902,8 7 965,5 8 653,6 108,6 7 033,7 Total for raion О4 vr 501 677,8 563 902,7 112,4 494 334,5 92 578,0 97 633,2 105,5 86 125,0 594 255,8 661 535,9 111,3 580 459,5 budgets Total for raion and О4 vmr 3 467 492,0 3 540 214,7 102,1 3 031 919,5 975 273,2 1 124 763,4 115,3 1 118 742,5 4 442 765,2 4 664 978,1 105,0 4 150 661,9 city budgets О4 о Oblast budget 1 404 645,7 1 470 658,5 104,7 1 273 921,5 19 702,1 16 626,9 84,4 14 941,1 1 424 347,8 1 487 285,4 104,4 1 288 862,6 Consolidated budget О4 v of Dnipropetrovsk 4 872 137,7 5 010 873,3 102,8 4 305 841,0 994 975,3 1 141 390,3 114,7 1 133 683,6 5 867 113,0 6 152 263,5 104,9 5 439 524,5 oblast О5 m city Donetsk 1 465 809,9 1 562 793,1 106,6 1 299 133,5 308 820,0 422 453,6 136,8 302 422,2 1 774 629,9 1 985 246,6 111,9 1 601 555,7 О5 m city Avdiivka 36 505,0 40 972,1 112,2 34 084,9 7 219,5 11 886,9 164,7 9 532,2 43 724,5 52 859,0 120,9 43 617,1 О5 m city Artemivsk 101 092,6 101 035,0 99,9 86 218,5 22 932,1 24 768,8 108,0 24 343,9 124 024,7 125 803,8 101,4 110 562,4 О5 m city Vuhledar 21 046,4 33 238,9 157,9 36 702,8 1 461,8 1 047,6 71,7 958,8 22 508,2 34 286,5 152,3 37 661,6 О5 m city Horlivka 202 975,7 215 710,7 106,3 178 191,9 39 081,0 52 824,3 135,2 42 714,2 242 056,7 268 535,1 110,9 220 906,0 О5 m city Debaltseve 61 658,7 61 889,3 100,4 54 954,7 3 296,4 4 059,4 123,1 4 229,1 64 955,1 65 948,6 101,5 59 183,8 О5 m city Dzerzhynsk 40 552,1 47 621,3 117,4 45 105,1 4 944,2 3 971,6 80,3 3 992,2 45 496,3 51 592,9 113,4 49 097,3 О5 m city Dymytrov 35 875,8 42 557,3 118,6 42 284,1 3 396,6 2 738,6 80,6 2 625,9 39 272,4 45 295,9 115,3 44 910,0 О5 m city Dobropillia 53 166,3 82 037,0 154,3 83 548,3 3 409,0 3 972,3 116,5 2 984,0 56 575,3 86 009,3 152,0 86 532,3 О5 m city Dokuchaievsk 21 465,8 23 507,0 109,5 19 064,3 4 211,5 4 472,1 106,2 3 864,7 25 677,3 27 979,1 109,0 22 929,0 О5 m city Druzhkivka 44 843,7 47 556,5 106,0 36 583,6 6 533,0 6 608,7 101,2 6 493,0 51 376,7 54 165,2 105,4 43 076,6 О5 m city Yenakiieve 108 338,4 111 999,1 103,4 99 440,0 14 722,7 15 951,6 108,3 14 415,9 123 061,1 127 950,7 104,0 113 855,9 О5 m city Zhdanivka 19 827,3 30 791,9 155,3 26 399,2 835,3 574,9 68,8 524,9 20 662,6 31 366,8 151,8 26 924,1 О5 m city Kirovske 34 703,5 34 886,7 100,5 38 354,8 1 975,6 2 010,2 101,8 2 415,7 36 679,1 36 896,9 100,6 40 770,5 О5 m city Kostiantynivka 46 977,3 47 603,2 101,3 38 656,2 7 418,7 13 724,1 185,0 12 050,1 54 396,0 61 327,3 112,7 50 706,3 О5 m city Kramatorsk 198 419,0 186 923,9 94,2 160 572,4 34 974,9 40 487,4 115,8 34 575,7 233 393,9 227 411,2 97,4 195 148,1 О5 m city Krasnyi Lyman 37 491,7 42 453,9 113,2 36 779,6 6 108,8 7 350,3 120,3 6 943,3 43 600,5 49 804,2 114,2 43 722,9 О5 m city Krasnoarmiisk 118 012,7 134 294,9 113,8 127 290,8 7 177,4 5 531,8 77,1 5 388,9 125 190,1 139 826,7 111,7 132 679,8 О5 m city Makiivka 265 360,5 296 554,6 111,8 275 495,9 82 855,5 65 274,4 78,8 64 862,2 348 216,0 361 829,0 103,9 340 358,1 О5 m city Mariupol 578 250,8 688 009,3 119,0 521 244,9 171 353,3 114 631,9 66,9 115 554,8 749 604,1 802 641,3 107,1 636 799,7 О5 m city Novohrodivka 12 712,5 23 873,5 187,8 24 630,6 544,9 724,5 133,0 506,7 13 257,4 24 598,0 185,5 25 137,3 О5 m city Selydove 26 772,9 34 222,5 127,8 31 342,8 2 270,3 2 898,3 127,7 2 307,9 29 043,2 37 120,8 127,8 33 650,8 О5 m city Sloviansk 99 180,9 98 870,5 99,7 86 423,4 11 563,8 14 479,1 125,2 11 239,9 110 744,7 113 349,6 102,4 97 663,3 О5 m city Snizhne 39 991,9 41 041,3 102,6 37 644,4 3 669,8 5 630,9 153,4 5 048,5 43 661,7 46 672,2 106,9 42 692,9 О5 m city Torez 37 264,4 47 365,4 127,1 44 670,1 7 916,0 6 560,7 82,9 5 781,1 45 180,4 53 926,1 119,4 50 451,2 О5 m city Khartsyzk 90 214,8 95 085,3 105,4 87 546,9 10 459,7 10 872,6 103,9 10 218,0 100 674,5 105 957,9 105,2 97 764,9 О5 m city Shakhtarsk 40 700,0 45 181,3 111,0 43 914,3 4 522,4 5 351,9 118,3 4 284,3 45 222,4 50 533,2 111,7 48 198,6 О5 m city Yasynuvata 48 901,9 49 187,8 100,6 45 363,6 4 503,9 3 570,5 79,3 3 145,2 53 405,8 52 758,3 98,8 48 508,8 О5 vm Total for citybudgets 3 888 112,5 4 267 263,4 109,8 3 641 641,7 778 178,1 854 428,8 109,8 703 423,5 4 666 290,6 5 121 692,2 109,8 4 345 065,2 118 6mcityZhytomyr m О6 6mcityBerdychiv m О6 6m cityKorosten О6 m О6 6mcityMalyn m О6 6rAndrushivkaraion r Totalforcitybudgets vm О6 О6 6rBerdychivraion Baranivkaraion r r О6 О6 6rBrusylivraion r О6 6rDzerzhynskraion r О6 r О6 6rZhytomyrraion Yemilchinraion r r О6 О6 6rKorostenraion r О6 6rLiubaryraion Luhynraion r Korostyshivraion r О6 r О6 О6 6rNarodytske raion Malynraion r r О6 О6 6r О6 О6 r Olevsk raion Olevsk raion Ovruch r r О6 О6 6rPopilniaraion r О6 6rRuzhynraion Radomyshlraion r r О6 О6 6rCherniakhivraion r О6 r О6 6rChudnivraion r О6 6vmr О6 vr О6 6v Oblastbudget О6 о О6 5rAmvrosiivkaraion r О5 5rVelykonovosilkiraion Aptemivskraion r r О5 О5 5rVolnovaskeraion r О5 5rDobpopilia raion Volodarraion r r О5 О5 5rKostiantynivkaraion r О5 5rMarinskraion Kpasnoarmiiskraion r r О5 О5 5rPepshotravneraion raion Oleksandrivka r Hovoazovskraion r О5 r О5 О5 5rSlovianyraion r О5 5rTelmanivraion Starobeshiveraion r r О5 О5 5rYasynuvatyraion Shakhtarskraion r r О5 О5 5vr О5 5оOblastbudget о О5 vmr О5 5v О5 8mcityZaporizhia m О8 8mcityEnerhodar cityBerdiansk m m О8 О8 8mcityMelitopol m О8 8v Totalforcitybudgets cityTokmak vm m О8 О8 7mcityUzhhorod m О7 7mcityMukacheve cityBerehove m m О7 О7 7mcityChop cityKhust m m О7 О7 7v Totalforcitybudgets vm О7 7r Berehove raion О7 r О7 7rIrshavskraion Volovetskeraion r Vynohradove raion r О7 r О7 О7 7rMizhhirske raion r О7 7rPerechynsk raion Mukachivraion r r О7 О7 7rRakhivraion r О7 7rTiachivskraion Svaliavaraion r r О7 О7 7rKhustraion Uzhhorod raion r r О7 О7 7vr О7 7оOblast budget о О7 vmr О7 7v О7

Oblast codes

budgets Total forraion of Donetskoblast Consolidated budget Volynskyi city Novohrad- budgets Total forraion of Zhytomyroblast Consolidated budget budgets Total forraion of Zakarpatiaoblast Consolidated budget city budgets Total forraionand raion Volodarsko-Volynsk raion Novohrad-Volynsk raion Chervonoarmiisk city budgets Total forraionand raion Velykobereznianka city budgets Total forraionand Administrative units Revenues includedinthecalculationof 6 6, 8 4, 0, 9 7, 5 8, 6 8, 1, 9 3, 1 4, 4 2, 1, 4789515,0 110,3 5641128,0 5112843,3 798739,3 112,7 960585,0 851982,6 3990775,7 109,8 4680543,0 4 260860,7 7 7, 6 0, 1, 9 8, 4 0, 9 3, 0, 8 6, 2 7, 6 4, 0, 6381049,4 109,4 7461244,9 6821176,3 889767,8 105,2 996139,0 947005,8 5491281,6 110,1 6465105,9 5 874170,5 7 2, 9 1, 0, 3 6, 7 9, 7 2, 81162381284001294381171113055,8 101,7 1269443,8 1248420,0 176293,8 98,1 174524,4 177994,9 936762,0 102,3 1094919,3 1 070425,1 3 2, 0 0, 77836612249625269154200651233561228821081073672,6 100,8 1252868,2 1243395,6 200056,5 115,4 245266,9 212469,6 873616,1 97,7 1007601,2 1 030926,0 2 9, 3 6, 0, 5 9, 0 7, 5 0, 1, 9 9, 3 7, 8 7, 0, 1441790,5 103,3 1687172,1 1633070,5 291491,5 115,0 350007,0 304377,2 1150299,0 100,6 1337165,1 1 328693,3 1 0, 8 6, 1, 0 0, 50323 5, 749 2, 0 3, 2 1, 0, 1591534,4 106,5 1820116,9 1708333,0 91028,5 37,4 35554,0 95023,2 1500505,9 110,6 1784562,9 1 613309,8 7 4, 1 7, 1, 4 3, 3845161621389 1, 4 5, 1 3, 1, 444449,8 116,3 519435,8 446552,7 95315,8 143,8 106156,2 73804,5 349134,0 110,9 413279,6 372 748,2 3 4, 4 4, 0, 4 1, 53278 1, 847 5, 2 2, 2 5, 96821173,2 99,6 925656,0 929327,6 77053,7 88,4 84310,4 95382,7 744119,5 100,9 841345,6 833 944,9 2 3, 4 0, 0, 9 7, 97217 3, 1, 18773395648301187372592,7 108,7 428340,1 393945,6 81817,7 112,7 78538,4 69712,1 290775,0 107,9 349801,7 324 233,5 0 2, 1 6, 0, 9 3, 7, 2, 9726522129427347129192921,1 102,9 217394,7 211299,4 2685,2 69,7 1726,3 2476,3 190235,9 103,3 215668,4 208 823,1 6 7, 5 5, 89407608 5, 81899, 539051090576609, 476055,0 97,6 537606,0 307952,1 551029,0 96,2 75329,0 340936,7 90,5 354459,9 78148,9 48718,9 86355,9 93,9 400726,0 50534,5 98,9 53803,5 459457,0 259233,1 464 673,1 96,6 290402,2 300 656,4 8 0, 0 5, 0, 9 0, 5 6, 5 8, 0, 5 4, 4 7, 6 4, 0, 848647,7 102,2 965946,0 944974,6 157146,6 100,4 156687,3 156068,0 691501,1 102,6 809258,7 788 906,6 2 5, 0 7, 49264384 1, 25087, 089337212377419, 307253,1 92,0 337734,1 367271,2 30819,3 71,2 32560,8 45716,6 276 433,8 94,9 305173,3 321 554,6 0 6, 2 0, 0, 7 4, 71985 2, 0, 35923077030572156320999,0 105,6 370527,2 350757,0 43549,2 106,0 50023,3 47189,8 277 449,8 105,6 320503,8 303 567,2 8 1, 8 6, 0, 4 6, 19691 3, 131 4, 0 4, 0 9, 0, 264408,1 100,0 303497,8 303445,4 19147,2 81,3 17837,1 21926,9 245260,9 101,5 285660,6 281 518,5 2 2, 2 7, 0, 5 8, 29648 8, 897 6, 1 2, 0 6, 86628252,1 98,6 708261,3 718028,2 74368,5 88,9 82584,1 92906,4 553883,6 100,1 625677,1 625 121,8 1 7, 3 9, 1, 0 3, 32174 0, 2, 08531650018333117150123,7 121,7 178303,3 146540,0 40885,3 129,0 42903,7 33261,7 109 238,5 119,5 135399,6 113 278,3 6 3, 5 0, 09119971 8, 20156, 261218280163398, 154581,0 88,4 166323,9 188218,0 12611,2 65,0 12021,5 18487,7 141 969,7 90,9 154302,4 169 730,3 54247 9, 0, 067893231 9, 1, 04037 9, 164319271108,1 109,2 81684,3 74794,7 10430,3 110,9 10391,3 9372,3 60677,8 109,0 71293,0 65 422,4 46602 3, 682 4, 2, 4, 4136572 4, 74659, 26396,4 93,0 27486,5 29549,6 3655,7 74,1 3647,7 4923,6 22740,7 96,8 23838,8 24 626,0 29822 9, 0, 1017441940278, 4, 74012 1, 0, 24637,1 102,1 25078,5 28018,8 104,8 27450,1 29921,6 3 545,4 28558,3 89,8 3 514,1 4022,7 87,7 4481,9 3972,1 21091,7 4529,0 104,5 21564,4 23996,1 108,0 22 968,2 25949,5 24 029,3 60464 6, 0, 15217749933810186415 9, 733516650216,1 106,6 57333,5 53799,5 8 644,1 120,1 9363,8 7794,9 41572,1 104,3 47969,7 46 004,6 32842 1, 0, 11052979315516729792 5, 792016924078,4 106,9 27952,0 26156,3 2 917,9 106,7 3135,5 2937,9 21160,5 106,9 24816,5 23 218,4 68451 0, 0, 62172749295517225011 3, 115917918791,8 107,9 21195,9 19639,4 2580,1 107,2 2995,5 2794,9 16211,7 108,0 18200,4 16 844,5 47473 6, 1, 07614753533412147893 3, 408111335475,0 111,3 44008,1 39530,0 4768,9 112,1 5343,4 4765,3 30706,1 111,2 38664,7 34 764,7 64214 1, 0, 16667182789719966775 1, 753417348284,2 107,3 57533,4 53610,3 6 617,7 109,9 7819,7 7118,2 41666,6 106,9 49713,7 46 492,1 44019 7, 0, 42982 8, 64551832 3, 1 8, 2 5, 0, 105413,5 105,3 122951,7 116786,3 21133,7 118,3 28465,9 26475,5 99,0 22386,2 30979,2 84279,8 31301,2 102,2 96476,2 3291,7 94 400,1 99,0 4515,9 4560,7 25174,2 99,0 26463,3 26 740,5 77894 9, 0, 08181 0, 9, 3186195 3, 806210449443,7 100,4 58086,2 57839,4 8611,9 83,1 8391,3 10100,5 40831,8 104,1 49694,8 47 738,9 11482 2, 0, 9532367434589, 0, 47222 4, 0, 22441,4 106,4 26346,3 24752,2 2 908,2 94,4 3425,8 3627,4 19533,2 108,5 22920,5 21 124,8 13082 6, 0, 9487731349426, 8, 87212 6, 3924336,4 93,9 26966,4 28712,1 4887,7 66,9 4904,2 7331,3 19448,7 103,2 22062,2 21 380,8 48471 9, 1, 46692427347911530801 8, 051219117685,0 119,1 20591,2 17287,4 3078,0 141,5 3497,9 2472,7 14606,9 115,4 17093,3 14 814,7 90942 9, 0, 653351741 2, 3, 07742 7, 284915227390,6 135,2 32824,9 24276,8 10797,4 235,7 12226,5 5187,4 16593,3 107,9 20598,4 19 089,4 22181 7, 2, 21522422647429950981 1, 171217817245,0 147,8 21751,2 14714,0 5069,8 259,9 6477,4 2492,2 12175,2 125,0 15273,7 12 221,8 89214 8, 0, 44165295598714153124 8, 697216439752,8 106,4 46987,2 44181,6 5341,2 14273,1 114,1 5998,7 98,9 5259,5 15423,6 34411,6 15599,1 105,3 2703,2 40988,5 109,3 2852,1 38 922,1 2610,4 11569,9 96,8 12571,6 12 988,7 84931 5, 0, 6895525230605, 6, 37452 2, 4119129,5 94,1 21316,1 22324,5 135,3 22928,8 23714,5 16948,2 2260,0 58,1 9120,5 3066,0 208,9 8676,5 5275,2 4153,3 16869,5 12195,6 104,4 19258,4 111,4 14252,3 18 439,3 12 794,9 59495 0, 0, 6808981183028, 6, 58606 2, 8254570,0 98,2 64629,5 65836,0 7769,2 84,4 8320,2 9861,1 46800,8 100,6 56309,4 55 974,9 73602 6, 0, 39747851838716178783 7, 767517031815,2 107,0 37617,5 35171,1 23742,2 101,2 7887,8 25304,0 106,1 8348,7 24999,3 3720,9 7865,1 112,5 23927,4 4434,0 107,2 3941,3 29268,8 20021,3 27 306,0 99,1 20870,0 21 058,0 79008 4, 717 8, 76731 5, 619973156739 9, 1986331,0 91,9 97099,6 105607,3 9947,3 66,1 11658,5 17637,3 76383,7 97,1 85441,1 87 970,0 33302 7, 0, 16783194352912024502 9, 897518924162,8 108,9 28957,5 26592,4 2465,0 112,0 3582,9 3199,4 21697,8 108,5 25374,6 23 393,0 04065 9, 0, 58487389979412383595 7, 342619854160,7 109,8 63442,6 57779,5 8335,9 132,3 9749,4 7368,9 45824,8 106,5 53693,3 50 410,6 40951 2, 1, 27712787292414836361 0, 841519816360,6 109,8 18461,5 16808,2 3643,6 104,8 2932,4 2798,7 12717,1 110,8 15529,1 14 009,5 17322 8, 0, 14804210458517836642 7, 816018325014,5 108,3 28136,0 25974,2 3 606,4 107,8 4548,5 4221,0 21408,0 108,4 23587,4 21 753,2 03201 9, 0, 4, 7, 8, 1, 0, 17031 8, 0, 10653,1 104,3 12282,4 11780,3 1706,2 114,3 1689,7 1478,3 8946,9 102,8 10592,7 10 302,0 59251 9, 0, 43702661271113626841 9, 914912717035,4 102,7 19104,9 18598,6 15396,1 2 678,4 105,1 17802,7 103,6 2711,1 16934,0 2616,1 1 925,2 97,7 14357,0 2231,7 102,6 16393,8 2283,3 15 982,5 13470,8 106,3 15571,0 14 650,7 70991 1, 0, 45793655429017332202 1, 194815817759,9 105,8 21914,8 20715,4 3 202,0 117,3 4299,0 3665,5 14557,9 103,3 17615,8 17 049,9 30908 7, 0, 86683 9, 10189, 6241156321114115294820,8 105,2 111134,1 105633,2 26214,1 95,3 31061,8 32594,2 68606,8 109,6 80072,2 73 039,0 86052 0, 1, 70112948373417542342 3, 462714021234,4 114,0 24662,7 21635,3 4 233,4 127,5 3753,4 2944,8 17001,1 111,9 20909,3 18 690,5 93292 1, 0, 72743484611815557472 2, 616114522932,1 114,5 40777,1 26136,1 21898,6 113,6 22821,3 49709,4 108,4 25620,4 5704,7 43760,1 23638,1 175,5 3163,1 6121,8 6092,6 81,4 3488,4 95,7 3404,7 7159,5 17227,4 4182,8 7484,1 103,5 37614,0 20014,3 15806,0 117,0 19 332,9 46304,7 114,3 18460,9 39 577,3 16 154,0 62571 3, 0, 35761 6, 50721791 2, 64363 7, 2, 29997,1 120,1 31771,2 26443,6 16429,6 147,9 15037,2 10167,9 13567,6 102,8 16734,0 16 275,7 29191 8, 1, 15632781320615629771 0, 744111414564,0 111,4 13529,2 17494,1 110,8 15700,0 17517,1 2967,7 15802,7 115,6 2359,8 3210,6 79,3 2778,1 2599,6 11596,3 3277,6 110,5 11169,4 14283,6 119,1 12 921,9 14917,5 12 525,1 83754 7, 0, 56444144448118036644 8, 617818739320,8 108,7 46177,8 42481,9 3 646,4 108,0 4498,1 4164,4 35674,4 108,8 41679,7 38 317,5 07991 9, 1, 02202230268917128791 7, 488114513099,9 114,5 14848,1 12972,9 2 887,9 117,1 2648,9 2263,0 10212,0 113,9 12199,1 10 709,9 30761 9, 0, 2258183318499, 1, 49091 0, 0, 14315,7 104,4 15603,8 14940,9 2019,9 95,8 1804,9 1883,3 12295,8 105,7 13798,8 13 057,6 81351 7, 0, 58641006187213716691 4, 047817017503,3 107,0 20477,8 19144,1 1 696,9 173,7 1807,2 1040,6 16301,1 15806,4 99,6 18133,5 103,1 18670,6 18210,3 18 103,5 2641,2 96,8 2537,1 2620,0 13659,9 100,0 15596,4 15 590,3 62611 6, 1, 5470377329627, 5, 99342 8, 0, 18296,2 107,4 21480,8 19993,4 2859,2 77,6 2916,2 3757,3 15437,0 114,3 18564,6 16 236,1 16851 1, 0, 0712181415848, 7, 34991 4, 0, 12573,0 105,7 14241,2 13469,9 1 871,8 83,5 1528,4 1831,4 10701,2 109,2 12712,8 11 638,5 14611 4, 0, 08231638214615020141 8, 398816612863,7 106,6 13948,8 13089,9 2 021,4 125,0 2104,6 1683,8 10842,3 103,8 11844,1 11 406,1 15461 0, 0, 0299156312498, 5, 30091 4, 0, 11924,9 100,9 13142,7 13030,9 1655,0 81,4 1234,9 1516,3 10269,9 103,4 11907,8 11 514,6 15201 6, 969425175214478, 6, 32721 8, 7010734,3 97,0 12885,2 13277,2 1261,8 80,7 1424,7 1765,2 9472,5 99,6 11460,5 11 512,0 39011 6, 0, 27151577217412420661 9, 726311114748,1 111,1 17216,3 15497,8 2 036,6 142,4 2147,4 1507,7 12711,5 107,7 15068,9 13 990,1 17751 3, 5, 2817318926498, 2, 49642 9, 3, 15367,4 138,5 20694,2 14936,4 2 525,7 83,8 2654,9 3168,9 12841,7 153,3 18039,3 11 767,5 57911 0, 1, 4729338330549, 2, 91742 8, 0, 18396,5 107,7 20581,5 19117,4 3623,6 91,0 3075,4 19909,8 3378,3 116,1 14772,9 24040,7 111,2 20707,2 17506,1 4071,9 15 739,1 120,2 4074,7 3389,9 15837,9 115,3 19966,0 17 317,3 0, 3, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 7, 0, 7024,4 108,3 8471,6 7819,3 1314,5 134,5 1231,9 915,9 5709,8 104,9 7239,7 6 903,4 2, 1, 55602110199219, 6, 1, 0, 497280,5 94,9 7607,1 8016,0 1268,4 90,9 992,1 1091,9 6012,1 95,5 6615,1 6 924,1 0, 034016081424205421410347011 3, 465414312874,3 104,3 14635,4 14035,8 4760,1 100,3 4241,4 4230,5 8114,2 106,0 10394,0 9 805,3 3, 0898109904210068438, 2, 08091 8, 0, 9885,1 108,8 11784,0 10830,9 820,9 88,4 884,3 1000,6 9064,2 110,9 10899,8 9 830,3 5, 4, 1, 9, 8, 0, 98953902998221898055,4 108,9 9852,2 9042,9 24531,0 965,3 221,2 27273,5 79,8 12327,7 1107,4 16636,7 1387,4 497,9 7090,1 18225,5 3660,6 114,2 8744,8 7894,2 7 655,5 104,4 9048,0 8 667,1 2, 7, 1, 0, 9, 3, 331169462752041304481,3 113,0 5210,4 4612,7 1176,9 93,3 831,2 891,2 3304,4 117,7 4379,2 3 721,5 3, 017812091022513266414218931 4, 274212510989,5 102,5 12754,2 12448,2 1889,3 104,2 2616,4 2511,3 9100,2 102,0 10137,8 9 936,9 3, 6, 0, 5, 4, 6, 4, 6, 7, 2, 0, 8621,0 107,6 9229,3 8577,2 2468,7 142,9 2066,0 1445,4 6152,2 100,4 7163,2 7 131,8

