Transcript:
Dmitry Medvedev: Colleagues, friends, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Siberia on the map of global growth. I believe that the answer to the question of how to develop Siberia lies in its geographical location and geostrategic capabilities. All this talk that we can’t develop anything without a plan is, in my opinion, purely academic. It is unlikely that 100 or 200 years ago there was a comprehensive plan for the development of Siberia, but somehow we were developing it. Speaking at the plenary session today, I called upon everyone to go from talking about programmes to doing the real work. I believe this is the right approach to take.
As for the future, we should discuss today what policies, with regard to developing the Siberian region, we should focus on in the coming years, and which documents should be adopted, if need be. By the way I’m not sure that 20 years from now we will still be talking about Siberia in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. Hopefully, by that time the Kyoto Protocol will become inoperative. Since it’s already not of much use, perhaps we won’t need it much in the future, either. What we really need is a truly global treaty on climate. But in order to have it signed, we need not only Russia and the EU to be ready to sign it, but many other countries as well.
Certainly, what matters most is the all-round strengthening of the region’s innovation potential, and the establishment of territorial innovative clusters and technological platforms. I mentioned all this in my address to the plenary meeting. I am glad to see strides in this direction, though we can surely do better. However, there have been some good steps, such as the presence of major companies, and the formation of the Future Medicine technological platforms based on the Siberian State Medical University and the National Satellite Information System on the basis of the Academician Reshetnyov Satellite Information Systems.
Advanced mineral processing is another field of development, and I consider it to be the most important. This is certainly the region’s main duty. It concerns the existing deposits and ones still to be discovered – oil, gas and coal, non-ferrous and rare metals, timber, huge water resources and, of course, farming. Meanwhile, Siberia is not using its full agricultural potential, and livestock breeding and the food industry, particularly fish canning, leave ample room for progress.
The third topic we discussed at the plenary meeting today concerns infrastructure development. None of the industries we mentioned have any chance of developing without upgraded transport. We need the latest mechanisms of unifying regional potentials, cooperation between the state and the business community – in a word, we need a comprehensive approach to the issue. In this sense, we are only making the first steps. All too often, the state-private partnership is mere talk. The state and the business community should meet each other halfway, and their effective partnership is among our principal goals for the years to come.
The implementation of Siberia’s transnational potential is also worth mentioning, because Siberia is a bridge between Russia and its trade and production partners abroad. This potential also depends on transport. Siberian sea and air ports must become prominent in freight shipments between Europe and Asia, and later, between Europe, Asia and the Americas. To meet this target, we must develop and use available facilities – the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur railways and the Arctic Sea Route. We have established the Customs Union and are building the United Economic Space, and Siberia’s importance cannot be overestimated in this regard.
Siberia has no treasure more precious than its workforce. The entire intellectual potential of this fabulously rich land must be fully utilised. If we promote and implement this potential, we will be able to develop all the other potentials of Siberia, and will give it a worthy place on the global growth map.
<…>
Dmitry Medvedev’s commentary on the roundtable discussions
I think it is obvious that Siberia needs greater independence and more vigorous competition for development. We have nothing to fear. Our ancestors opened up Siberia because they had courage. As for the calls to enhance the regions’ rights and decentralise authority, I will repeat what I said at the plenary meeting: I approve of them but we should not forget the current political practice. When I invite regional governors, I ask them what new duties they would like to assume – and they are reluctant to take any. You are well aware of this, colleagues, because authority means responsibilities and headaches, especially when they don’t go together with sources of income. That is why the process is much slower than we like – but still, it must go on.
Do we need state corporations? I don’t think we need them from the ideological point of view, because creating them leads us into a blind alley. It’s a Soviet method, in a sense, to solve all problems. However, we need certain tools. I don’t think they should take the form of state corporations but, I reiterate, Siberia and the Far East need special development institutions due to Russia’s specific features.
Do we need expensive or low-cost projects? I think the answer is clear: we need both. They are interdependent, and ambitious projects bring about low-cost ones in their wake. Huge projects make no sense without small ones. Do we need super-expensive projects for the sake of prestige? This matter requires some thought – we should determine what to start with. It's clear that mega projects should be launched only after we meet the essential public needs. New housing and the elimination of decrepit buildings is our basic goal. This is far more important than anything else. I fully agree with Mr Inozemtsev on this point (Vladislav Inozemtsev, the head of the Centre for the Studies of Post-Industrial Society).
As for new and old strategies, they must be effective, above all. When we find that previously endorsed strategic documents are outdated, we must think about updating them or drawing up new ones. The Government is open to all initiatives in this sphere and will willingly cooperate with the expert and business communities, and certainly with the governors.
As for our orientation on foreign partners, we should cooperate with them all and receive the greatest possible investment from them. None of us has ever considered China our sole partner. There are South Korea, Vietnam and the Asia-Pacific region. Objective reality shows that deals are made with the biggest bidders. Regrettably, the scope of Russia's cooperation with Japan is incomparably smaller than what we have with China. Our partners should pay attention to this, too.
There are topical issues that we discuss again and again with businesspeople, particularly loan interest rates, the efficiency of regional banks, and tariff reduction. In principle, Mr Deripaska (Oleg Deripaska, Rusal CEO) is right on almost every point. At any rate, it is an essential goal to reduce energy losses on the grids and build a new energy-saving economy. If we manage, we will dramatically change the situation in Siberia and all over Russia. We must address this problem. This requires special aspects like a ban on joint energy generation on grids. We will certainly consider them separately.
As far as long-term taxation decisions are concerned, I think Mr Kuznetsov (Lev Kuznetsov, Krasnoyarsk Territory Governor) and our other colleagues are correct. Our decisions should be understood by investors. They must be lasting rather than fluctuating with the centre’s policies. These decisions must be announced to investors for them to find their medium-term bearings.
Our colleagues spoke about Siberia’s pros and cons, and how we should develop it. That was a very interesting discussion. I would like to stress that processing industries should be developed nationwide, including in Siberia, regardless of raw material prices and trends. I will not present any economic arguments of this point because they are obvious to everyone.
Should we promote migration from Russia’s European part to Siberia? It depends. The population of Siberia and the Russian Far East has dwindled since the Soviet era, though it has stabilised now. Besides, the number of jobs is bloated beyond reason in Russia. A far smaller number of people manage a similar amount of administrative, production and economic duties in other countries (Alaska was quoted as a conspicuous example here). We should draw on the world experience to improve our decision-making in this field.
Mr Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution warned us about the dangers of a state-private partnership. But then, this kind of partnership isn’t the only pebble on the beach. We can do without it just as well. The state isn’t out to get involved in every business. Some officials would like it to get a commanding position or line their pockets, but the state itself doesn’t need it. However, that’s the only way to do something new, and that’s why we start such partnerships in Siberia and nationwide. We will breathe a sigh of relief as soon as we can get on without them. We will be happy to see private companies build railways, motorways and services unaided. There are no such companies meanwhile, so state-private partnerships will last for some more time, to all appearances. I wish you all productive discussions of this topical issue. Thank you for your invitation. Goodbye!