From the transcript:
Alexei Ulyukayev: The current annual meeting of the Foreign Investment Advisory Council was preceded by intensive work during the past year. We carried out the relevant instructions made at the last meeting.
Last year, there was much emotional discussion about sanctions, how to adapt to them, how to separate politics from the economy. The first shock is gone, and now everyone understands proper ways to work. Investments are being made, and foreign companies continue to operate in Russia; so we focused on combining the import substitution policy with active work of foreign investors. We also discussed how to ensure legal protection, what it means to be a national producer and how to receive this status. Also discussed were the extent to which production was localized, and the possibility of using localised production lines in the context of legislation on state purchases. The 44th and 223rd federal laws also came up.
There is the traditional issue of the various kinds of non-tax burdens that primarily concern legislation on the protection of nature, disposal of solid waste and water supply – requirements on water quality. We found mutually acceptable decisions on the majority of issues. They suit our partners, including decisions on suspending requirements. This applies to the requirements on veterinary certificates that have been suspended until 2018 and requirements on the protection of nature that have been put off until 2019.
We also discussed issues related to developing the structure of the Russian economy, in part, small and medium-sized companies and their connection with the activities of global investors, the problems of ensuring financial support of economic growth and the like.
We did not discuss territorial issues, such as Crimea, with the exception of some specific cases involving the companies working in particular regions.
Most investment banks analysts and rating agencies share their opinions on our macroeconomic situation, the national debt, the budget and prospects of reducing its deficit, a policy of maintaining a floating exchange rate and inflation targeting, and fluctuations of key economic indicators. If we look at the forecast for socioeconomic development in 2016, we’ll see that we account for almost the same indicators as rating agencies. The difference is literally in tenths of a percent, and in some cases rating agencies even give more optimistic forecasts than we do for this year. So we expect Fitch to confirm our ratings. Russia’s current ratings are below the actual condition of its economy and the actual possibility of fulfilling its commitments on contracts, obligations and loans. However, our colleagues from rating agencies will likely need some time to accept this reality. I think this will happen in 2016.