Estimates inter-governmental transfers

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 the calculationofinter-governmental Revenues, thatarenotincludedin

Estimates

Reports transfers ANALYSIS OFBUDGETEXECUTIONIN2010 for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009

Estimates General Fundrevenues:total

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 APPENDIX B 119

Revenues, that are not included in Revenues included in the calculation of the calculation of inter-governmental General Fund revenues: total inter-governmental transfers transfers

Administrative units Oblast codes Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009

О8 r Berdiansk raion 12 883,1 14 621,8 113,5 12 877,9 3 150,7 3 747,1 118,9 3 484,6 16 033,8 18 368,9 114,6 16 362,5 О8 r Vasyliv raion 45 052,7 54 974,3 122,0 50 354,4 7 482,0 12 097,8 161,7 8 240,6 52 534,7 67 072,1 127,7 58 595,1 О8 r Velykobilozerne raion 4 220,0 5 200,9 123,2 4 277,6 877,7 1 004,8 114,5 832,1 5 097,7 6 205,7 121,7 5 109,7 О8 r Veseliv raion 10 509,3 11 268,9 107,2 9 950,1 2 439,3 2 595,3 106,4 2 179,8 12 948,6 13 864,2 107,1 12 129,9 О8 r Vilniansk raion 25 003,8 28 697,8 114,8 23 400,3 4 528,0 4 538,7 100,2 3 999,3 29 531,8 33 236,5 112,5 27 399,6 О8 r Huliaipole raion 16 069,0 18 132,8 112,8 17 114,6 2 722,5 3 057,3 112,3 2 747,2 18 791,5 21 190,1 112,8 19 861,7 О8 r Zaporizhia raion 20 197,8 25 111,4 124,3 19 439,7 7 199,9 7 976,8 110,8 8 296,2 27 397,7 33 088,2 120,8 27 735,9 Kamiano -Dniprovsk О8 r 13 323,6 14 667,3 110,1 12 606,9 2 862,2 3 095,3 108,1 2 834,4 16 185,8 17 762,5 109,7 15 441,2 raion О8 r Kuibysheve raion 13 200,3 14 499,0 109,8 12 318,5 4 174,4 3 486,7 83,5 3 766,5 17 374,7 17 985,7 103,5 16 085,0 О8 r Melitopol raion 18 513,8 21 161,6 114,3 17 605,2 3 084,0 3 641,8 118,1 2 827,9 21 597,8 24 803,4 114,8 20 433,1 О8 r Mykhailiv raion 10 952,9 12 710,9 116,1 10 691,9 2 295,8 2 745,3 119,6 2 230,2 13 248,7 15 456,2 116,7 12 922,2 О8 r Novomykolaivsk raion 8 526,5 10 434,2 122,4 8 891,2 1 567,0 1 429,2 91,2 1 256,5 10 093,5 11 863,4 117,5 10 147,8 О8 r Orikhivske raion 18 322,8 21 321,6 116,4 17 586,1 3 396,3 3 655,1 107,6 3 257,4 21 719,1 24 976,8 115,0 20 843,5 О8 r Polohivske raion 30 643,4 35 112,5 114,6 28 892,7 5 207,7 7 397,1 142,0 6 332,1 35 851,1 42 509,6 118,6 35 224,8 О8 r Pryazovske raion 12 914,6 14 698,6 113,8 12 368,3 3 591,9 3 425,8 95,4 2 822,3 16 506,5 18 124,4 109,8 15 190,6 О8 r Prymorske raion 18 396,1 18 986,6 103,2 16 659,6 3 988,2 3 740,7 93,8 3 254,3 22 384,3 22 727,2 101,5 19 913,9 О8 r Rozive raion 5 499,3 5 641,1 102,6 5 189,2 1 198,6 1 194,0 99,6 995,5 6 697,9 6 835,2 102,0 6 184,7 О8 r Tokmak raion 10 108,7 13 500,6 133,6 10 919,0 3 297,3 3 267,0 99,1 2 997,8 13 406,0 16 767,5 125,1 13 916,7 О8 r Chernihiv raion 9 380,9 10 270,3 109,5 8 286,5 2 757,0 2 281,7 82,8 1 853,7 12 137,9 12 551,9 103,4 10 140,2 О8 r Yakymivsk raion 16 011,8 17 304,3 108,1 14 799,1 7 209,5 10 806,1 149,9 8 324,5 23 221,3 28 110,4 121,1 23 123,6 Total for raion О8 vr 319 730,4 368 316,6 115,2 314 228,7 73 030,0 85 183,5 116,6 72 533,1 392 760,4 453 500,1 115,5 386 761,8 budgets Total for raion and О8 vmr 1 648 423,7 1 705 481,7 103,5 1 464 527,7 377 407,2 435 190,5 115,3 364 024,6 2 025 830,9 2 140 672,2 105,7 1 828 552,2 city budgets О8 о Oblast budget 624 147,7 658 121,8 105,4 563 772,4 9 034,5 2 708,5 30,0 3 269,5 633 182,2 660 830,3 104,4 567 041,8 Consolidated budget О8 v 2 272 571,4 2 363 603,4 104,0 2 028 300,1 386 441,7 437 899,0 113,3 367 294,0 2 659 013,1 2 801 502,4 105,4 2 395 594,1 of Zaporizia oblast О9 m city Ivano-Frankivsk 278 085,4 258 450,4 92,9 234 035,4 53 497,2 53 047,8 99,2 55 914,8 331 582,6 311 498,2 93,9 289 950,2 О9 m city Bolekhiv 6 335,5 6 588,8 104,0 5 915,7 1 197,3 1 044,5 87,2 831,3 7 532,8 7 633,3 101,3 6 747,0 О9 m city Kalush 51 643,3 49 653,8 96,1 44 142,0 31 265,0 35 191,3 112,6 31 702,3 82 908,3 84 845,1 102,3 75 844,3 О9 m city Kolomyia 33 753,4 34 098,1 101,0 30 866,8 6 366,1 8 040,6 126,3 5 483,4 40 119,5 42 138,7 105,0 36 350,2 О9 m city Yaremche 13 172,8 12 821,9 97,3 12 396,0 6 934,8 8 965,6 129,3 9 439,5 20 107,6 21 787,6 108,4 21 835,5 О9 vm Total for citybudgets 382 990,4 361 613,0 94,4 327 355,9 99 260,4 106 289,9 107,1 103 371,3 482 250,8 467 902,9 97,0 430 727,2 Bohorodchanske О9 r 25 854,8 30 033,3 116,2 25 772,4 1 993,4 1 851,0 92,9 1 910,1 27 848,2 31 884,3 114,5 27 682,5 raion О9 r Verkhovynske raion 10 672,3 10 436,2 97,8 16 732,0 1 688,6 1 644,4 97,4 1 466,0 12 360,9 12 080,7 97,7 18 198,1 О9 r Halytske raion 37 868,5 41 422,3 109,4 36 114,6 2 032,8 2 400,4 118,1 2 110,6 39 901,3 43 822,6 109,8 38 225,3 О9 r Horodetsk raion 15 961,2 17 546,9 109,9 14 377,6 1 973,5 1 986,6 100,7 1 820,2 17 934,7 19 533,5 108,9 16 197,8 О9 r Dolyny raion 48 784,9 54 373,0 111,5 46 685,0 11 767,3 11 427,6 97,1 9 380,1 60 552,2 65 800,6 108,7 56 065,1 О9 r Kalush raion 9 705,5 11 087,9 114,2 9 711,3 1 342,5 1 732,5 129,1 1 402,8 11 048,0 12 820,4 116,0 11 114,1 О9 r Kolomyia raion 22 969,9 23 924,6 104,2 26 526,4 2 139,3 2 193,5 102,5 1 921,7 25 109,2 26 118,2 104,0 28 448,1 О9 r Kosivka raion 22 883,1 24 468,2 106,9 21 307,1 2 282,0 2 347,3 102,9 2 176,8 25 165,1 26 815,5 106,6 23 483,9 О9 r Nadvirniansk raion 51 044,5 54 681,4 107,1 48 448,8 7 666,1 7 303,4 95,3 7 820,2 58 710,6 61 984,8 105,6 56 268,9 О9 r Rohatyn raion 14 665,3 14 653,7 99,9 12 596,8 2 063,9 2 683,3 130,0 2 576,6 16 729,2 17 337,0 103,6 15 173,4 О9 r Rozhniativsk raion 20 432,0 21 399,8 104,7 19 040,1 2 636,2 2 912,2 110,5 2 409,6 23 068,2 24 312,0 105,4 21 449,7 О9 r Sniatynsk raion 18 278,8 19 409,7 106,2 17 331,1 2 155,1 2 244,3 104,1 2 064,2 20 433,9 21 654,0 106,0 19 395,4 О9 r Tysmenytsk raion 26 797,4 24 188,0 90,3 24 409,4 4 701,5 4 646,9 98,8 4 123,3 31 498,9 28 835,0 91,5 28 532,6 О9 r Tlumatsk raion 12 364,2 12 672,3 102,5 11 267,1 1 486,0 2 254,3 151,7 1 442,2 13 850,2 14 926,6 107,8 12 709,3 Total for raion О9 vr 338 282,4 360 297,4 106,5 330 319,8 45 928,2 47 627,8 103,7 42 624,3 384 210,6 407 925,2 106,2 372 944,1 budgets Total for raion and О9 vmr 721 272,8 721 910,4 100,1 657 675,7 145 188,6 153 917,7 106,0 145 995,6 866 461,4 875 828,1 101,1 803 671,3 city budgets О9 о Oblast budget 267 414,1 273 506,2 102,3 245 899,0 6 863,7 11 047,1 160,9 8 355,7 274 277,8 284 553,2 103,7 254 254,7 Consolidated budget О9 v of Ivano-Frankivsk 988 686,9 995 416,6 100,7 903 574,7 152 052,3 164 964,7 108,5 154 351,3 1 140 739,2 1 160 381,3 101,7 1 057 925,9 oblast 10 m city Berezan 12 462,3 11 500,6 92,3 10 120,7 2 014,4 1 951,6 96,9 1 995,6 14 476,7 13 452,2 92,9 12 116,3 10 m city Bila Tserkva 153 591,6 138 901,2 90,4 128 089,1 21 813,3 23 184,2 106,3 22 534,0 175 404,9 162 085,3 92,4 150 623,1 10 m city Boryspil 134 156,0 125 000,0 93,2 108 551,3 17 412,6 21 779,9 125,1 21 135,1 151 568,6 146 779,9 96,8 129 686,3 10 m city Brovary 104 833,0 92 918,9 88,6 83 883,2 17 099,1 28 082,8 164,2 26 305,8 121 932,1 121 001,7 99,2 110 189,0 city Bucha 18 420,8 16 065,3 87,2 14 544,0 7 276,2 13 447,0 184,8 8 527,6 25 697,0 29 512,3 114,8 23 071,6 10 m city Vasylkiv 42 618,0 37 575,2 88,2 33 310,2 7 175,9 5 162,8 71,9 4 652,2 49 793,9 42 738,1 85,8 37 962,4 10 m city Irpin 89 447,6 83 886,4 93,8 73 264,8 10 387,2 12 064,0 116,1 10 208,9 99 834,8 95 950,4 96,1 83 473,7 city Pereiaslav- 10 m 23 250,8 21 753,7 93,6 18 856,0 3 198,2 3 848,1 120,3 3 359,1 26 449,0 25 601,8 96,8 22 215,1 Khmelnytskyi 10 m city Rzhyschev 5 149,8 4 734,1 91,9 4 281,3 428,8 466,7 108,8 423,5 5 578,6 5 200,8 93,2 4 704,8 10 m city Slavutych 49 609,8 63 093,2 127,2 46 876,8 2 711,1 2 665,8 98,3 4 030,8 52 320,9 65 758,9 125,7 50 907,6 10 m city Fastiv 65 398,6 55 925,0 85,5 51 585,0 4 903,4 8 695,8 177,3 5 598,4 70 302,0 64 620,8 91,9 57 183,4 10 vm Total for citybudgets 698 938,3 651 353,5 93,2 573 362,4 94 420,2 121 348,8 128,5 108 771,0 793 358,5 772 702,2 97,4 682 133,4 10 r Baryshivka raion 21 645,1 20 877,4 96,5 19 509,9 2 064,5 2 317,8 112,3 1 909,1 23 709,6 23 195,1 97,8 21 419,1 10 r Bila Tserkva raion 36 986,7 36 710,3 99,3 31 196,4 8 763,9 10 906,8 124,5 11 252,9 45 750,6 47 617,1 104,1 42 449,3 10 r Bohuslav raion 18 766,0 19 155,1 102,1 16 511,7 2 433,5 2 419,4 99,4 2 805,1 21 199,5 21 574,5 101,8 19 316,8 10 r Boryspil raion 88 358,3 85 175,9 96,4 73 587,5 15 047,4 19 426,4 129,1 21 334,8 103 405,7 104 602,3 101,2 94 922,2 10 r Borodianka raion 27 421,7 26 920,2 98,2 24 200,6 3 901,0 4 667,3 119,6 4 702,0 31 322,7 31 587,5 100,8 28 902,5 10 r Brovary raion 65 307,3 60 397,8 92,5 52 975,2 10 929,1 17 487,4 160,0 15 491,4 76 236,4 77 885,3 102,2 68 466,6 10 r Vasylkiv raion 41 468,0 38 294,6 92,3 34 616,9 10 224,8 9 848,6 96,3 9 186,2 51 692,8 48 143,2 93,1 43 803,1 10 r Vyshhorod raion 93 607,9 87 158,3 93,1 79 695,9 13 157,8 20 240,0 153,8 14 733,5 106 765,7 107 398,3 100,6 94 429,4 10 r Volodarsk raion 11 521,0 12 755,5 110,7 10 737,4 1 669,1 1 527,1 91,5 1 371,4 13 190,1 14 282,6 108,3 12 108,8 10 r Zhurivsk raion 11 657,4 15 192,3 130,3 10 326,6 1 420,7 1 430,1 100,7 1 303,1 13 078,1 16 622,5 127,1 11 629,7 10 r Ivankivsk raion 31 952,9 37 631,8 117,8 29 049,4 2 108,1 2 274,8 107,9 1 772,6 34 061,0 39 906,6 117,2 30 822,0 10 r Kaharlyk raion 22 353,1 23 154,8 103,6 20 895,8 3 927,3 3 822,1 97,3 3 551,8 26 280,4 26 976,9 102,7 24 447,6 Kyievo-Sviatoshyn 10 r 224 095,9 209 895,5 93,7 187 194,3 27 555,4 41 617,3 151,0 41 763,3 251 651,3 251 512,8 99,9 228 957,7 raion 10 r Makariv raion 39 547,3 42 204,5 106,7 30 460,2 10 362,6 12 136,0 117,1 14 349,7 49 909,9 54 340,5 108,9 44 809,9 10 r Myronivka raion 41 265,3 50 006,2 121,2 33 690,6 2 845,6 3 187,4 112,0 2 749,1 44 110,9 53 193,6 120,6 36 439,7 10 r Obukhiv raion 98 340,6 92 524,3 94,1 83 851,4 19 750,6 22 848,7 115,7 18 328,5 118 091,2 115 373,1 97,7 102 179,9 Pereiaslav- 10 r 16 941,0 17 094,5 100,9 14 443,8 2 089,2 1 691,7 81,0 1 579,8 19 030,2 18 786,2 98,7 16 023,6 Khmelnytsk raion 10 r Polisia raion 2 416,4 2 492,1 103,1 2 161,0 282,4 195,9 69,4 261,4 2 698,8 2 688,0 99,6 2 422,4 10 r Rokytny raion 20 736,8 19 173,4 92,5 18 007,6 3 558,8 4 616,9 129,7 4 612,7 24 295,6 23 790,4 97,9 22 620,4 10 r Skvyra raion 25 290,5 26 080,4 103,1 21 011,0 3 534,2 2 940,5 83,2 2 608,4 28 824,7 29 020,9 100,7 23 619,4 10 r Stavysche raion 13 113,5 13 576,4 103,5 11 960,5 1 775,1 1 470,4 82,8 1 326,2 14 888,6 15 046,8 101,1 13 286,7 10 r Taraschansk raion 14 838,4 16 523,9 111,4 13 577,6 1 937,9 2 884,8 148,9 2 240,7 16 776,3 19 408,7 115,7 15 818,3 10 r Tetiive raion 13 945,4 14 445,0 103,6 12 621,6 3 024,4 2 441,3 80,7 2 512,6 16 969,8 16 886,4 99,5 15 134,2 10 r Fastiv raion 10 055,8 10 917,3 108,6 8 608,1 2 324,4 4 357,3 187,5 2 781,9 12 380,2 15 274,6 123,4 11 390,0 10 r Yahotyn raion 28 751,3 26 846,0 93,4 24 152,5 3 654,7 4 134,4 113,1 3 108,8 32 406,0 30 980,4 95,6 27 261,3 120 1mcityOleksandriia cityZnamianka m cityKirovohrad m 11 m 11 11 1rHaivoronraion Vilshanyraion r Bobryntsiraion r 11 r Totalforcitybudgets 11 citySvitlovodsk vm 11 m 11 11 1rDolynaraion r r 11 Holovanivskraion r 11 11 1rKirovohradraion Znamiankaraion r r 11 11 1rKompaniivkaraion r 11 1r Novhorodkivka raion Malovyskivskeraion r 11 r 11 11 1rOleksandrivka raion Novoukrainka raion r Novomyrhorod raion r 11 r 11 11 1rSvitlovodskraion Petrivskeraion r raion Onufriivsk r 11 raion Oleksandrivka r 11 r 11 11 1vmr 11 Ustynivskraion vr Ulianovkaraion r 11 r 11 11 1v Oblastbudget 11 о 11 0vmr 10 vr 10 0v Oblastbudget 10 о 10 3mcityLviv m 13 3mcityBoryslav m 13 3mс.Morshyn cityDrohobych m m 13 13 3mcityStryi citySambir m cityNovuyRozdil m 13 m 13 13 cityLuhansk m 12 2mcityAntratsyt cityAlchevsk m m 12 12 3mcityChervonohrad cityTruskavets m m 13 13 3v Totalforcitybudgets vm 13 cityBrianka m 12 3rBuskraion Brodyraion r r 13 13 cityKrasnyiLuch cityKirovsk m m 12 12 3rDrohobych raion Horodokraion r r 13 13 cityLysychansk cityKrasnodon m m 12 12 2mcityPervomaisk m 12 3rZhydachivskraion r 13 2mcitySverdlovsk cityRubizhne m cityRovenky m 12 m 12 12 2mcityStakhanov citySieverodonetsk m m 12 12 2rBiliVodyraion Antratsytraion r r Total forcitybudgets 12 vm 12 12 2rBilokurakynskeraion r 12 2rKreminskraion Krasnodonraion r r 12 12 2rMarkivkaraion Lutuhynraion r r 12 12 2rNovopskovsk raion Novoaidarsk raion r Milovkaraion r 12 r 12 12 2rPopasnianskraion Perevalyraion r r 12 12 2rSvativraion r 12 2r Slovianoserbskraion r 12 12 2rStarobilskeraion r 12 2rTroitskeraion vr r 12 12 2оOblastbudget о 12 vmr 12 2v 12

Oblast codes

budgets Total forraion of Kirovohradoblast Consolidated budget city budgets Total forraionand budgets Total forraion of Kyivoblast Consolidated budget budgets Total forraion of Luhanskoblast Consolidated budget raion Dobrovelychkivsk raion Novoarkhanhelsk citybudgets Total forraionand raion Stanychno-Luhanske city budgets Total forraionand Administrative units Revenues includedinthecalculationof 0 4, 4 2, 1, 1 8, 9 6, 8 4, 66270601900512187381201891291,2 112,0 2128773,8 1900015,1 277006,0 96,6 284946,7 294967,7 1614285,2 114,9 1843827,1 1 605047,4 2 8, 0 0, 85850361832520807169176691187611260401231052680,5 102,3 1206094,0 1178726,1 187636,9 126,9 200890,7 158342,5 865043,6 98,5 1005203,3 1 020383,6 8 0, 2 5, 1, 1 5, 0 3, 9 5, 55234132432122812801282503507,5 112,8 2811208,0 2493231,2 293451,3 95,5 290055,8 303630,0 2210056,2 115,1 2521152,3 2 189601,2 5 0, 6 3, 651954792008130858162378812615222692169, 2273336,0 99,5 2609241,6 2621562,2 307878,1 126,2 340805,8 270058,1 1965457,9 96,5 2268435,8 2 351504,1 4 5, 0 0, 7110321720076239589, 3 8, 1 1, 6 2, 661315452,4 96,6 1461527,2 1513410,7 232180,7 94,0 253925,8 270057,6 1083271,7 97,1 1207601,4 1 243353,1 6 1, 4 9, 1, 6 2, 4 2, 3 1, 54201941527461642221071495422,5 110,7 1674212,2 1512744,6 230199,4 95,4 233712,7 244928,6 1265223,1 113,6 1440499,4 1 267816,0 1 2, 5 5, 631484602272732294175264791920461987631031734813,9 100,3 1978796,3 1972084,6 296407,9 127,5 322239,4 252762,7 1438406,0 96,3 1656556,8 1 719321,9 8 4, 2 3, 1, 8 6, 94707 8, 826 0, 6 8, 0 2, 1, 348762,9 110,9 407820,0 367889,0 68601,4 98,2 77982,2 79447,0 280161,6 114,4 329837,9 288 442,0 2 4, 7 6, 0, 8 8, 2 0, 2 8, 0, 0 4, 5 5, 0 4, 0, 691526,8 106,1 803948,7 757858,4 108845,1 100,2 129687,3 129408,6 582681,7 107,3 674261,4 628 449,8 9 2, 9 4, 83415679 3, 87279, 077554049587019, 512334,2 97,4 578780,1 594054,9 90797,5 92,9 88732,7 95530,6 421536,7 98,3 490047,4 498 524,3 2 8, 3 2, 0, 2 5, 77522 6, 0, 88181729918486171154368,5 107,1 214506,3 168488,6 109,2 157269,9 251558,7 28811,8 230357,9 103,9 1096,3 28866,1 69,1 27785,2 1562,9 125556,6 2262,7 107,8 139622,6 213410,0 129 484,7 109,6 249995,7 228 095,2 4 0, 4 2, 0, 0 2, 99165 0, 0, 02373999436187116342763,9 101,6 396128,7 389969,4 40243,7 103,5 51705,2 49961,6 302520,1 101,3 344423,5 340 007,8 8 5, 7 2, 1, 9 7, 6, 0, 901 4, 9 1, 8 3, 1, 612216,4 115,0 682434,2 593216,1 16445,3 59,0 5109,0 8662,3 595771,0 115,9 677325,2 584 553,8 3 8, 1 7, 68570191 9, 85641731 7, 4 7, 3 4, 71538522,1 97,1 630445,3 649477,6 11470,2 107,3 18566,4 17295,4 527051,9 96,8 611879,0 632 182,2 5 4, 2 5, 0, 9 9, 3 7, 3 5, 971991498263105574168906033,1 106,8 1055507,4 988216,3 109941,4 99,7 131250,3 131671,3 796091,7 107,9 924257,1 856 545,0 3 3, 0 2, 1, 4 6, 00915 3, 0, 68663720544517174395868,7 117,4 454561,7 387270,5 46806,6 102,4 51234,0 50039,1 349 062,1 119,6 403327,7 337 231,4 2 0, 2 4, 0, 0 4, 25163 6, 1, 61532169325512115228076,5 101,5 265511,2 261669,3 26135,3 111,1 36168,0 32561,6 201941,2 100,1 229343,3 229 107,7 6 2, 4 4, 728869325418166959, 8 1, 7 8, 3 1, 691019037,3 96,9 1136914,6 1172985,4 180418,0 95,7 196669,5 205461,8 838619,3 97,2 940245,1 967 523,6 34895 1, 2, 88192311256217419524 3, 785516360827,1 126,3 57875,5 45830,0 1 985,2 107,4 2556,2 2381,1 58841,9 127,3 55319,2 43 448,9 46485 1, 1, 60211 2, 9, 1578145 5, 839514253903,5 104,2 58309,5 55959,0 7 841,4 71,5 8098,0 11324,2 46062,1 112,5 50211,5 44 634,8 64032 3, 0, 5716375536959, 1, 01583 0, 0, 28930,7 105,3 31806,0 29306,6 30195,8 110,7 3 219,1 34467,9 97,7 31139,8 3669,5 4 224,2 3755,5 95,4 25711,6 4859,0 106,4 5095,1 28136,5 25082,4 26 440,3 113,7 29609,0 26 044,7 28454 9, 3, 08563416417619734983 0, 721610244325,4 130,2 47261,6 36306,1 3449,8 119,7 4167,6 3481,6 40875,6 131,3 43094,0 32 824,5 80279 7, 0, 88511 7, 39399, 41271248119755172103047,9 107,2 109785,5 102458,1 14172,7 96,8 13913,9 14375,4 88875,1 108,8 95871,5 88 082,7 88273 4, 2, 68171 9, 6, 1297393 5, 489414536665,7 17741,7 114,5 106,5 44809,4 21043,6 39150,8 19765,8 9 793,9 2 020,9 81,2 96,5 8360,7 2239,7 10298,1 2321,5 26871,7 15720,8 126,3 36448,7 107,8 18803,9 28 852,7 17 444,3 23822 5, 0, 10392443289016227842 9, 699418323852,3 108,3 26949,4 24892,5 2 758,4 116,2 2899,0 2494,3 21093,9 107,4 24050,4 22 398,2 28214 3, 483 2, 2, 5, 9274225 9, 88759, 43221,4 95,5 48887,5 51196,3 7492,2 99,2 8257,4 8324,2 35729,2 94,8 40630,1 42 872,1 46185 1, 1, 7763318730779, 3, 78055 6, 1, 50784,0 112,4 53763,5 47820,5 3037,7 96,2 3047,7 3168,7 47746,3 113,6 50715,9 44 651,8 07274 8, 1, 1014190616708, 3, 26334 1, 1, 42588,5 114,1 48717,8 42683,3 1537,0 84,8 1637,0 1930,6 41051,4 115,5 47080,8 40 752,7 47021 6, 1, 37683006397619132961 0, 050015416966,4 115,4 20540,0 17800,8 3239,6 129,1 3977,6 3080,6 13726,8 112,5 16562,4 14 720,2 22931550115612947778962308, 3, 008211831140118875,5 174,0 121873,1 70058,2 5930,8 80,9 6283,0 7768,9 112944,7 185,6 115590,1 62 289,3 43702 9, 0, 23233222360112432082 7, 925216225533,1 106,2 29295,2 27579,2 3 210,8 112,4 3600,1 3202,2 22322,3 105,4 25695,1 24 377,0 39926 4, 3, 97847001757117874215 9, 842814257260,6 134,2 68422,8 50999,3 7462,1 107,8 7577,1 18912,0 7030,1 127,3 49798,4 24651,9 138,4 19363,7 60845,7 4741,9 43 969,2 111,7 5684,7 5089,9 14170,1 132,9 18967,2 14 273,8 17432 7, 0, 99463465345910629832 3, 695616822933,0 106,8 26945,6 25230,8 2 988,3 100,6 3465,9 3446,5 19944,6 107,8 23479,7 21 784,3 90503 0, 0, 63842833292713125623 6, 403616628934,6 106,6 38144,4 34073,6 87,4 31968,3 39969,6 2 596,2 45757,2 103,1 11 699,8 2972,7 96,0 2883,3 12378,0 26338,4 12887,2 106,9 26444,6 31100,9 83,9 29 085,0 27591,6 32 870,0 76542 5, 1, 6124355834939, 4, 12122 5, 1, 19049,4 115,2 24459,3 21231,2 2 947,0 95,1 3409,3 3585,8 16102,4 119,3 21050,0 17 645,4 09305 8, 3, 35324092481617942644 3, 154216647879,6 19364,6 136,6 107,1 61514,2 22491,4 45032,2 21009,9 4 286,4 3217,4 117,9 101,1 4831,6 3574,9 4099,2 3535,3 43593,2 16147,2 138,5 108,3 56682,6 18916,5 40 933,0 17 474,6 33082 1, 0, 21622732281615523532 6, 830118824491,5 108,8 28370,1 26064,0 2 335,3 105,5 2851,6 2703,2 22156,2 109,2 25518,5 23 360,8 72532 6, 0, 3783715256287, 7, 44053 1, 5928877,5 95,9 33012,2 34420,5 5079,2 79,0 5642,8 7145,2 23798,3 100,3 27369,3 27 275,3 74906 3, 045 6, 64101 6, 781 1, 38007 9, 1869270,4 27868,8 91,8 99,5 76997,6 31486,2 83870,0 31659,4 12 510,1 3 696,1 97,8 80,8 16064,7 4089,7 16431,0 5060,2 56760,3 24172,7 90,4 103,0 60932,9 27396,5 67 439,0 26 599,2 76252 9, 672 0, 7, 9, 1558413 6, 18639, 30817,9 95,9 31886,3 33263,8 5814,1 91,5 5095,3 5571,3 25003,8 96,7 26791,0 27 692,5 54976 6, 1, 3849914889559, 7, 46457 5, 1, 52128,6 116,6 75355,1 64614,5 58838,9 8 273,6 113,8 62722,6 98,3 8985,5 55107,8 9144,8 7 717,0 81,8 43854,9 7727,1 119,7 66369,6 9452,1 55 469,7 51121,9 120,5 54995,5 45 655,7 02891 0, 2, 3, 7, 8, 1, 2, 35751 9, 2, 13166,9 122,6 16594,3 13537,5 3328,1 118,5 3885,9 3278,6 9838,8 123,9 12708,5 10 258,9 06831 9, 1, 02681692194514114991 9, 415315411776,7 115,4 14195,3 12297,5 1 489,9 114,1 9297,2 1904,5 99,6 1669,2 11710,5 10286,8 11762,8 115,6 1182,3 12290,7 89,2 10 628,3 1234,4 1384,0 8114,9 100,9 10476,1 10 378,8 07381 2, 1, 4, 2, 9, 2413411 4, 436016011342,9 116,0 14326,0 12347,1 1394,1 92,4 1499,9 1623,3 9948,8 119,6 12826,1 10 723,8 20371 8, 1, 34744137456719240391 6, 815812217561,3 112,2 18135,8 16167,4 4063,9 109,2 4546,7 4163,7 13497,4 113,2 13589,1 12 003,7 146612312173109631 8, 00018, 09448 4, 2 5, 4, 121920,7 147,6 79691,3 122451,3 25662,4 82948,8 102,3 83479,9 123,5 10944,4 28113,9 81577,0 87,6 22772,0 10060,1 8001,8 11482,2 4196,2 77,7 110976,3 120,0 8983,6 4536,1 157,3 11555,1 112391,2 3780,6 71689,5 71 466,6 21466,2 106,4 74496,3 124,1 23577,8 70 021,9 18 991,4 12361 1, 0, 1041209520849, 7, 33311 7, 0, 12786,1 106,4 14179,8 13323,1 1 772,0 99,5 2068,4 2079,5 11014,1 107,7 12111,4 11 243,6 72001 0, 0, 50851770195112317081 9, 063418916769,3 108,9 20693,4 18997,0 1 750,8 112,3 1985,1 1767,0 15018,5 108,6 18708,3 17 230,0 19051,3 101,9 20802,7 20418,9 4365,6 96,1 3879,3 4038,6 14685,8 103,3 16923,3 16 380,3 71812 0, 0, 5275842555966, 5, 56063 2, 8129753,7 98,1 25998,2 34927,3 100,6 24997,0 35610,6 24856,0 4456,2 4789,2 65,1 68,6 5519,6 4586,9 8472,5 6687,5 25297,5 21208,9 108,4 29407,7 112,3 20410,1 27 138,1 18 168,5 53831 4, 1, 46783691397716733871 5, 188314818096,5 114,8 21878,3 19057,4 3398,7 106,7 3937,7 3689,1 14697,8 116,7 17940,6 15 368,3 17864 6, 3, 05541 2, 0, 7378444 0, 339018638339,8 118,6 53369,0 45005,4 7 824,4 67,3 8903,5 13226,8 30515,4 139,9 44465,4 31 778,6 25631 7, 0, 1715240021998, 0, 50631 5, 0, 14061,4 100,7 15158,9 15046,3 57291,4 30510,6 2 309,9 92,6 92,6 88,3 62145,1 33098,8 2179,9 67092,9 35730,6 2470,0 9 891,4 3098,2 11751,5 90,7 82,2 10379,4 3370,3 103,2 12979,0 11441,1 4097,7 12 576,3 47400,0 27412,4 93,0 94,0 51765,7 29728,5 55 651,8 31 632,9 16941 2, 1, 14623526362011430321 4, 736913714429,4 113,7 17336,9 15242,0 3 003,2 101,4 3612,0 3562,6 11426,2 117,5 13724,8 11 679,4 7013110441418 2, 92413 6, 1, 18701625415863176112873,0 107,6 135896,3 126295,4 31847,0 119,2 34861,9 29244,1 81026,0 104,1 101034,4 97 051,3 96252 6, 1, 87755546585615146962 3, 835812823357,1 112,8 28365,8 25137,1 4629,6 105,1 5805,6 5524,6 18727,5 115,0 22560,2 19 612,5 91632 5, 1, 84513242325710030332 5, 511012021468,4 112,0 25141,0 22450,5 3 013,3 100,0 3285,7 3284,2 18455,1 114,0 21855,3 19 166,3 01151 0, 2, 1, 6, 5, 2, 1, 18561 5, 2, 11727,5 124,9 14857,3 11895,6 2010,8 127,9 2255,8 1764,1 9716,7 124,4 12601,5 10 131,5 8, 9, 0, 7, 3, 0, 2, 4, 1, 0, 1, 7222,2 110,2 8502,8 7713,1 1849,2 129,0 2106,7 1632,7 5373,0 105,2 6396,1 6 080,4 4, 8, 2, 3, 7, 5, 33150798871 4, 1, 9726,0 116,5 11442,1 9818,7 1590,7 83,3 1557,4 1870,7 8135,3 124,4 9884,7 7 948,0 4, 2, 1, 6, 8, 8, 0, 6, 2, 1, 1, 7526,8 112,3 9014,0 8024,7 1563,7 106,3 1786,0 1680,6 5963,0 113,9 7228,0 6 344,1 9, 2, 1, 6, 7, 1, 271793866894381888156,4 108,8 9433,8 8666,8 1789,3 92,7 2011,8 2171,3 6367,1 114,3 7422,0 6 495,5 6, 2, 0, 9, 8, 3, 0, 9, 4, 6, 0, 7186,1 101,5 7764,7 7648,0 995,2 104,4 1135,9 1087,8 6190,9 101,0 6628,8 6 560,2 5, 4, 0, 6, 8, 1, 8914511 3, 11381599700,0 105,9 11163,8 10537,5 1435,1 88,9 1318,8 1483,7 8264,9 108,7 9845,0 9 053,8 9, 9, 2, 2, 9, 3, 65135887851 3, 1, 8005,0 115,3 14705,3 10130,3 118,2 8788,5 17592,3 1375,8 14884,8 86,5 5460,8 1637,2 113,7 6096,2 1892,9 5359,5 6629,2 9244,5 123,2 8493,2 120,7 11496,1 6 895,6 9 525,3 7, 1, 0, 4, 9, 3, 1, 7, 7, 04711159018,6 111,5 10447,1 9370,5 1974,4 117,7 2236,2 1899,5 7044,2 109,9 8210,9 7 471,0 5, 01811568204110410409, 2, 8, 11211289299,2 112,8 11152,1 9888,1 1028,8 90,6 1024,0 1130,4 8270,4 115,6 10128,1 8 757,7 3, 7, 2, 7, 0, 4, 0, 1, 00391 2, 1, 9297,7 116,8 11723,4 10033,9 1919,8 102,2 2148,5 2103,2 7377,9 120,7 9574,9 7 930,7 6, 2, 1, 8, 8, 8, 6422211 4, 203012810251,5 112,8 12013,0 10648,5 2262,1 96,4 2585,8 2683,2 7989,4 118,4 9427,3 7 965,3 1, 097614887561919241514818451 5, 339216510520,2 116,5 13339,2 11451,8 1814,5 124,8 2411,5 1931,9 8705,6 114,8 10927,6 9 519,9

Estimates inter-governmental transfers

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 the calculationofinter-governmental Revenues, thatarenotincludedin

Estimates

Reports transfers ANALYSIS OFBUDGETEXECUTIONIN2010 for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009

Estimates General Fundrevenues:total

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 APPENDIX B 121

Revenues, that are not included in Revenues included in the calculation of the calculation of inter-governmental General Fund revenues: total inter-governmental transfers transfers

Administrative units Oblast codes Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009

13 r Zhovkivka raion 39 332,8 41 219,9 104,8 36 626,9 5 358,6 5 572,7 104,0 5 806,3 44 691,4 46 792,5 104,7 42 433,2 13 r Zolochivsk raion 25 409,2 26 137,5 102,9 22 887,1 3 160,6 3 419,0 108,2 3 047,3 28 569,8 29 556,5 103,5 25 934,4 13 r Kamianka-Buzk raion 34 912,6 36 540,5 104,7 32 250,1 2 672,0 3 207,2 120,0 3 150,4 37 584,6 39 747,7 105,8 35 400,5 13 r Mykolaiv raion 26 396,4 27 244,7 103,2 24 718,6 6 124,4 11 179,6 182,5 10 318,6 32 520,8 38 424,3 118,2 35 037,2 13 r Mosty raion 20 667,7 20 147,9 97,5 18 072,6 2 090,4 1 996,8 95,5 2 012,4 22 758,1 22 144,7 97,3 20 085,0 13 r Peremyshl raion 12 178,0 15 197,5 124,8 12 045,3 1 307,0 1 096,4 83,9 1 160,7 13 485,0 16 293,9 120,8 13 206,0 13 r Pustomytiv raion 54 491,2 58 235,1 106,9 47 848,5 6 184,7 6 930,3 112,1 7 792,9 60 675,9 65 165,4 107,4 55 641,4 13 r Radekhivsk raion 17 348,9 22 505,2 129,7 16 079,7 2 428,5 3 078,8 126,8 2 791,1 19 777,4 25 584,0 129,4 18 870,8 13 r Sambir raion 14 039,7 14 146,1 100,8 12 760,5 2 020,2 1 658,1 82,1 1 545,4 16 059,9 15 804,1 98,4 14 305,9 13 r Skolivsk raion 18 980,9 19 555,8 103,0 16 949,4 4 005,1 4 330,3 108,1 3 607,1 22 986,0 23 886,1 103,9 20 556,5 13 r Sokaly raion 45 820,4 62 739,9 136,9 55 727,4 4 444,3 5 798,8 130,5 4 024,2 50 264,7 68 538,7 136,4 59 751,6 13 r Stary Sambir raion 19 105,2 19 776,9 103,5 17 419,3 2 999,0 2 536,5 84,6 2 747,6 22 104,2 22 313,3 100,9 20 166,9 13 r Stryi raion 45 125,7 52 964,6 117,4 42 159,2 4 053,4 3 406,6 84,0 3 293,3 49 179,1 56 371,2 114,6 45 452,5 13 r Turkiv raion 13 174,5 14 364,0 109,0 11 972,7 1 336,4 1 506,5 112,7 1 291,3 14 510,9 15 870,5 109,4 13 264,0 13 r Yavoriv raion 48 743,8 51 142,0 104,9 44 143,0 6 308,5 5 218,8 82,7 5 072,3 55 052,3 56 360,8 102,4 49 215,3 Total for raion 13 vr 544 709,0 595 547,3 109,3 510 866,3 69 679,0 76 068,3 109,2 72 890,3 614 388,0 671 615,5 109,3 583 756,7 budgets Total for raion and 13 vmr 1 788 062,1 1 803 148,6 100,8 1 594 138,0 339 736,6 329 994,1 97,1 305 071,1 2 127 798,7 2 133 142,7 100,3 1 899 209,1 city budgets 13 о Oblast budget 631 654,5 647 934,7 102,6 572 501,0 10 841,9 14 986,2 138,2 11 825,1 642 496,4 662 920,9 103,2 584 326,0 Consolidated budget 13 v 2 419 716,6 2 451 083,4 101,3 2 166 639,0 350 578,5 344 980,3 98,4 316 896,1 2 770 295,1 2 796 063,6 100,9 2 483 535,1 of Lviv oblast 14 m city Mykolaiv 482 285,4 493 097,0 102,2 449 798,0 107 389,4 104 372,2 97,2 103 656,9 589 674,8 597 469,2 101,3 553 454,9 14 m city Voznesensk 25 899,2 27 594,6 106,5 24 517,3 4 777,2 4 801,9 100,5 4 325,1 30 676,4 32 396,5 105,6 28 842,5 14 m city Ochakiv 9 957,7 10 762,2 108,1 9 283,2 3 506,0 2 787,6 79,5 3 063,1 13 463,7 13 549,7 100,6 12 346,3 14 m city Pervomaisk 28 262,1 32 328,1 114,4 27 509,7 4 610,7 7 512,6 162,9 6 084,6 32 872,8 39 840,7 121,2 33 594,4 14 m city Yuzhnoukrainsk 66 048,0 75 912,2 114,9 62 823,4 12 019,8 9 929,0 82,6 9 728,0 78 067,8 85 841,2 110,0 72 551,4 14 vm Total for citybudgets 612 452,4 639 694,1 104,4 573 931,7 132 303,1 129 403,2 97,8 126 857,7 744 755,5 769 097,3 103,3 700 789,4 14 r Arbuzyn raion 10 462,7 12 487,8 119,4 10 373,2 1 764,3 1 800,7 102,1 1 338,6 12 227,0 14 288,5 116,9 11 711,8 14 r Bashtanivka raion 17 238,0 21 039,7 122,1 18 711,3 4 395,9 4 443,2 101,1 4 342,3 21 633,9 25 483,0 117,8 23 053,6 14 r Berezan raion 13 634,6 14 536,6 106,6 12 872,2 5 839,6 5 426,3 92,9 4 706,7 19 474,2 19 963,0 102,5 17 578,8 14 r Bereznehuvatsk raion 7 394,6 9 300,4 125,8 7 967,1 1 762,8 1 624,1 92,1 1 438,1 9 157,4 10 924,4 119,3 9 405,2 14 r Braty raion 7 379,9 9 431,4 127,8 7 727,7 1 782,8 1 543,7 86,6 1 362,8 9 162,7 10 975,1 119,8 9 090,4 14 r Veselynivsk raion 8 223,5 9 674,9 117,6 8 236,7 2 039,9 1 707,5 83,7 1 453,1 10 263,4 11 382,4 110,9 9 689,8 14 r Voznesensk raion 9 220,8 10 681,3 115,8 8 757,7 4 288,8 3 464,4 80,8 3 556,9 13 509,6 14 145,8 104,7 12 314,6 14 r Vradiiv raion 6 035,5 7 612,7 126,1 6 067,9 1 593,6 1 473,0 92,4 1 267,6 7 629,1 9 085,8 119,1 7 335,5 14 r Domaniv raion 8 396,2 10 453,7 124,5 8 440,6 3 092,7 2 814,9 91,0 2 537,2 11 488,9 13 268,6 115,5 10 977,8 14 r Yelanetsk raion 5 984,1 7 095,8 118,6 5 889,7 1 777,1 1 705,4 96,0 1 538,5 7 761,2 8 801,1 113,4 7 428,2 14 r Zhovtneve raion 34 572,6 40 560,7 117,3 32 423,3 3 891,2 5 442,8 139,9 4 281,0 38 463,8 46 003,5 119,6 36 704,2 14 r Kazankiv raion 8 742,2 11 112,6 127,1 9 820,5 2 210,1 2 257,4 102,1 2 065,5 10 952,3 13 369,9 122,1 11 886,0 14 r Kryvoozersk raion 8 640,5 10 986,0 127,1 9 400,4 1 674,5 1 523,8 91,0 1 381,1 10 315,0 12 509,8 121,3 10 781,5 14 r Mykolaiv raion 16 773,2 18 334,7 109,3 15 789,0 2 545,9 3 764,8 147,9 4 430,8 19 319,1 22 099,5 114,4 20 219,9 14 r Novobuzkiv raion 10 813,8 13 015,2 120,4 11 267,5 2 640,8 2 490,0 94,3 2 538,5 13 454,6 15 505,2 115,2 13 805,9 14 r Novoodesa raion 13 785,1 15 798,7 114,6 13 518,9 3 205,2 3 131,8 97,7 2 560,6 16 990,3 18 930,5 111,4 16 079,5 14 r Ochakiv raion 6 996,5 7 554,7 108,0 6 462,7 1 986,1 2 205,3 111,0 2 088,3 8 982,6 9 760,0 108,7 8 550,9 14 r Pervomaisk raion 11 985,9 14 240,0 118,8 11 508,7 3 549,8 2 735,1 77,0 3 941,2 15 535,7 16 975,1 109,3 15 449,9 14 r Snihuriv raion 16 413,0 20 477,1 124,8 17 451,4 3 116,9 3 483,1 111,7 3 235,6 19 529,9 23 960,2 122,7 20 687,0 Total for raion 14 vr 222 692,7 264 393,9 118,7 222 686,6 53 158,0 53 037,4 99,8 50 064,2 275 850,7 317 431,4 115,1 272 750,8 budgets Total for raion and 14 vmr 835 145,1 904 088,0 108,3 796 618,3 185 461,1 182 440,7 98,4 176 921,9 1 020 606,2 1 086 528,7 106,5 973 540,2 city budgets 14 о Oblast budget 306 287,8 335 203,8 109,4 295 663,3 4 903,8 6 047,8 123,3 5 432,3 311 191,6 341 251,6 109,7 301 095,7 Consolidated budget 14 v 1 141 432,9 1 239 291,8 108,6 1 092 281,6 190 364,9 188 488,5 99,0 182 354,2 1 331 797,8 1 427 780,3 107,2 1 274 635,8 of Mykolaiv oblast 15 m city Odesa 1 163 887,4 1 092 887,2 93,9 966 279,0 556 830,6 337 438,8 60,6 286 886,8 1 720 718,0 1 430 326,1 83,1 1 253 165,8 city Bilhorod- 15 m 50 953,0 50 505,2 99,1 43 856,3 17 608,3 16 919,7 96,1 13 386,9 68 561,3 67 424,8 98,3 57 243,1 Dnistrovskyi 15 m city Izmail 71 978,0 73 540,9 102,2 66 278,1 11 521,2 16 808,8 145,9 14 090,2 83 499,2 90 349,7 108,2 80 368,4 15 m city Illichivsk 124 455,2 129 524,3 104,1 115 359,7 34 572,9 43 529,3 125,9 42 580,4 159 028,1 173 053,5 108,8 157 940,1 15 m city Kotovsk 40 449,9 40 163,4 99,3 35 097,6 3 690,6 5 862,5 158,9 6 103,6 44 140,5 46 025,9 104,3 41 201,2 15 m city Teplodar 3 756,9 3 947,9 105,1 3 866,2 3 794,7 4 709,8 124,1 3 888,6 7 551,6 8 657,6 114,6 7 754,8 15 m city Yuzhne 76 545,2 77 246,8 100,9 67 697,2 10 837,3 17 831,0 164,5 16 521,5 87 382,5 95 077,8 108,8 84 218,7 15 vm Total for citybudgets 1 532 025,6 1 467 815,6 95,8 1 298 434,0 638 855,6 443 099,9 69,4 383 458,0 2 170 881,2 1 910 915,4 88,0 1 681 892,1 15 r Ananivsk raion 10 770,6 12 332,6 114,5 10 094,1 1 095,8 1 356,5 123,8 1 001,3 11 866,4 13 689,1 115,4 11 095,4 15 r Artsyzsk raion 15 974,2 17 596,5 110,2 14 883,4 3 055,9 3 333,6 109,1 2 829,3 19 030,1 20 930,1 110,0 17 712,6 15 r Balta raion 17 308,0 18 611,2 107,5 15 617,6 3 231,0 3 259,4 100,9 2 640,8 20 539,0 21 870,6 106,5 18 258,3 15 r Berezivka raion 13 952,8 16 309,3 116,9 13 460,8 2 416,4 2 062,4 85,3 1 845,2 16 369,2 18 371,6 112,2 15 306,0 Bilhorod-Dnistrovsk 15 r 20 523,6 28 584,4 139,3 23 101,8 5 228,1 6 290,2 120,3 4 831,6 25 751,7 34 874,6 135,4 27 933,4 raion 15 r Biliaivsk raion 50 930,0 49 800,8 97,8 42 019,1 14 110,6 31 933,0 226,3 32 099,8 65 040,6 81 733,7 125,7 74 118,9 15 r Boldhrad raion 19 734,3 22 154,7 112,3 18 097,8 4 277,5 4 892,7 114,4 3 825,8 24 011,8 27 047,4 112,6 21 923,6 Velykomykhailivsk 15 r 9 308,1 10 505,1 112,9 8 812,8 1 577,1 1 745,5 110,7 1 509,5 10 885,2 12 250,6 112,5 10 322,3 raion 15 r Ivanivka raion 9 840,7 10 768,9 109,4 9 551,9 2 120,3 2 262,0 106,7 2 011,4 11 961,0 13 031,0 108,9 11 563,3 15 r Izmail raion 12 830,2 13 721,6 106,9 12 110,6 3 214,2 3 081,8 95,9 2 720,8 16 044,4 16 803,4 104,7 14 831,4 15 r Kiliisk raion 20 312,6 20 425,1 100,6 18 939,4 4 287,9 5 057,9 118,0 4 140,7 24 600,5 25 483,0 103,6 23 080,1 15 r Kodym raion 9 761,9 10 454,3 107,1 8 618,0 1 604,9 2 649,8 165,1 1 985,4 11 366,8 13 104,0 115,3 10 603,5 15 r Komintern raion 58 158,3 74 825,0 128,7 49 599,1 14 538,1 22 796,5 156,8 19 916,9 72 696,4 97 621,5 134,3 69 515,9 15 r Kotovsk raion 7 483,3 8 096,9 108,2 6 568,2 1 323,8 1 822,3 137,7 1 864,1 8 807,1 9 919,1 112,6 8 432,3 15 r Krasnookniansk raion 7 674,6 8 415,7 109,7 7 065,9 1 099,8 1 280,4 116,4 1 117,8 8 774,4 9 696,1 110,5 8 183,7 15 r Liubashivka raion 11 089,8 11 879,7 107,1 10 105,7 1 879,4 2 173,1 115,6 1 918,8 12 969,2 14 052,9 108,4 12 024,5 15 r Mykolaiv raion 6 968,3 7 340,4 105,3 6 260,4 1 559,8 1 611,1 103,3 1 523,1 8 528,1 8 951,5 105,0 7 783,6 15 r Ovidiopol raion 67 813,5 70 475,3 103,9 58 573,7 26 590,4 37 978,4 142,8 37 766,7 94 403,9 108 453,7 114,9 96 340,4 15 r Reniiv raion 18 524,1 18 712,8 101,0 17 205,2 3 230,1 4 312,6 133,5 3 913,3 21 754,2 23 025,4 105,8 21 118,5 15 r Rozdilniansk raion 23 420,2 24 129,1 103,0 20 928,2 4 537,5 4 393,2 96,8 3 696,0 27 957,7 28 522,3 102,0 24 624,1 15 r Savrany raion 6 842,0 7 435,1 108,7 6 335,9 1 564,1 1 626,0 104,0 1 339,9 8 406,1 9 061,0 107,8 7 675,8 15 r Sarat raion 18 419,8 20 865,9 113,3 17 345,8 3 818,1 4 939,2 129,4 4 154,5 22 237,9 25 805,1 116,0 21 500,3 15 r Tarutynsk raion 13 576,9 14 357,3 105,7 12 522,9 3 701,9 3 938,7 106,4 3 405,6 17 278,8 18 296,0 105,9 15 928,4 15 r Tatarbunarsk raion 14 835,5 15 637,9 105,4 13 343,6 4 502,5 5 321,1 118,2 4 606,1 19 338,0 20 959,0 108,4 17 949,7 15 r Frunze raion 6 382,4 6 957,7 109,0 5 950,1 1 392,4 1 463,6 105,1 1 627,0 7 774,8 8 421,3 108,3 7 577,0 15 r Shyriaiv raion 9 584,1 11 241,0 117,3 8 957,3 2 183,8 2 726,0 124,8 2 219,1 11 767,9 13 967,1 118,7 11 176,4 Total for raion 15 vr 482 019,8 531 634,4 110,3 436 069,3 118 141,4 164 306,9 139,1 150 510,3 600 161,2 695 941,4 116,0 586 579,6 budgets Total for raion and 15 vmr 2 014 045,4 1 999 450,0 99,3 1 734 503,3 756 997,0 607 406,8 80,2 533 968,4 2 771 042,4 2 606 856,8 94,1 2 268 471,7 city budgets 15 о Oblast budget 733 069,4 759 806,5 103,6 654 291,3 13 708,7 18 791,7 137,1 19 607,7 746 778,1 778 598,2 104,3 673 899,0 122 6mcityPoltava m 16 6mcityKomsomolsk m 16 6v Totalforcitybudgets cityMyrhorod vm cityLubny m 16 cityKremenchuk m 16 m 16 16 6rHlobynkaraion Hadiachraion r r 16 r 16 16 6rDykankaraion Hrebinkiraion r r 16 16 6rZinkivraion r 16 6rKobelianaraion Karlivskraion r r 16 16 6rLokhvytsaraion Kremenchukraion r Kotelevraion r 16 Kozelschynraion r 16 r 16 16 6rMashivkaraion Lubenyraion r r 16 16 6rMyrhorodraion r 16 6rPoltavaraion Pyriatynraion r raion Orzhytsk r 16 raion Novosanzharsk r 16 r 16 16 6rReshetylivkaraion r 16 6rChutivskraion Chornukhynraion r Khorolraion r 16 Semenivkaraion r 16 r 16 16 6rShyshatskraion r 16 6vmr 16 vr 16 6оOblast budget о 16 6v 16 5v 15 8mcitySumy m 18 8mcityLebedyn cityKonotop m cityHlukhiv m 18 m 18 18 8mcityRomny cityOkhtyrka m m 18 18 8mcityShostka m 18 8rBilopilia raion r Totalforcitybudgets vm 18 18 8rKrasnopil raion Konotop raion r Hlukhivraion r 18 Velykopysariv raion r 18 Burynraion r 18 r 18 18 8rOkhtyrkaraion Nedryhailivraion r Lypovodolynskraion r 18 Lebedyn raion r 18 Krolevetsk raion r 18 r 18 18 8rPutyvlivraion r 18 8rSumyraion r r 18 Romny raion r 18 18 8rShostkynyraion Trostianetsk raion r r 18 18 7mcityRivne m 17 8rYampiliaraion r 18 7v Total forcitybudgets cityOstroh vm cityKuznetsovsk m 17 cityDubno m 17 m 17 17 7rVolodymyretskraion Berezniveraion r r 17 17 7rDubnyraion Demydivkaraion r Hoschanskraion r 17 r 17 17 7rDubrovytskraion r 17 7rZdolbunivraion Zarichiaraion r r 17 17 7rMlynivraion Kostopilraion r Koretskraion r 17 r 17 17 7rRivne raion Radyvylivka raion r Ostroh raion r 17 r 17 17 7rSarnyraion raion Rokytniv r r 17 17 7vr 17 17 о Oblast budget Oblast о 17 vmr 17 7v 17

Oblast codes

of Odesaoblast Consolidated budget budgets Total forraion of Poltavaoblast Consolidated budget budgets Total forraion of Rivneoblast Consolidated budget raion Velykobahachansk city budgets Total forraionand raion Seredyno-Budsk city budgets Total forraionand Administrative units Revenues includedinthecalculationof 4 1, 5 5, 0, 8 9, 7 0, 2 9, 13535603578053354509, 2942370,6 96,2 3385455,0 3517820,5 553576,0 81,3 626198,5 770705,7 2388794,6 100,4 2759256,5 2 747114,8 6 3, 5 1, 0, 5 2, 4 7, 6 4, 0, 4 3, 1 1, 2 6, 0, 1399953,7 106,9 1623464,9 1519017,3 249930,0 107,9 269749,6 249979,3 1150023,7 106,7 1353715,3 1 269038,0 2 8, 5 2, 0, 7 2, 6 5, 8 5, 0, 5 5, 9 3, 3 7, 0, 1836872,6 107,2 2139474,6 1995436,2 259751,4 104,7 282453,6 269850,6 1577121,3 107,6 1857021,0 1 725585,6 7 8, 6 1, 50247484 0, 38421165 7, 2 9, 1 1, 74287066,7 97,4 315218,6 323496,8 52271,9 111,6 53804,2 48207,4 234794,8 95,0 261414,4 275 289,4 8 4, 3 3, 0, 0 7, 1 8, 1 6, 0, 1 7, 9 3, 5 0, 0, 912551,9 105,3 1051103,3 997930,8 111678,5 107,1 119169,4 111287,2 800 873,4 105,1 931933,9 886 643,6 0 2, 1 1, 0, 4 1, 02275 1, 785 3, 6 9, 6 2, 91304451,9 99,1 366523,4 369796,7 55034,2 87,8 52910,5 60272,7 249 417,7 101,3 313612,9 309 524,0 5 4, 0 0, 1, 2 9, 98131 0, 3998144648956097183436919,0 108,3 516009,7 476418,9 9821,4 63,9 12704,0 19871,3 427097,6 110,2 503305,7 456 547,6 3 7, 0 9, 1, 2 8, 39309 2, 1, 40635629362112166508038,2 116,6 602121,2 516279,3 84056,3 114,4 96026,1 83903,0 423 982,0 117,0 506095,1 432 376,3 7 9, 0 6, 0, 5 0, 04604 0, 524 0, 3 3, 5 6, 0, 301606,1 107,4 354764,3 330234,6 42801,4 95,2 48002,9 50436,0 258804,7 109,6 306761,4 279 798,6 9 9, 8 6, 83385666 9, 89571547 8, 6 9, 6 1, 0, 419426,5 100,8 466716,1 462790,8 70880,0 115,4 78955,7 68393,3 348546,6 98,3 387760,4 394 397,5 3 3, 4 1, 0, 1 3, 7, 0, 0, 5, 3 1, 4 2, 0, 212088,8 106,0 247321,8 233213,4 1652,4 104,7 2701,9 2579,8 210436,3 106,1 244619,9 230 633,6 6 7, 5 2, 63349967 9, 85361037 2, 3 7, 3 4, 86386131,2 98,6 433443,4 439777,0 71221,5 110,3 78513,6 71197,7 314909,6 96,3 354929,8 368 579,3 7 1, 8 5, 0, 3 3, 82146 6, 1, 72474442849072133398857,1 103,3 449017,2 434482,8 67224,7 117,5 68464,6 58271,4 331632,4 101,2 380552,6 376 211,4 3 6, 4 2, 0, 2 4, 6 7, 7 2, 0, 6 7, 0 3, 2 4, 0, 891915,4 101,9 1021343,7 1002738,0 165873,7 104,6 173723,5 166076,3 726041,7 101,3 847620,2 836 661,7 5 1, 8 1, 0, 9 3, 0 0, 1 6, 0, 1 2, 6 1, 0 8, 0, 700463,2 105,1 803781,5 764717,4 110026,1 107,1 116467,5 108707,4 590437,1 104,8 687314,0 656 010,0 7 7, 6 8, 825162215773107521489 8, 8 9, 7 8, 92600433,7 99,2 677381,3 682898,8 98781,5 104,8 110795,2 105727,3 501652,2 98,2 566586,1 577 171,5 24824 2, 0, 90125628574912552554 5, 194517844356,7 107,8 51924,5 48151,0 5295,5 102,5 5794,9 5652,8 39061,2 108,5 46129,6 42 498,2 38441 3, 1, 41781972200917018101 6, 837016715918,8 116,7 18387,0 15761,6 1811,0 107,0 2050,9 1917,2 14107,8 118,0 16336,1 13 844,4 32432 7, 0, 13593450477616738612 1, 922019525192,0 109,5 29252,0 26719,3 3 866,1 136,7 4777,6 3495,0 21325,9 105,4 24474,4 23 224,3 32483 2, 1, 28694755555816347523 4, 288312937612,1 112,9 42828,3 37940,3 4785,2 116,3 5505,8 4735,5 32826,9 112,4 37322,5 33 204,8 05472 7, 1, 9624345633719, 9, 40032 5, 1, 22705,1 113,2 27258,1 24080,3 3 092,7 96,9 3387,1 3495,6 19612,4 116,0 23871,0 20 584,7 22664 4, 513 4, 068293328, 4, 29484 4, 3541986,1 93,5 49544,2 52994,8 6 045,0 87,0 9303,2 10698,2 35941,1 95,1 40241,0 42 296,6 25742 4, 0, 09355309549511342232 7, 903414025135,7 104,0 29093,4 27978,3 4 202,3 101,3 5449,5 5380,9 20933,5 104,6 23643,8 22 597,4 22401 5, 1, 15491625209017116601 1, 636618013200,9 118,0 16306,6 13816,5 1696,0 127,1 2049,0 1612,5 11504,9 116,8 14257,6 12 204,0 64341 7, 0, 6075275923548, 2, 92932 7, 0, 18574,4 105,7 20373,1 19269,3 2527,0 86,0 2395,4 2785,9 16047,5 109,1 17977,7 16 483,4 27141 8, 0, 12181723252916325461 1, 579418713746,4 108,7 15779,4 14513,7 2 524,6 146,3 2592,9 1772,3 11221,8 103,5 13186,5 12 741,4 27562 7, 2, 3325445143579, 2, 72073 0, 1, 26939,2 118,0 32105,6 27200,7 3626,7 98,2 4325,7 4405,1 23312,5 121,9 27779,9 22 795,6 47031 1, 1, 55322612289118626571 2, 949311818248,8 111,8 19479,3 17421,5 2655,7 108,6 2869,1 2641,2 15593,2 112,4 16610,2 14 780,3 07754 8, 0, 59601 2, 3, 3989255 2, 279711544968,4 101,5 52719,7 51921,2 8972,5 83,9 9335,2 18312,2 11123,7 107,7 35996,0 21382,2 106,3 19860,0 43384,5 1931,4 40 797,5 106,1 2355,7 2219,8 16380,8 107,9 19026,5 17 640,2 17881 2, 2, 1764226321639, 5, 40511 2, 1, 13972,7 117,1 39799,1 16425,3 103,2 14025,1 43437,8 2256,4 42079,8 96,5 8707,5 2196,3 107,3 8937,5 2276,3 8329,9 11716,4 31091,5 121,1 14229,0 102,2 34500,3 11 748,8 33 749,9 41352 0, 0, 11083399364416930762 7, 791911324188,3 101,3 27921,9 15312,8 27573,4 110,9 3077,6 18255,8 106,9 16459,5 3614,4 2289,0 3379,9 103,0 2683,3 21110,8 2604,6 100,5 24307,5 13023,8 24 193,5 112,4 15572,5 13 854,9 08598 0, 1, 811958871 8, 8, 12827 6, 551714779470,1 124,7 95581,7 76664,6 11288,2 182,3 10681,3 5858,7 68181,9 119,9 84900,4 70 805,9 27651 3, 1, 1733184417709, 2, 45091 6, 0, 13330,5 108,1 15769,7 14590,9 1 627,3 94,2 1737,0 1844,4 11703,3 110,1 14032,8 12 746,5 66781 2, 0, 39423784701610755002 5, 470911319494,2 121,3 24700,9 20356,2 5 520,0 190,7 7071,6 3708,4 13974,2 105,9 17629,3 16 647,8 07532 6, 1, 0395416740199, 7, 48202 3, 1, 24174,1 112,8 28033,8 24842,0 3774,5 99,2 4071,9 4106,7 20399,5 115,6 23961,9 20 735,3 08521 5, 5, 19433711468412944251 2, 096813316456,8 143,3 20966,8 14626,3 4472,5 122,9 4608,4 3751,1 11984,3 150,4 16358,3 10 875,2 33581 4, 1, 28223366418615645951 5, 899713617441,7 113,6 18919,7 16652,4 4579,5 125,6 4178,6 3326,6 12862,2 110,6 14741,1 13 325,8 00081 8, 0, 9, 6, 2, 0, 1, 28011 0, 0, 12113,0 108,9 14007,1 12860,1 2 413,6 20573,8 105,4 128,7 2920,0 25710,0 2769,3 19976,8 9699,4 2223,6 109,9 93,0 11087,1 2533,7 10 090,8 2724,5 18350,2 134,3 23176,3 17 252,3 61652 3, 0, 4440399636579, 5, 01613 1, 0, 27558,1 105,8 31918,8 14053,8 30156,1 121,3 3154,1 16878,0 92,8 13918,5 3685,7 2250,9 3969,6 101,7 2105,5 24404,0 2069,5 107,8 28233,2 11802,9 26 186,5 124,7 14772,4 11 849,0 63621 2, 0, 4996635351208, 5, 26152 2, 8618882,4 98,6 22329,0 22641,5 3952,8 80,8 5102,0 6315,3 14929,6 105,5 17227,1 16 326,2 91922 4, 0, 5038445942319, 2, 36513 8, 0, 28696,6 100,8 33885,6 33625,1 3 622,8 95,9 4243,1 4425,9 25073,8 101,5 29642,6 29 199,2 14673 4, 0, 85587376852615971723 4, 115316035703,0 106,0 41185,3 38844,3 7107,2 115,9 8542,6 7367,6 28595,8 103,7 32642,7 31 476,7 08051 2, 1, 05283040409315632741 1, 625616613720,2 116,6 16225,6 13914,5 3 217,4 135,6 4099,3 3024,0 10502,8 111,3 12126,3 10 890,5 64991 4, 1, 6140281727529, 8, 93162 1, 1, 18845,2 113,4 21914,7 18518,8 19331,6 115,9 21233,4 2 681,3 18319,4 97,0 2765,2 4 038,9 14186,9 133,9 2851,7 95,9 4638,1 16164,0 16089,4 3463,3 116,2 16779,5 14480,0 19149,5 2020,9 111,7 16 479,9 82,7 16595,2 2007,9 14 856,1 2428,3 12166,0 98,1 14081,4 14 351,2 12091 5, 2, 10623239464914433291 8, 847317614399,1 127,6 18477,3 14484,8 3302,9 19243,4 144,4 112,0 4624,9 22949,5 3203,9 20499,2 2099,8 11096,2 105,8 122,8 2573,5 13852,4 2432,5 11 280,9 17143,6 112,8 20376,1 18 066,7 05261 2, 0, 7, 8, 4, 9, 7, 22601 7, 1, 12257,0 119,9 14678,4 12246,0 2 479,8 193,0 3248,9 1683,4 9777,2 108,2 11429,6 10 562,6 91953 9, 2, 68765771728614655323 4, 270612232370,8 122,2 42700,6 34946,6 5563,2 124,6 7208,6 5787,1 26807,6 121,7 35492,0 29 159,5 75974 9, 4, 94526420816116470033 7, 868513236465,5 143,2 48648,5 33971,7 7050,3 126,4 8156,1 6452,0 29415,2 147,1 40492,4 27 519,7 38371 0, 1, 24402898325414023761 2, 938215614881,6 115,6 19328,2 16723,5 2387,6 114,0 3225,4 2829,8 12494,0 115,9 16102,7 13 893,7 90352 0, 0, 7681519248679, 2, 41272 1, 0, 22395,3 106,2 25618,6 24122,7 4727,2 94,1 4816,7 5119,2 17668,1 109,5 20801,9 19 003,5 90302 4, 1, 69114599532918048662 0, 697614321747,7 114,3 26967,6 23602,9 4 806,6 118,0 5322,9 4509,9 16941,1 113,4 21644,7 19 093,0 68601 5, 1, 70792163241215922751 2, 197516319295,4 116,3 21997,5 18922,3 19491,2 2267,5 108,9 21913,9 115,9 2441,2 20126,8 2106,3 3008,0 17027,9 124,6 3761,0 116,3 19556,3 3018,1 16 816,0 16483,2 106,1 18152,9 17 108,7 17063 3, 0, 8798355529138, 4, 52613 2, 0, 31491,6 101,8 35923,6 35276,1 2741,8 85,3 2991,3 3505,5 28749,8 103,7 32932,3 31 770,6 91084 3, 0, 6151443542299, 2, 35434 2, 0, 40150,7 102,4 44622,7 43574,3 4 025,6 96,0 4282,9 4463,5 36125,1 103,1 40339,8 39 110,8 75367 0, 1, 83012 1, 43711232 4, 92641341016092534,9 116,0 103481,0 89226,4 24144,8 112,3 24377,1 21712,8 68390,1 117,2 79103,9 67 513,6 36593 0, 0, 06244869606915154533 7, 077116036127,7 106,0 40777,1 38472,8 5 475,3 125,1 6076,9 4856,9 30652,4 103,2 34700,2 33 615,9 39621 4, 0, 22062238222811317711 6, 725916513987,7 106,5 17215,9 16160,0 1727,1 101,3 2272,8 2243,8 12260,6 107,4 14943,1 13 916,2 03101 9, 1, 02382750369819526961 5, 567418712933,4 118,7 15617,4 13156,0 2 659,6 129,5 3619,8 2795,0 10273,8 115,8 11997,6 10 361,0 71106 7, 0, 139297781 4, 0, 1, 68887 2, 0, 70707,9 103,3 79422,9 76878,8 9318,7 103,3 10049,2 9727,8 61389,2 103,3 69373,8 67 151,0 99152 9, 0, 91394458461013740462 2, 629217723258,5 107,7 26299,2 24427,3 4064,6 103,7 4601,0 4435,8 19193,9 108,5 21698,3 19 991,5 39211 1, 1, 35111751179411416321 6, 719919715154,3 109,7 17189,9 15667,2 1 653,2 101,4 1779,4 1755,1 13501,1 110,8 15410,4 13 912,1 19101 9, 0, 06183204450913037601 4, 748615514367,9 115,5 17488,6 15141,4 3 726,0 143,0 4590,9 3210,4 10641,8 108,1 12897,7 11 931,0 8, 7, 2, 7, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 6802,5 124,5 8015,1 6435,9 2130,8 136,1 2240,9 1646,0 4671,7 120,6 5774,3 4 789,9 9, 3, 0, 4, 2, 7, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 4960,6 109,3 5811,3 5317,2 712,6 106,3 877,5 825,6 4248,0 109,8 4933,8 4 491,6 0, 5, 0, 3, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2, 10691659900,8 116,5 11096,9 9525,3 2164,6 144,8 2637,5 1821,9 7736,2 109,8 8459,4 7 703,4 5, 2, 0, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 8, 9, 0, 7393,8 106,5 8292,9 7785,0 1061,6 113,4 1168,4 1030,7 6332,2 105,5 7124,6 6 754,3 6, 5, 3, 2, 7, 4, 79926612976041376158,1 123,7 7600,4 6142,9 932,6 87,9 943,4 1073,1 5225,5 131,3 6657,0 5 069,8 8, 9, 0, 0, 0, 8, 1, 4, 9, 8, 0, 8247,3 109,4 9180,6 8390,6 1344,1 111,2 1781,5 1601,6 6903,2 109,0 7399,1 6 789,0 3, 4, 1, 0, 4, 9, 0, 4, 8, 4, 0, 8552,8 109,8 9640,5 8782,5 1447,8 103,3 1496,5 1449,3 7104,9 111,1 8144,1 7 333,2 3, 036818890327975218, 7, 02111 5, 0, 9615,1 107,0 10958,9 10241,1 571,8 83,4 592,1 709,7 9043,2 108,8 10366,8 9 531,4 4, 121413190562434274510626371 1, 395910411719,4 120,4 13985,9 11616,7 2643,7 110,6 2734,5 2473,4 9075,6 123,1 11251,4 9 143,3 7, 13881879149253125379, 7, 21371 7, 1, 11237,8 11653,8 114,2 130,1 13872,6 14174,3 12143,7 10897,7 2072,9 3409,3 97,7 173,2 2513,7 3874,6 2573,1 2236,7 9164,9 8244,5 118,7 118,9 11358,8 10299,7 9 570,6 8 661,0 1, 014811587741748228611318711 5, 233413210624,4 123,2 12383,4 10051,3 1897,1 131,3 2278,6 1734,8 8727,4 121,5 10104,8 8 316,5 8, 1, 2, 9, 0, 1, 1, 3, 00611 3, 1, 10031,2 9901,5 118,3 117,9 11930,4 11950,0 10086,1 10133,0 1836,7 2611,3 110,9 148,7 2112,8 3475,5 1904,4 2337,7 8194,5 7290,2 120,0 108,7 9817,5 8474,5 8 181,7 7 795,3 6, 054315494811962221615723821 0, 285915411756,3 115,4 12825,9 11109,5 2318,2 115,7 2251,6 1946,2 9438,1 115,4 10574,3 9 163,3 1, 145116096521484159319712691 6, 304413810892,1 123,8 13074,4 10563,7 1286,9 109,7 1589,3 1448,4 9605,2 126,0 11485,1 9 115,3

Estimates inter-governmental transfers

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 the calculationofinter-governmental Revenues, thatarenotincludedin

Estimates

Reports transfers ANALYSIS OFBUDGETEXECUTIONIN2010 for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009

Estimates General Fundrevenues:total

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 APPENDIX B 123

Revenues, that are not included in Revenues included in the calculation of the calculation of inter-governmental General Fund revenues: total inter-governmental transfers transfers

Administrative units Oblast codes Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009

Total for raion 18 vr 223 093,1 246 833,3 110,6 208 674,7 48 849,8 64 375,9 131,8 53 649,3 271 942,9 311 209,2 114,4 262 323,9 budgets Total for raion and 18 vmr 800 264,6 813 419,4 101,6 710 326,9 154 577,1 175 171,1 113,3 152 430,8 954 841,7 988 590,5 103,5 862 757,7 city budgets 18 о Oblast budget 290 565,2 304 327,3 104,7 264 649,1 2 321,5 2 780,7 119,8 2 522,3 292 886,7 307 108,1 104,9 267 171,5 Consolidated budget 18 v 1 090 829,8 1 117 746,7 102,5 974 976,0 156 898,6 177 951,9 113,4 154 953,1 1 247 728,4 1 295 698,6 103,8 1 129 929,2 of Sumy oblast 19 m city Ternopil 226 758,4 221 668,7 97,8 200 896,5 43 433,4 42 922,1 98,8 35 232,8 270 191,8 264 590,8 97,9 236 129,3 19 vm Total for citybudgets 226 758,4 221 668,7 97,8 200 896,5 43 433,4 42 922,1 98,8 35 232,8 270 191,8 264 590,8 97,9 236 129,3 19 r Berezhansk raion 14 648,1 15 365,9 104,9 13 537,2 1 878,9 2 179,5 116,0 2 087,5 16 527,0 17 545,4 106,2 15 624,8 19 r Borsch raion 17 661,0 20 312,7 115,0 16 870,4 4 322,8 8 063,9 186,5 6 966,2 21 983,8 28 376,6 129,1 23 836,5 19 r Buchatsk raion 16 363,8 18 227,0 111,4 15 462,9 1 763,7 1 800,4 102,1 1 516,0 18 127,5 20 027,3 110,5 16 978,9 19 r Husiatyn raion 22 702,8 27 676,3 121,9 21 925,4 2 691,4 2 462,5 91,5 2 356,7 25 394,2 30 138,8 118,7 24 282,0 19 r Zalischytsk raion 13 131,2 13 578,8 103,4 11 886,7 1 535,8 1 401,6 91,3 1 292,9 14 667,0 14 980,4 102,1 13 179,6 19 r Zbaravka raion 14 788,9 18 001,1 121,7 14 843,6 2 630,3 2 323,3 88,3 2 036,1 17 419,2 20 324,4 116,7 16 879,7 19 r Zboriv raion 11 554,2 13 410,1 116,1 11 105,9 1 393,1 1 187,7 85,3 1 080,8 12 947,3 14 597,8 112,7 12 186,7 19 r Kozive raion 10 563,2 11 611,5 109,9 9 807,2 1 893,6 2 205,5 116,5 2 050,1 12 456,8 13 816,9 110,9 11 857,3 19 r Kremenetsk raion 20 093,2 23 015,3 114,5 19 821,2 1 838,0 1 956,6 106,5 1 696,8 21 931,2 24 972,0 113,9 21 518,0 19 r Lanovetsk raion 9 142,4 11 098,6 121,4 9 275,8 1 134,7 1 225,9 108,0 980,6 10 277,1 12 324,5 119,9 10 256,4 19 r Monastyr raion 7 576,9 7 861,5 103,8 7 039,3 971,7 983,1 101,2 883,1 8 548,6 8 844,7 103,5 7 922,4 19 r Pidvolochyny raion 14 902,8 17 002,9 114,1 14 774,6 2 718,1 2 244,8 82,6 2 224,2 17 620,9 19 247,6 109,2 16 998,8 19 r Pidhaietsk raion 4 865,7 5 410,5 111,2 4 735,0 525,6 466,3 88,7 442,6 5 391,3 5 876,8 109,0 5 177,6 19 r Terebovliany raion 21 652,8 24 576,1 113,5 20 306,6 2 804,5 2 748,7 98,0 2 422,1 24 457,3 27 324,9 111,7 22 728,8 19 r Ternopil raion 27 792,1 31 643,1 113,9 26 432,9 2 818,9 3 524,3 125,0 3 244,6 30 611,0 35 167,4 114,9 29 677,5 19 r Chortkivka raion 30 069,8 31 512,0 104,8 27 340,0 3 612,2 3 241,2 89,7 3 169,6 33 682,0 34 753,2 103,2 30 509,6 19 r Shumy raion 9 021,6 10 121,7 112,2 8 187,2 1 077,8 857,2 79,5 691,7 10 099,4 10 978,9 108,7 8 878,9 Total for raion 19 vr 266 530,5 300 425,1 112,7 253 351,8 35 611,1 38 872,5 109,2 35 141,6 302 141,6 339 297,6 112,3 288 493,4 budgets Total for raion and 19 vmr 493 288,9 522 093,8 105,8 454 248,2 79 044,5 81 794,6 103,5 70 374,5 572 333,4 603 888,4 105,5 524 622,7 city budgets 19 о Oblast budget 162 367,9 178 542,0 110,0 153 447,8 1 869,3 3 593,4 192,2 2 411,0 164 237,2 182 135,4 110,9 155 858,8 Consolidated budget 19 v 655 656,8 700 635,9 106,9 607 696,0 80 913,8 85 388,0 105,5 72 785,4 736 570,6 786 023,8 106,7 680 481,4 of Ternopil oblast 20 m city Kharkiv 1 611 061,8 1 571 446,3 97,5 1 405 839,3 493 962,2 454 650,1 92,0 470 817,8 2 105 024,0 2 026 096,4 96,3 1 876 657,0 20 m city Izium 24 263,0 21 824,6 90,0 19 828,0 4 485,7 3 865,5 86,2 3 862,8 28 748,7 25 690,1 89,4 23 690,9 20 m city Kupiansk 48 911,1 50 975,5 104,2 44 253,2 6 054,1 5 646,3 93,3 4 931,7 54 965,2 56 621,8 103,0 49 184,9 20 m city Lozova 43 269,3 49 562,4 114,5 41 725,5 6 482,8 7 905,5 121,9 7 588,1 49 752,1 57 467,9 115,5 49 313,6 20 m city Liubotyn 12 634,1 13 140,9 104,0 11 703,9 1 427,0 1 689,2 118,4 1 545,5 14 061,1 14 830,1 105,5 13 249,4 20 m city Pervomaiskyi 11 944,4 11 581,8 97,0 10 657,9 2 176,6 2 438,8 112,0 2 072,5 14 121,0 14 020,6 99,3 12 730,5 20 m city Chuhuiv 20 093,5 21 268,9 105,8 18 894,9 2 971,9 3 702,9 124,6 2 688,8 23 065,4 24 971,8 108,3 21 583,7 20 vm Total for citybudgets 1 772 177,2 1 739 800,3 98,2 1 552 902,6 517 560,3 479 898,3 92,7 493 507,3 2 289 737,5 2 219 698,6 96,9 2 046 410,0 20 r Balakliy raion 72 484,6 76 902,0 106,1 66 945,2 7 761,4 7 566,2 97,5 6 827,8 80 246,0 84 468,1 105,3 73 773,0 20 r Barvinkiv raion 10 398,3 11 909,2 114,5 9 993,0 2 419,3 2 635,3 108,9 2 128,7 12 817,6 14 544,5 113,5 12 121,7 20 r Blyzniuki raion 8 750,8 9 286,0 106,1 8 136,1 2 193,1 2 369,7 108,1 1 992,2 10 943,9 11 655,6 106,5 10 128,3 20 r Bohodukhivsk raion 17 817,9 18 077,9 101,5 16 026,7 3 957,6 3 205,7 81,0 3 115,6 21 775,5 21 283,7 97,7 19 142,2 20 r Borivka raion 8 375,6 8 780,2 104,8 8 103,0 2 048,4 1 840,3 89,8 2 210,1 10 424,0 10 620,5 101,9 10 313,1 20 r Valkivsk raion 15 503,4 17 017,9 109,8 14 218,7 2 898,4 2 675,1 92,3 2 330,5 18 401,8 19 693,0 107,0 16 549,2 20 r Velykoburlutsk raion 10 733,5 12 136,9 113,1 9 951,1 2 056,7 1 983,3 96,4 1 503,2 12 790,2 14 120,1 110,4 11 454,3 20 r Vovchany raion 24 292,8 26 019,7 107,1 22 388,1 6 787,7 7 828,4 115,3 6 101,5 31 080,5 33 848,1 108,9 28 489,6 20 r Dvorichansk raion 8 209,4 8 623,9 105,0 7 708,7 1 816,7 1 910,0 105,1 1 470,3 10 026,1 10 533,9 105,1 9 179,0 20 r Derhachiv raion 41 137,8 48 122,5 117,0 38 990,8 7 705,2 8 971,8 116,4 9 048,5 48 843,0 57 094,2 116,9 48 039,3 20 r Zachepylivka raion 6 055,4 7 396,8 122,2 6 434,0 1 217,8 1 246,7 102,4 949,0 7 273,2 8 643,5 118,8 7 383,0 20 r Zmiiv raion 39 953,9 42 556,9 106,5 37 329,9 5 302,1 4 520,7 85,3 4 348,9 45 256,0 47 077,6 104,0 41 678,8 20 r Zolochivka raion 12 359,6 11 851,6 95,9 11 174,5 2 389,5 2 275,4 95,2 2 135,1 14 749,1 14 127,0 95,8 13 309,6 20 r Izium raion 7 082,2 9 198,9 129,9 7 452,0 3 006,3 2 577,2 85,7 1 796,3 10 088,5 11 776,2 116,7 9 248,3 20 r Kehychiv raion 13 155,8 15 168,8 115,3 12 662,6 2 715,2 2 312,5 85,2 2 129,7 15 871,0 17 481,2 110,1 14 792,3 20 r Kolomaty raion 3 598,0 3 797,7 105,5 3 263,7 923,1 1 007,6 109,2 1 008,1 4 521,1 4 805,2 106,3 4 271,8 20 r Krasnohrad raion 48 266,4 51 256,3 106,2 45 058,9 5 162,8 4 360,9 84,5 4 128,6 53 429,2 55 617,2 104,1 49 187,5 20 r Krasnokutsk raion 13 010,5 14 232,5 109,4 12 093,9 3 004,1 2 562,1 85,3 2 495,5 16 014,6 16 794,6 104,9 14 589,4 20 r Kupiansk raion 7 554,4 8 518,4 112,8 7 511,5 2 814,7 3 070,2 109,1 2 877,7 10 369,1 11 588,6 111,8 10 389,2 20 r Loziv raion 10 191,0 11 783,3 115,6 9 967,5 2 289,4 2 360,8 103,1 2 163,2 12 480,4 14 144,1 113,3 12 130,7 20 r Novovodolaz raion 18 410,2 16 998,7 92,3 15 623,3 3 017,9 3 118,8 103,3 2 566,2 21 428,1 20 117,5 93,9 18 189,5 20 r Pervomaisk raion 9 672,2 10 718,0 110,8 9 146,9 2 356,2 3 613,9 153,4 2 933,7 12 028,4 14 331,8 119,1 12 080,6 20 r Pechenihy raion 4 832,6 4 400,3 91,1 3 897,4 2 068,1 1 359,6 65,7 1 517,6 6 900,7 5 759,9 83,5 5 415,0 20 r Sakhnovschyn raion 9 738,3 11 138,6 114,4 10 138,3 2 471,3 2 589,3 104,8 2 395,3 12 209,6 13 727,9 112,4 12 533,6 20 r Kharkiv raion 92 225,1 94 447,4 102,4 81 044,5 18 817,5 20 168,9 107,2 19 115,1 111 042,6 114 616,3 103,2 100 159,5 20 r Chuhuiv raion 21 395,7 23 232,1 108,6 19 398,5 3 106,1 3 430,0 110,4 2 966,3 24 501,8 26 662,1 108,8 22 364,9 20 r Shevchenkove raion 11 602,4 12 354,4 106,5 10 390,3 2 214,9 2 143,2 96,8 1 881,2 13 817,3 14 497,6 104,9 12 271,5 Total for raion 20 vr 546 807,8 585 926,7 107,2 505 049,2 102 521,5 103 703,6 101,2 94 135,6 649 329,3 689 630,3 106,2 599 184,8 budgets Total for raion and 20 vmr 2 318 985,0 2 325 727,0 100,3 2 057 951,8 620 081,8 583 602,0 94,1 587 643,0 2 939 066,8 2 909 329,0 99,0 2 645 594,8 city budgets 20 о Oblast budget 857 176,0 880 011,0 102,7 784 229,6 15 920,8 16 506,1 103,7 12 834,4 873 096,8 896 517,0 102,7 797 064,0 Consolidated budget 20 v 3 176 161,0 3 205 738,0 100,9 2 842 181,5 636 002,6 600 108,0 94,4 600 477,4 3 812 163,6 3 805 846,0 99,8 3 442 658,9 of Kharkiv oblast 21 m city Kherson 303 833,6 289 136,0 95,2 268 449,3 46 835,2 49 460,3 105,6 43 575,6 350 668,8 338 596,3 96,6 312 024,9 21 m city Kakhovka 24 233,9 26 191,3 108,1 21 975,6 3 941,1 4 654,3 118,1 4 049,0 28 175,0 30 845,5 109,5 26 024,6 21 m city Nova Kakhovka 53 065,9 52 752,3 99,4 47 772,8 11 960,1 12 785,8 106,9 10 015,4 65 026,0 65 538,1 100,8 57 788,2 21 vm Total for citybudgets 381 133,4 368 079,6 96,6 338 197,8 62 736,4 66 900,3 106,6 57 640,0 443 869,8 434 979,9 98,0 395 837,8 21 r Beryslavsk raion 16 842,1 19 535,5 116,0 14 937,4 3 433,8 3 469,9 101,1 2 916,0 20 275,9 23 005,4 113,5 17 853,3 21 r Bilozersk raion 21 545,4 23 098,8 107,2 20 679,1 3 139,9 3 876,2 123,4 3 555,2 24 685,3 26 974,9 109,3 24 234,3 21 r Velykolepetyn raion 8 383,9 10 224,0 121,9 8 351,0 1 949,7 1 628,2 83,5 1 559,0 10 333,6 11 852,2 114,7 9 909,9 Velykooleksandrivka 21 r 8 757,3 11 921,0 136,1 9 421,1 3 217,1 2 542,1 79,0 2 547,8 11 974,4 14 463,1 120,8 11 969,0 raion Verkhnorohachynsk 21 r 4 136,8 5 006,8 121,0 4 053,0 1 696,7 1 322,8 78,0 1 140,4 5 833,5 6 329,6 108,5 5 193,4 raion 21 r Vysokopil raion 4 986,2 6 221,5 124,8 5 208,4 2 014,0 4 147,8 205,9 6 672,8 7 000,2 10 369,3 148,1 11 881,2 21 r Henichensk raion 23 277,4 27 191,6 116,8 24 126,8 6 512,7 8 319,2 127,7 7 076,8 29 790,1 35 510,8 119,2 31 203,6 21 r Holo Prystan raion 23 357,8 23 374,4 100,1 19 170,7 6 557,7 6 316,6 96,3 5 496,8 29 915,5 29 691,0 99,2 24 667,5 21 r Hornostaiv raion 8 285,7 9 652,9 116,5 8 559,5 2 250,9 2 180,5 96,9 1 680,0 10 536,6 11 833,4 112,3 10 239,6 21 r Ivanivka raion 5 908,3 6 824,5 115,5 5 717,2 1 843,9 1 716,0 93,1 1 629,4 7 752,2 8 540,5 110,2 7 346,6 21 r Kalanchaty raion 9 225,4 11 064,6 119,9 9 497,8 2 136,9 2 102,8 98,4 2 192,3 11 362,3 13 167,4 115,9 11 690,1 21 r Kakhovka raion 12 393,0 15 888,0 128,2 12 418,9 4 312,3 4 514,1 104,7 4 277,9 16 705,3 20 402,1 122,1 16 696,9 21 r Nyzhnosirohozk raion 5 994,9 7 135,4 119,0 5 909,9 3 177,3 2 910,0 91,6 2 292,5 9 172,2 10 045,5 109,5 8 202,3 Novovorontsovsk 21 r 7 189,9 8 280,3 115,2 7 250,9 1 399,2 1 056,9 75,5 1 150,9 8 589,1 9 337,3 108,7 8 401,9 raion 21 r Novotroitsk raion 13 794,8 17 090,0 123,9 14 235,0 2 977,0 2 573,2 86,4 2 311,0 16 771,8 19 663,2 117,2 16 546,0 124 1rTsiurupynskraion Skadovskraion r r 21 21 1rChaplynraion r 21 1vmr 21 vr 21 1v Oblast budget 21 о 21 3mcityCherkasy m 23 3mcityKaniv cityZolotonosha m cityVatutine m 23 m 23 23 3mcityUman citySmila m m 23 23 3v Totalforcitybudgets vm 23 3rDrabivkaraion Horodyschenskraion r r 23 23 3rZvenyhorodraion Zhashkivraion r r 23 23 3rZolotonosharaion r 23 3rKanivraion Kamiankaraion r r 23 23 3r Katerynopilskraion 23 r 23 3rLysianskraion r 23 cityKhmelnytskyi m 22 3r Mankivraion r 23 23 cityNetishyn m 22 m 22 2mcitySlavuta m 22 23 r Talnive raion Talnive Smilianskeraion r r 23 23 3rUmanraion r 23 cityShepetivka cityStarokostiantyniv m m 22 22 3rCherkaskyraion Khrystynivkaraion r r 23 23 Volochyskraion Vinkovetsraion r Bilohirskraion r 22 r Totalforcitybudgets 22 vm 22 22 3rChyhyrynraion r 23 Horodokraion r 22 3rShpolianskraion Chornobairaion r r 23 23 Dunaieveraion Derazhnianskraion r r 22 22 3vmr 23 vr 23 Iziaslavraion r 22 3оOblast budget о 23 Krasyliv raion r r 22 22 3v 23 Polonskraion Novoushytsk raion r Letychiv raion r 22 r 22 22 2rSlavutyraion r 22 22 r Teofipol raion Teofipol Starosyniavskraion r r 22 r 22 22 2rChemerovetskraion Khmelnytskyi raion r r 22 22 2rYarmolyn raion Shepetivka raion r r 22 22 2vmr 22 vr 22 2v Oblastbudget 22 о 22 4mcityChernivtsi m 24 4mcityNovodnistrovsk m 24 4rVyzhnyraion r Totalforcitybudgets vm 24 24 4rHlybochytsaraion Hertsaiveraion r r 24 24 4rZastavnyraion r 24 4rKitsmanskraion Kelmenetskraion r r 24 24 4rPutylivraion Novosely raion r r 24 24 4rSokyrianyraion r 24 4rStorozhynetskraion r 24

Oblast codes

budgets Total forraion of Khrsonoblast Consolidated budget Podilskyi city Kamianets- budgets Total forraion of Khmelnytskoblast Consolidated budget city budgets Total forraionand raion Shevchenkivskyi Korsun- raion Monasteryschensk city budgets Total forraionand budgets Total forraion raion Kamianets-Podilsk of Cherkasyoblast Consolidated budget raion Starokostiantynivka citybudgets Total forraionand Administrative units Revenues includedinthecalculationof 4 0, 9 1, 0, 3 7, 7 0, 5 2, 99153221228261207851231093630,3 102,3 1250738,5 1222812,6 155352,2 89,9 157523,0 175209,5 938278,0 104,4 1093215,5 1 047603,1 9 9, 2 8, 0, 5 2, 0 2, 1 4, 0, 9 4, 0 2, 3 2, 0, 1251565,3 102,1 1436825,2 1407423,7 193643,3 103,4 216644,4 209527,4 1057922,0 101,9 1220180,9 1 197896,3 2 0, 6 7, 0, 6 2, 2 0, 3 6, 0, 1 1, 4 1, 9 4, 0, 877943,3 104,7 994143,9 949215,7 117916,8 105,7 131865,0 124808,8 760026,6 104,6 862278,9 824 406,9 9 4, 3 0, 1, 7 2, 82775 2, 1, 80033492336727121322757,8 112,1 386732,7 344932,3 48030,3 114,6 55324,5 48287,7 274727,5 111,7 331408,2 296 644,6 8 5, 1 3, 0, 5 9, 93859 3, 0, 24424161759050179433218,6 107,9 509065,0 471651,7 82424,2 107,1 95731,5 89398,5 350794,4 108,1 413333,5 382 253,2 8 8, 7 1, 9249909134099 9, 081516865081574089, 525087,6 95,4 577410,8 605008,1 105116,8 80,8 99694,6 123420,9 419970,9 99,2 477716,2 481 587,2 4 7, 4 9, 80283367 9, 0 0, 3, 89013540737727168307213,7 106,8 347702,7 325470,7 88900,1 135,6 104104,9 76794,2 218 313,6 98,0 243597,8 248 676,5 1 9, 3 3, 0, 0 5, 9, 5, 208572729721606166202019,6 106,6 231690,6 217289,7 865,7 92,0 1651,4 1795,1 201153,8 106,7 230039,3 215 494,6 2 7, 6 6, 1, 2 7, 02736 1, 0, 94102806237433137280086,0 113,7 327473,3 288056,2 59411,0 105,0 63313,2 60277,3 220675,0 116,0 264160,1 227 778,9 8 1, 7 0, 604777712688131461041776562314533269, 525564,2 96,9 583352,6 602311,4 107786,5 100,4 113144,6 112698,8 417777,7 96,0 470208,0 489 612,6 8 5, 7 3, 43215758 2, 72267, 228133947379409, 313775,6 90,4 337924,0 373974,7 72208,1 77,3 67292,6 87020,8 241567,5 94,3 270631,4 286 953,9 7 3, 0 2, 0, 9 9, 7 0, 5 1, 03131709990494134115847845,4 101,5 964143,4 949940,4 153147,0 90,3 155019,1 171708,6 694698,4 104,0 809124,4 778 231,8 7 6, 8 4, 0, 6 7, 0 9, 0 7, 0, 9 1, 7 6, 9 1, 0, 958782,8 101,7 1092417,6 1073963,1 190210,7 103,4 208876,1 202097,3 768572,1 101,3 883541,5 871 865,8 2 3, 3 3, 0, 8 4, 3, 6, 0, 3, 3 6, 4 0, 0, 292782,5 103,3 344407,6 333460,6 3432,6 104,6 7768,3 7430,1 289349,9 103,3 336639,3 326 030,5 0 1, 3 3, 0, 5 7, 2 1, 3 1, 0, 1 5, 3 2, 6 5, 0, 675923,8 104,2 762453,2 731926,0 117051,0 105,9 130213,6 123013,7 558872,8 103,8 632239,6 608 912,3 6 5, 5 6, 71231337 8, 0 1, 3, 08363015239801158323986,8 105,8 359880,1 340135,2 90823,6 134,8 105912,7 78582,0 233 163,3 97,1 253967,4 261 553,2 3 1, 0 3, 14262318 8, 89411438 1, 2 9, 9 5, 40359202,4 94,0 245784,9 105,0 396550,1 286595,1 421796,7 272872,2 82919,3 2205,2 104,3 88914,1 71,5 85280,5 2504,0 276283,1 3500,9 91,4 243579,7 307635,9 105,5 336 516,2 284091,1 269 371,3 44502 3, 811 7, 6, 2, 9850643 0, 71298, 24896,3 88,4 27152,9 30706,9 5016,4 89,8 5620,9 6261,9 19879,9 88,1 21531,9 24 445,0 84044 3, 0, 45936121717517253954 6, 839418439888,8 108,4 48309,4 44562,5 5 319,5 117,2 7177,5 6122,1 34569,3 107,0 41131,9 38 440,4 22082 3, 871 9, 9, 9, 0, 9, 58962 3, 8922886,2 98,9 25530,5 25819,6 3 494,8 100,0 3597,2 3598,8 19391,4 98,7 21933,4 22 220,8 44392 5, 2, 43664142440316942772 2, 381218328624,3 118,3 33871,2 28628,1 4 227,7 106,9 4420,3 4134,2 24396,6 120,2 29451,0 24 493,9 74812 7, 0, 3815408438369, 1, 14653 3, 0, 26891,4 103,4 32532,9 31466,5 3 019,9 95,9 3853,6 4018,4 23871,5 104,5 28679,3 27 448,1 89305 6, 0, 6936960757865, 0, 85375 7, 0, 53579,3 101,3 59273,3 58523,7 6 605,7 59,5 5708,6 9600,7 46973,6 109,5 53564,7 48 923,0 88242 3, 2, 84314250550510043002 7, 845212622843,2 122,6 28405,2 23177,4 4 390,0 130,0 5570,5 4285,0 18453,1 120,9 22834,7 18 892,4 22841 7, 0, 1752239422939, 4, 46781 0, 0, 13778,0 107,0 15704,9 14677,8 2 042,8 93,7 2229,3 2379,4 11735,2 109,6 13475,7 12 298,4 64451 1, 0, 4590387827237, 2, 02231 2, 8016832,8 98,0 19824,9 20232,3 2323,8 71,2 2712,3 3807,8 14509,0 104,2 17112,6 16 424,5 06902 2, 0, 90422990293910223172 0, 545718021405,9 108,0 25485,7 23608,0 2 391,7 100,2 2963,9 2959,0 19014,2 109,1 22521,8 20 649,0 25022 4, 0, 1748313231489, 2, 57342 8, 0, 24862,2 108,1 27883,7 25783,4 3 127,4 98,2 3134,8 3193,2 21734,8 109,6 24748,9 22 590,2 92886 2, 0, 58751 4, 67479, 63727 8, 923312872224,7 102,8 79203,3 77082,1 16327,2 94,0 16774,7 17843,3 55897,5 105,4 62428,6 59 238,8 40451 3, 0, 25783151376910432681 4, 857918015824,5 108,0 18517,9 17149,6 3276,8 120,4 3786,9 3145,1 12547,8 105,2 14731,0 14 004,5 49362 9, 0, 1800291428069, 9, 79502 3, 0, 24214,3 106,4 29739,6 27945,0 2 394,3 95,0 2840,6 2991,4 21820,0 107,8 26899,0 24 953,6 52831 9, 1, 4831272525359, 3, 79082 6, 1, 17299,6 112,6 20265,6 17990,8 2436,5 93,8 2573,5 2742,5 14863,1 116,0 17692,1 15 248,3 17642 2, 921 5, 1, 9, 1, 2, 61342 1, 0, 23880,2 13101,7 101,2 99,4 26413,7 14856,0 26103,4 14942,8 4 522,5 1 998,6 111,0 4791,3 84,7 2166,1 4317,0 2556,4 19357,7 11103,1 99,2 21622,5 102,4 12689,8 21 786,4 12 386,4 50272 2, 0, 3417502936487, 3, 00562 2, 9228336,1 99,2 29829,1 30055,6 4934,4 71,8 3604,8 5022,9 23401,7 104,8 26224,3 25 032,7 27572 5, 1, 00824383498712143172 9, 095214324389,9 114,3 30975,2 27094,0 4331,7 112,1 4918,7 4388,3 20058,2 114,8 26056,5 22 705,7 26562 1, 1, 14465338548011048042 4, 103210726214,9 110,7 31063,2 28049,4 4810,4 101,0 5448,0 5393,8 21404,6 113,1 25615,3 22 655,6 78122 9, 0, 43123406589417342753 6, 482311128608,6 111,1 23345,2 34832,3 113,1 28333,2 31361,8 25047,1 4 227,5 167,3 3458,9 5839,4 117,8 3794,0 3490,6 3219,4 24381,2 19886,3 104,0 28992,9 112,4 24539,1 27 871,2 21 827,7 38965 0, 0, 9029911999171801 5, 30156 3, 0, 59091,5 105,9 66739,8 63021,5 10058,6 108,0 9931,7 9191,9 49032,9 105,5 56808,1 53 829,6 38221 2, 0, 31743061323015824071 8, 842619215538,1 109,2 18442,6 16888,3 2430,7 105,8 3213,0 3036,1 13107,4 109,9 15229,6 13 852,2 68652 5, 0, 64697442785115277633 5, 698317534193,2 107,5 36918,3 34350,7 7 726,3 105,2 7865,1 7474,2 26466,9 108,1 29053,3 26 876,5 20102 5, 951 6, 4, 5, 0, 1, 56592 0, 0, 23182,4 100,0 25601,5 25605,9 3316,7 103,0 3650,5 3544,9 19865,7 99,5 21951,0 22 061,0 24591 8, 851 0, 7, 8, 1, 4, 51731 6, 0, 13253,7 102,2 15463,6 15137,3 2 544,6 119,1 3180,7 2671,4 10709,0 98,5 12282,9 12 465,9 07702 9, 0, 8683584456109, 0, 66142 5, 0, 23943,4 101,5 27050,7 26641,4 5 305,1 96,7 5651,0 5844,4 18638,3 102,9 21399,7 20 797,0 79781 3, 0, 5900198818469, 6, 98662 8, 0, 17613,4 106,1 21081,3 19876,6 1 663,3 95,6 1844,6 1928,8 15950,0 107,2 19236,8 17 947,8 14341 7, 0, 04453747389711235291 7, 587313513967,4 16174,7 103,5 108,8 15807,3 19116,1 15278,1 14114,9 17576,6 3 542,9 109,6 2 220,8 31022,7 17654,2 101,2 22221,8 94,9 3829,7 106,7 16108,9 106,2 2385,6 34536,1 3784,7 26584,9 2 474,3 2514,4 32379,9 10424,5 25024,0 98,3 13953,9 6532,6 104,2 3217,6 3824,0 111,1 108,7 11977,6 108,8 3273,9 16730,6 6963,3 5287,3 11 493,4 11640,6 15 062,2 6406,9 4861,1 112,5 24490,0 18397,8 14436,5 106,2 105,6 12 835,0 27572,8 21297,6 25 973,0 20 162,9 28931 4, 3, 27663517387618032771 6, 077815916004,3 125,9 20717,8 16461,0 3227,7 108,0 3877,6 3591,7 12776,6 130,9 16840,3 12 869,3 28701 9, 0, 15782385236612121061 4, 624017313698,4 107,3 16254,0 15145,5 2 170,6 102,1 2356,6 2308,5 11527,8 108,3 13897,4 12 837,0 77701 8, 0, 57485433721113564792 8, 581211422152,8 111,4 25831,2 23180,3 6427,9 133,5 7251,1 5433,3 15724,8 104,7 18580,1 17 747,0 13252 2, 0, 0198370834019, 9, 51332 2, 0, 23400,2 103,2 25927,1 25123,3 16773,1 3 290,4 83,0 12177,3 91,1 3400,1 14664,5 3730,8 1 923,4 101,1 20109,8 1807,7 105,3 1787,8 22527,1 21 392,5 14849,7 80,5 10369,6 12 876,7 16032 3, 0, 01213234336515432142 1, 718519323363,5 109,3 27118,5 24813,7 3251,4 13692,5 105,4 110,2 3386,5 15961,9 3213,4 14487,5 20112,1 1857,2 109,9 86,8 23732,0 1681,8 21 600,3 1937,5 11835,2 113,8 14280,1 12 550,0 39553 4, 0, 1015409338829, 3, 79484 6, 0, 35048,5 107,3 51488,3 40760,8 103,4 37994,8 59954,0 4 037,1 57955,9 93,4 5215,8 3818,2 83,1 4089,3 5363,6 31011,5 6453,2 109,0 46272,6 36942,5 106,0 33 905,5 54590,4 51 502,7 08971 8, 1, 1, 9, 4, 0, 8, 21501 2, 1, 10591,6 113,4 13829,6 12195,0 981,0 104,1 1348,1 1295,3 9610,6 114,5 12481,4 10 899,7 70381 9, 671 7, 3, 1, 0, 2, 99561 1, 7617703,6 97,6 19515,7 19995,6 2 627,0 102,9 3016,5 2931,8 15076,6 96,7 16499,2 17 063,8 65991 2, 1, 61712544306718630871 8, 271318319175,8 118,3 17617,2 22701,3 118,2 19184,3 21368,1 3058,7 18082,6 118,6 2773,9 3076,7 124,7 2594,4 3549,6 16117,1 2845,9 118,3 14843,3 19624,5 116,9 16 589,9 17818,4 15 236,7 83592 1, 1, 6737631449557, 0, 46732 8, 0, 20885,3 102,6 25283,2 24647,3 4101,6 78,7 4965,5 20849,8 6311,4 107,5 16783,7 23526,4 110,8 21881,9 20317,7 5 454,0 18 335,9 106,0 6032,5 5691,5 15395,8 108,1 17494,0 16 190,4 13491 6, 1, 01711695171210715911 7, 437210011656,2 110,0 14377,2 13074,4 1 549,1 100,7 1711,2 1699,5 10107,1 111,4 12666,0 11 374,9 70772 6, 4, 82632264253310822681 8, 679718920543,1 138,9 26789,7 19284,1 2 246,8 110,8 2523,3 2276,4 18296,3 142,7 24266,4 17 007,7 15231 0, 1, 06592295274711121761 4, 568312912873,6 112,9 15628,3 13841,8 2 197,6 121,1 2724,7 2249,5 10675,9 111,3 12903,6 11 592,3 43711 8, 701 4, 5, 2, 2, 6, 69451 1, 0, 15109,2 101,4 17214,1 16974,5 2 866,5 125,2 3327,2 2657,4 12242,8 97,0 13886,9 14 317,1 81511 9, 0, 69704627531513748412 4, 456517321831,1 107,3 24506,5 22847,8 4874,1 113,7 5311,5 4672,7 16957,0 105,6 19195,0 18 175,1 11731 3, 0, 01102458277716324301 0, 490819812604,1 109,8 14930,8 13603,1 2463,0 116,3 2797,7 2405,8 10141,0 108,4 12133,1 11 197,3 6, 021510682019982460206192594181 0, 3, 10232,6 133,2 12607,4 9461,8 1952,5 240,6 2406,0 999,8 8280,1 120,6 10201,5 8 462,0 4, 4, 1, 0, 6, 6, 3, 9, 0, 1, 1, 8100,8 116,9 9712,4 8308,2 992,2 134,8 1168,0 866,7 7108,6 114,8 8544,4 7 441,5 8, 1, 755504187415328, 3, 4, 6, 447145,2 94,4 8069,5 8549,9 1634,8 83,2 1553,2 1867,4 5510,4 97,5 6516,3 6 682,5 1, 6, 0, 6, 1, 8, 54892890093141468223,1 104,6 9341,4 8930,0 859,2 85,4 781,2 914,6 7363,9 106,8 8560,2 8 015,4 2, 0, 0, 3, 9, 6, 7811881 2, 08511339482,6 103,3 10875,1 10525,6 1148,8 77,8 1166,3 1499,0 8333,7 107,6 9708,8 9 026,6 6, 125314193292983447010038051 4, 572312413203,3 122,4 15722,3 12841,6 3850,5 150,0 4467,0 2978,3 9352,9 114,1 11255,3 9 863,3 4, 220214099031270127415010171 5, 357610710962,0 130,7 13527,6 10353,6 1051,7 105,0 1267,4 1207,0 9910,3 134,0 12260,2 9 146,6 5, 9, 0, 2, 6, 9, 0, 4, 1, 8, 0, 8068,3 107,7 9386,7 8719,4 1142,0 102,7 1191,8 1160,1 6926,3 108,4 8195,0 7 559,3 9, 06431578598106211421049181 3, 17851529491,6 115,2 11788,5 10232,8 971,8 110,4 1144,2 1036,2 8519,8 115,7 10644,3 9 196,6

Estimates inter-governmental transfers

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 the calculationofinter-governmental Revenues, thatarenotincludedin

Estimates

Reports transfers ANALYSIS OFBUDGETEXECUTIONIN2010 for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009

Estimates General Fundrevenues:total

Reports for 2010

% of execution

Reports for 2009 APPENDIX B 125

Revenues, that are not included in Revenues included in the calculation of the calculation of inter-governmental General Fund revenues: total inter-governmental transfers transfers

Administrative units Oblast codes Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009 Estimates Reports for 2010 % of execution Reports for 2009

24 r Khotynka raion 18 984,1 18 619,1 98,1 17 354,0 2 191,8 2 457,0 112,1 2 146,8 21 175,9 21 076,0 99,5 19 500,7 Total for raion 24 vr 174 328,6 181 585,3 104,2 159 646,7 27 951,3 27 343,7 97,8 25 597,4 202 279,9 208 929,0 103,3 185 244,1 budgets Total for raion and 24 vmr 435 881,8 435 552,8 99,9 392 810,0 106 533,3 133 256,3 125,1 116 421,0 542 415,1 568 809,1 104,9 509 230,9 city budgets 24 о Oblast budget 151 628,5 162 026,8 106,9 144 990,6 1 737,8 2 308,4 132,8 846,0 153 366,3 164 335,2 107,2 145 836,6 Consolidated budget 24 v 587 510,3 597 579,5 101,7 537 800,6 108 271,1 135 564,8 125,2 117 267,0 695 781,4 733 144,3 105,4 655 067,6 of Chernivtsi oblast 25 m city Chernihiv 284 816,0 262 189,9 92,1 237 029,1 52 554,0 53 986,9 102,7 50 031,2 337 370,0 316 176,9 93,7 287 060,4 25 m city Nizhyn 45 093,3 47 960,7 106,4 42 603,8 8 567,8 7 673,4 89,6 7 350,1 53 661,1 55 634,0 103,7 49 953,9 25 m city Pryluky 61 659,4 66 266,0 107,5 61 485,7 6 362,0 6 650,9 104,5 7 375,3 68 021,4 72 917,0 107,2 68 861,0 25 vm Total for citybudgets 391 568,7 376 416,6 96,1 341 118,6 67 483,8 68 311,2 101,2 64 756,6 459 052,5 444 727,8 96,9 405 875,2 25 r Bakhmaty raion 27 484,0 27 321,2 99,4 24 577,7 3 396,2 3 271,0 96,3 2 715,7 30 880,2 30 592,3 99,1 27 293,4 25 r Bobrovytsa raion 18 109,3 19 269,7 106,4 16 239,7 2 585,4 2 738,7 105,9 2 021,1 20 694,7 22 008,4 106,3 18 260,8 25 r Borznianka raion 13 277,6 14 505,2 109,2 13 353,4 1 544,8 2 707,7 175,3 2 388,8 14 822,4 17 212,9 116,1 15 742,2 25 r Varvyny raion 13 945,7 15 052,1 107,9 12 594,4 3 640,3 3 199,7 87,9 2 512,7 17 586,0 18 251,9 103,8 15 107,1 25 r Horodniansk raion 12 550,5 12 909,7 102,9 11 068,1 1 589,3 2 043,7 128,6 1 712,1 14 139,8 14 953,4 105,8 12 780,3 25 r Ichniansk raion 17 096,6 17 188,9 100,5 14 746,7 2 088,5 1 719,2 82,3 1 571,1 19 185,1 18 908,1 98,6 16 317,8 25 r Kozeletsk raion 24 774,3 26 636,6 107,5 23 361,4 2 673,6 2 357,6 88,2 1 882,5 27 447,9 28 994,2 105,6 25 243,9 25 r Koropy raion 9 378,4 9 578,2 102,1 8 160,0 1 188,1 1 428,6 120,2 880,5 10 566,5 11 006,8 104,2 9 040,5 25 r Koriukivka raion 15 254,2 17 801,4 116,7 14 351,2 2 142,5 2 708,9 126,4 1 936,2 17 396,7 20 510,3 117,9 16 287,4 25 r Kulykive raion 6 732,8 7 554,1 112,2 6 046,6 861,7 780,0 90,5 618,9 7 594,5 8 334,1 109,7 6 665,6 25 r Mensk raion 18 118,8 18 341,7 101,2 16 258,9 1 902,4 2 241,0 117,8 2 083,9 20 021,2 20 582,8 102,8 18 342,8 25 r Nizhyn raion 6 696,2 8 442,3 126,1 6 776,7 987,7 1 550,9 157,0 1 073,9 7 683,9 9 993,2 130,1 7 850,5 Novhorod-Siverskyi 25 r 13 827,5 13 668,8 98,9 12 247,7 1 943,2 2 322,3 119,5 2 184,7 15 770,7 15 991,1 101,4 14 432,4 raion 25 r Nosivka raion 13 276,8 15 934,6 120,0 12 879,2 1 554,0 1 911,9 123,0 1 213,2 14 830,8 17 846,6 120,3 14 092,4 25 r Pryluky raion 14 131,9 16 022,8 113,4 14 347,6 3 350,0 3 001,5 89,6 2 341,7 17 481,9 19 024,3 108,8 16 689,3 25 r Ripkynka raion 12 816,1 13 317,8 103,9 11 325,2 2 004,3 1 991,2 99,3 1 809,2 14 820,4 15 309,0 103,3 13 134,4 25 r Semenivka raion 8 172,9 9 162,1 112,1 7 517,7 857,3 1 813,0 211,5 1 346,4 9 030,2 10 975,1 121,5 8 864,1 25 r Sosnianka raion 8 169,7 9 075,3 111,1 7 232,4 867,7 732,2 84,4 707,4 9 037,4 9 807,5 108,5 7 939,8 25 r Sribniansk raion 5 423,6 5 492,3 101,3 4 547,0 1 154,2 1 550,6 134,3 1 336,2 6 577,8 7 042,9 107,1 5 883,1 25 r Talalaiv raion 7 575,5 7 923,0 104,6 6 760,6 993,2 1 404,2 141,4 1 274,2 8 568,7 9 327,3 108,9 8 034,9 25 r Chernihiv raion 21 374,4 23 142,4 108,3 19 182,2 2 999,5 1 931,6 64,4 2 092,6 24 373,9 25 074,0 102,9 21 274,8 25 r Schorsivka raion 11 634,1 12 099,6 104,0 10 475,7 1 152,7 928,5 80,6 945,1 12 786,8 13 028,1 101,9 11 420,8 Total for raion 25 vr 299 820,9 320 440,1 106,9 274 050,3 41 476,6 44 334,1 106,9 36 648,1 341 297,5 364 774,2 106,9 310 698,5 budgets Total for raion and 25 vmr 691 389,6 696 856,7 100,8 615 169,0 108 960,4 112 645,3 103,4 101 404,7 800 350,0 809 502,0 101,1 716 573,7 city budgets 25 о Oblast budget 243 074,2 245 786,4 101,1 216 019,2 6 449,1 7 929,7 123,0 5 222,1 249 523,3 253 716,1 101,7 221 241,3 Consolidated budget 25 v 934 463,8 942 643,1 100,9 831 188,1 115 409,5 120 575,0 104,5 106 626,8 1 049 873,3 1 063 218,1 101,3 937 815,0 of Chernihiv oblast Consolidated budget 26 v 11 915 973,9 10 643 303,0 89,3 9 828 289,9 2 619 679,4 2 207 878,8 84,3 2 084 921,9 14 535 653,3 12 851 181,8 88,4 11 913 211,9 of city Kyiv Consolidated budget 27 v 532 614,1 543 520,8 102,0 481 167,3 135 929,8 162 301,9 119,4 145 559,1 668 543,9 705 822,7 105,6 626 726,4 of city Sevastopol Total for -vadministrative unit 56 920 182,5 57 579 160,1 101,2 50 276 482,4 10 223 666,6 10 066 073,0 98,5 9 355 007,7 67 143 849,1 67 645 233,1 100,7 59 631 490,1 budget 126 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Appendix C Data on the Status of Interbudgetary Settlements between the State Budget to Local Budgets in 2010 Hr thousand

Funds transferred from local budgets Equalization grant to the State budget

Name of oblast’s consolidated budget Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, % Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, %

AR of Crimea 1 533 893,6 1 533 893,6 100,0% - - -

Vinnytsya Oblast 2 172 731,7 2 172 731,7 100,0% 20 484,8 20 484,8 100,0%

Volyn Oblast 1 614 080,4 1 614 080,4 100,0% - - -

Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 1 649 652,6 1 649 652,6 100,0% 124 350,3 117 712,5 94,7%

Donetsk Oblast 2 413 597,9 2 413 597,9 100,0% 170 300,2 170 300,2 100,0%

Zhytomyr Oblast 1 763 598,5 1 763 598,5 100,0% - - -

Zakarpattya Oblast 2 023 905,4 2 023 905,4 100,0% 7 683,6 7 683,6 100,0%

Zaporizhzhya Oblast 1 368 597,2 1 368 597,2 100,0% 95 579,6 95 579,6 100,0%

Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 2 047 817,4 2 047 817,4 100,0% - - -

Kyiv Oblast 1 344 038,5 1 344 038,5 100,0% 114 876,1 109 783,5 95,6%

Kirovohrad Oblast 1 327 292,7 1 327 292,7 100,0% 7 769,9 7 769,9 100,0%

Luhansk Oblast 1 954 346,5 1 954 346,5 100,0% 1 688,7 1 688,7 100,0%

Lviv Oblast 3 025 718,0 3 025 718,0 100,0% - - -

Mykolaiv Oblast 1 351 897,5 1 351 897,5 100,0% 26 278,8 26 278,8 100,0%

Odesa Oblast 2 057 863,8 2 057 863,8 100,0% 92 467,6 92 467,6 100,0%

Poltava Oblast 1 378 545,7 1 378 545,7 100,0% - - -

Rivne Oblast 1 755 959,5 1 755 959,5 100,0% 15 354,8 15 354,8 100,0%

Sumy Oblast 1 244 402,4 1 244 402,4 100,0% 1 941,5 1 941,5 100,0%

Ternopil Oblast 1 682 336,4 1 682 257,9 100,0% - - -

Kharkiv Oblast 2 067 098,5 2 067 098,5 100,0% - - -

Kherson Oblast 1 493 785,4 1 493 785,4 100,0% - - -

Khmelnytskyi Oblast 1 917 275,3 1 917 275,3 100,0% 10 438,3 10 438,3 100,0%

Cherkasy Oblast 1 547 399,7 1 547 399,7 100,0% - - -

Chernivtsi Oblast 1 359 554,7 1 359 554,7 100,0% - - -

Chernihiv Oblast 1 400 557,1 1 400 557,1 100,0% - - -

City of Kyiv - - - 6 400 674,8 5 721 320,7 89,4%

City of Sevastopol 144 512,6 144 512,6 100,0% - - -

Total 43 640 459,0 43 640 380,5 100,0% 7 089 889,0 6 398 804,6 90,3% APPENDIX C 127

Subvention for providing preferences and housing Subvention for providing preferences and subsidies to the population as payment for electric housing subsidies to the population for power, natural gas, heat, water supply and purchasing solid and liquid household fuel and sewage services, rent, removal of solid and liquid liquefied gas (KD 41031000) waste (KD 41030800)

Name of oblast’s consolidated budget Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, % Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, %

AR of Crimea 159 002,5 149 684,8 94,1% 14 159,0 14 159,0 100,0%

Vinnytsya Oblast 152 703,1 152 623,2 99,9% 62 237,3 51 727,3 83,1%

Volyn Oblast 98 111,2 98 690,6 100,6% 23 281,7 20 948,9 90,0%

Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 459 305,7 438 894,8 95,6% 27 331,5 17 446,7 63,8%

Donetsk Oblast 596 215,0 596 091,4 100,0% 53 299,6 44 615,7 83,7%

Zhytomyr Oblast 143 989,4 132 633,0 92,1% 53 876,7 39 607,5 73,5%

Zakarpattya Oblast 66 429,1 66 231,9 99,7% 7 838,3 7 786,6 99,3%

Zaporizhzhya Oblast 224 034,2 207 610,6 92,7% 16 263,2 13 098,0 80,5%

Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 131 911,4 131 711,2 99,8% 9 530,0 9 087,0 95,4%

Kyiv Oblast 307 008,7 298 374,7 97,2% 19 244,9 12 487,1 64,9%

Kirovohrad Oblast 100 246,4 97 767,0 97,5% 30 909,0 26 229,5 84,9%

Luhansk Oblast 260 564,9 245 396,8 94,2% 21 590,5 13 819,8 64,0%

Lviv Oblast 281 952,3 277 543,7 98,4% 15 867,8 14 691,8 92,6%

Mykolaiv Oblast 106 215,2 97 504,4 91,8% 11 893,7 11 683,7 98,2%

Odesa Oblast 195 822,9 192 800,4 98,5% 25 279,7 23 006,1 91,0%

Poltava Oblast 225 280,5 224 842,7 99,8% 10 015,6 8 484,5 84,7%

Rivne Oblast 106 762,8 106 306,1 99,6% 37 110,2 30 101,1 81,1%

Sumy Oblast 161 128,0 160 178,3 99,4% 20 964,1 19 417,5 92,6%

Ternopil Oblast 112 061,7 111 114,0 99,2% 10 566,9 7 713,0 73,0%

Kharkiv Oblast 433 339,9 433 339,7 100,0% 21 434,9 13 976,4 65,2%

Kherson Oblast 92 692,9 79 215,6 85,5% 17 011,9 16 004,3 94,1%

Khmelnytskyi Oblast 150 534,4 150 093,6 99,7% 24 778,0 20 373,8 82,2%

Cherkasy Oblast 169 574,0 166 772,9 98,3% 33 083,8 27 430,0 82,9%

Chernivtsi Oblast 55 499,7 52 220,5 94,1% 15 136,0 10 366,9 68,5%

Chernihiv Oblast 155 229,4 147 520,9 95,0% 29 116,8 20 989,2 72,1%

City of Kyiv 295 850,5 274 161,7 92,7% 595,5 136,2 22,9%

City of Sevastopol 43 595,7 41 990,2 96,3% 1 091,9 712,3 65,2%

Total 5 285 061,4 5 131 314,8 97,1% 613 508,5 496 099,9 80,9% 128 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

Subvention for providing preferences in telecommunications services and other preferences stipulated by law (except preferences for providing medicines, Subvention for paying allowances to families with prosthetic dentistry, payment for electric children, low-income families, persons disabled power, natural and liquefied gas for household since childhood, disabled children, and for purposes, solid and liquid household fuel, temporary State support for children heat, water supply and removal services, rent, (КD 41030600) removal of solid and liquid household waste) Name of oblast’s and compensation for preferential fares for consolidated budget certain citizen categories (KD 41030900) Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, % Allocated by apportionment for 2010 Actual at the end of 2010 2010 apportionment execution, %

AR of Crimea 77 309,1 77 013,7 99,6% 1 050 238,8 1 038 465,1 98,9%

Vinnytsya Oblast 50 002,9 44 825,4 89,6% 851 834,3 845 535,2 99,3%

Volyn Oblast 27 322,9 26 791,7 98,1% 806 164,8 805 833,7 100,0%

Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 131 396,9 115 268,6 87,7% 1 543 090,0 1 534 529,2 99,4%

Donetsk Oblast 179 074,7 166 625,2 93,0% 1 827 933,8 1 819 964,3 99,6%

Zhytomyr Oblast 39 088,9 38 660,3 98,9% 748 111,1 741 967,7 99,2%

Zakarpattya Oblast 27 000,7 20 908,0 77,4% 883 506,5 882 235,4 99,9%

Zaporizhzhya Oblast 65 845,9 63 308,3 96,1% 823 293,7 812 719,1 98,7%

Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 35 501,8 29 593,9 83,4% 948 966,7 941 959,0 99,3%

Kyiv Oblast 52 170,2 43 748,2 83,9% 812 733,6 800 269,9 98,5%

Kirovohrad Oblast 30 195,1 27 729,4 91,8% 541 497,3 536 588,7 99,1%

Luhansk Oblast 72 662,3 72 367,3 99,6% 911 546,8 902 179,2 99,0%

Lviv Oblast 66 282,0 61 978,7 93,5% 1 419 626,3 1 417 691,5 99,9%

Mykolaiv Oblast 31 622,0 29 874,2 94,5% 651 039,3 637 801,4 98,0%

Odesa Oblast 62 710,8 62 701,7 100,0% 1 226 068,4 1 213 775,8 99,0%

Poltava Oblast 44 659,9 39 176,4 87,7% 663 237,3 652 391,2 98,4%

Rivne Oblast 29 126,8 24 226,7 83,2% 862 046,2 856 700,3 99,4%

Sumy Oblast 35 053,5 28 851,4 82,3% 520 857,9 515 425,5 99,0%

Ternopil Oblast 29 923,7 23 859,7 79,7% 638 054,7 632 491,4 99,1%

Kharkiv Oblast 91 009,6 90 900,4 99,9% 1 132 452,3 1 120 958,3 99,0%

Kherson Oblast 29 437,0 23 643,2 80,3% 587 506,3 585 914,5 99,7%

Khmelnytskyi Oblast 40 143,4 39 313,8 97,9% 741 572,9 733 556,6 98,9%

Cherkasy Oblast 40 703,8 36 081,3 88,6% 610 934,1 605 979,8 99,2%

Chernivtsi Oblast 22 549,2 16 829,3 74,6% 554 808,8 553 810,6 99,8%

Chernihiv Oblast 36 109,6 33 242,1 92,1% 494 484,0 488 925,9 98,9%

City of Kyiv 178 099,4 178 066,9 100,0% 936 136,2 916 208,2 97,9%

City of Sevastopol 14 637,9 13 138,8 89,8% 153 678,7 149 680,5 97,4%

Total 1 539 640,0 1 428 724,8 92,8% 22 941 420,8 22 743 558,0 99,1% APPENDIX D 129

Appendix D The Status of Transfer of State Budget Subventions to Local Budgets in 2010 Hr thousand General Fund Special Fund Total Description Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual Subvention for paying allowances to families with children, low- income families, persons disabled 22 939 263,70 22 743 558,05 0,00 0,00 22 939 263,70 22 743 558,05 since childhood, disabled children, and for temporary State support for children Subvention for providing preferences and housing subsidies to the population as payment for electric power, natural gas, heat, 1 680 024,08 1 660 414,81 3 604 367,00 3 470 899,97 5 284 391,08 5 131 314,78 water supply and sewage services, rent, removal of solid and liquid waste Subvention for providing preferences in telecommunications services and other preferences stipulated by law (except preferences for providing medicines, prosthetic dentistry, payment for electric power, natural and liquefied gas for 1 539 640,00 1 428 724,84 0,00 0,00 1 539 640,00 1 428 724,84 household purposes, solid and liquid household fuel, heat, water supply and removal services, rent, removal of solid and liquid household waste) and compensation for preferential fares for certain citizen categories Subvention for providing preferences and housing subsidies to the population for purchasing 613 508,50 496 099,92 0,00 0,00 613 508,50 496 099,92 solid and liquid household fuel and liquefied gas State budget subvention to the budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for paying the cost of the electric power used for filling in the Mizhhirne water 0,00 0,00 24 000,00 24 000,00 24 000,00 24 000,00 reservoir with water in 2010, and for repaying the accounts payable for the electric power used for this purpose in 2008-2009 State budget subvention to local budgets to compensate for the loss of income due to stationing of the Russian Federation’s Black 109 644,40 109 644,40 0,00 0,00 109 644,40 109 644,40 Sea Fleet in the territories of cities of Sevastopol and Feodosiya, and urban-type settlement Gvardiyske, Simferopol Rayon State budget subvention to the Zhovti Vody city budget for implementation of actions intended 3 500,00 3 500,00 0,00 0,00 3 500,00 3 500,00 for the radiation and social protection of the population of Zhovti Vody State budget subvention to the Slavutych city budget for implementation of actions intended for prevention of accidents and 0,00 0,00 2 400 000,00 0,00 2 400 000,00 0,00 technogeneous catastrophes in the housing and communal services sector of the city of Slavutych State budget subvention to the Kyiv Oblast budget for socioeconomic development, including for the 85 172,70 72 981,95 0,00 0,00 85 172,70 72 981,95 cities of Bucha and Irpin’, and the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyi Rayon State budget subvention to the Zaporizhya city budget for building 50 000,00 39 372,85 200 000,00 197 767,51 250 000,00 237 140,37 a highway bridge across the Dnipro River in the city of Zaporizhya 130 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010

General Fund Special Fund Total Description Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual State budget subvention to the Donetsk Oblast budget for medical treatment of disabled spinal 3 000,00 3 000,00 0,00 0,00 3 000,00 3 000,00 patients at the Donetsk Oblast Hospital of Medical Rehabilitation State budget subvention to local budgets for implementing the measures of socioeconomic development of the regions in the 0,00 0,00 279 219,25 227 830,67 279 219,25 227 830,67 areas assigned to the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction of Ukraine State budget subvention to local budgets for the procurement of consumables and medical 117 660,00 73 191,21 60 000,00 60 000,00 177 660,00 133 191,21 equipment for healthcare institutions State budget subvention to local budgets for financing renovation of the premises of the directorates of labor and social protection of executive bodies of city councils (of republican-significance cities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and oblast-significance 0,00 0,00 47 423,00 23 091,96 47 423,00 23 091,96 cities), Kyiv and Sevastopol district councils, and other city district councils for conducting the activities of implementation of the project «Improving the System of Social Assistance» carried out jointly with the World Bank State budget subvention to local budgets for implementation of 480 924,58 376 522,57 1 315 232,57 1 284 773,90 1 796 157,15 1 661 296,46 the activities of socioeconomic development of the regions State budget subvention to local budgets for the development of socioeconomic sphere of the city of Sevastopol and other localities, 0,00 0,00 47 598,54 34 329,87 47 598,54 34 329,87 where the military units of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet are stationed in the territory of Ukraine State budget subvention to the Kalush city budget for 30 000,00 29 992,82 0,00 0,00 30 000,00 29 992,82 socioeconomic development State budget subvention to local budgets for the completion of renovation works at the institutions, 15 025,70 7 035,92 0,00 0,00 15 025,70 7 035,92 which are providing social services to children and youth, and the creation of which started in 2007 State budget subvention to local budgets for financing the activities of socioeconomic compensation of 0,00 0,00 100 116,40 65 371,71 100 116,40 65 371,71 the risks to the populations living in the monitored areas State budget subvention to the city budget of Kurakhove, Donetsk 0,00 0,00 3 000,00 3 000,00 3 000,00 3 000,00 Oblast, for building a Cathedral of Our Lady State budget subvention to local budgets for paying out State social allowances for orphaned children and children left without parental care, cash support to carer parents 275 086,20 237 589,79 0,00 0,00 275 086,20 237 589,79 and foster parents for the provision of social services in family-type children’s homes and foster families based on the «money follows the child» principle State budget subvention to local budgets for financing in 2010 of the winning programs of the 2009 25 000,00 15 905,72 0,00 0,00 25 000,00 15 905,72 All-Ukrainian Competition of Local Government Development Projects and Programs APPENDIX D 131

General Fund Special Fund Total Description Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual State budget subvention to local budgets for repaying the accounts payable registered by State Treasury bodies as financial obligations as of 1 January 2010, under the budget program “State 3 066,04 2 501,76 0,00 0,00 3 066,04 2 501,76 budget subvention to local budgets for funding in 2009 the winning programs of the 2008 All-Ukrainian Competition of Projects and Programs of Local Government Development State budget subvention to local budgets for conducting the election of deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of the 1 033 520,20 836 903,52 0,00 0,00 1 033 520,20 836 903,52 Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local councils, and the village, settlement, and city mayors State budget subvention to the Kyiv city budget for improving the technical condition of the Avangard 15 000,00 14 982,80 0,00 0,00 15 000,00 14 982,80 Kyiv City Trade Union Training and Sports Center for Children and Youth Enterprise Subvention from the State budget to the Lviv city budget for implementation of measures 1 600,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1 600,00 0,00 intended for providing a 24-hour water service in the city of Lviv Subventions total 29 020 636,10 28 151 922,92 8 080 956,76 5 391 065,60 37 101 592,86 33 542 988,52 132 ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION IN 2010