Meeting with Deputy Prime Ministers: forecast for Russia’s development in science and technology up to 2030; credit rating of Russian regions; monitoring the fulfilment of presidential and government instructions.
Dmitry Medvedev’s introductory remarks
Transcript:
Meeting with deputy prime ministers
Dmitry Medvedev: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to discuss several current issues which I consider important. In early January, I approved the forecast for Russia’s development in science and technology up to 2030. It took several years to complete this rather serious and large-scale work. We made use of both Russian and foreign experience. A vast number of experts, almost 2,000 experts from many countries, were involved in compiling this forecast. I hope that it will serve the country well.
On the whole, its main provisions are included in the national socioeconomic development forecast up to 2030, which was approved in March 2013. The forecast should serve as a foundation for drafting strategies and innovation programmes of major Russian companies. And, of course, those priorities which have been set forth by us over the past few years are still in place. These include energy efficiency, information technology, space exploration, transport and biomedicine. Anyway, these are, in effect, the key factors of national economic development over the next few decades. Apart from being a set of indicators, this document is also a forecast for compiling various plans, rather than just a list of goals. Ms Golodets (addressing Olga Golodets), please tell us what you and your colleagues plan to do in order to achieve these goals.
Olga Golodets: Mr Medvedev, ladies and gentlemen.
The forecast singles out all the main priorities for the development and implementation of research work. This includes the following areas: information and communications technologies; biological engineering; medicine and healthcare; new materials and nanotechnology; frugal use of natural resources; transport, space exploration, energy efficiency and energy saving technologies.
Virtually all the scientists who were involved in compiling this forecast agreed over these particular areas and priorities.
It is very important that various research budgets which currently receive funding (I would like to remind you that the country now spends 700 billion roubles annually, including 360 billion roubles’ worth of federal budget funding, on fundamental research) … The subsequent issue of research allocations will now be accompanied by organisational efforts. Our new agency, the Federal Agency for Scientific Organisations, also focuses on this issue and undertakes to organise research projects, as will leading institutions in various areas which were listed above.
A strategy and specific plans will be drafted in order to fulfill the forecast. We have already started drafting the plans, which will be submitted to the Government for approval in the first quarter of 2014. We hope that this programme will really correspond to our goals and also increase research allocations.
I would like to remind you that state financing of research is to increase from 1.2% of the GDP to 3% by 2030, and this research programme should be complemented by a meaningful agenda, which we look forward to and which we will presently set out.
Dmitry Medvedev: Strictly speaking, the priorities you and I just mentioned are not something we came up with this year, but rather, we have been working on them for a couple of years now, including within the commission on economic modernisation, so they are nothing new. It only means that these priority lines of work are the most important, and we will continue focusing our efforts on them.
But this does not mean, of course, that the development of other fields of science, including fundamental science, will stop. The idea is that in order to develop both fundamental and applied science, it is essential that we have a set of aims, so we have included them into the programme.
Now let us turn to another issue, which has to do with regional financing. As the level of financing varies from region to region, I have approved the requirements for the minimum level of credit rating of the Russian regions. Under the current general rule, a region cannot assume foreign credit if its credit rating falls short of a certain standard set by the Government. This credit rating must be confirmed by at least two international agencies. All in all, we are interested in allowing our successful regions, the high credit ratings of which have been confirmed, to enter the international credit market, so that they can attract international investment for their projects and we can avoid repeating the pre-2000 scenario when Russia was held liable for debt incurred by its regions. That situation is unacceptable. Mr Shuvalov, (addressing Igor Shuvalov) please give some details on how this resolution will be implemented.
Igor Shuvalov: Mr Medvedev, the resolution was developed by the Ministry of Finance on your instruction in order to optimise the budget legislation and improve the budget system of the Russia Federation. By 2000 the external debt incurred by Russian regions had reached 1.5% of the GDP. At the time, this level of debt was considered significantly dangerous. It was deemed reasonable to impose a ban on external loans by the Russian regions. However, by 2013 the Russian regions’ external debt had equaled 0.03 of 1% of the GDP. At the same time, over the last decade many regions have significantly changed in terms of their economies, turning into major economic systems, which is especially true of Moscow and St. Petersburg. As a result, the Ministry of Finance has set out a very strict procedure for Russian regions to gain access to external financing, including for infrastructure development. But we are certain that this procedure will ensure that our financial system will not assume additional risks and that financing for certain projects will be found. What does this procedure consist of?
According to the criteria that are spelled out in the budget law, if any particular region meets these criteria and plans to gain access to foreign markets, it should obtain a rating from two international rating agencies that should not be lower than...
Dmitry Medvedev: The sovereign rating.
Igor Shuvalov: Yes, that of Russia. Only then should they be entitled to access the lending market and receive an appropriate amount of funds. So far (these are the data provided by the Ministry of Finance), there are only two regions that meet such requirements and have the appropriate ratings: Moscow and St Petersburg. Five other regions could hypothetically participate in such a programme.
The procedure is fairly strict, and it doesn’t allow many regions immediate access to the external assistance programmes. First and foremost, we must be confident that these regions will pursue a responsible borrowing policy. The Ministry of Finance will oversee this process. Three to four years from now, we may have to revise these requirements. But first we have to see how this procedure works. Again, the procedure is very tough. Your instructions in this area have been fully complied with.
Dmitry Medvedev: Good.
I think it's quite a fair model, because parts should make a whole, and it’s not good when the credit rating of individual regions is inferior to the sovereign rating. We haven’t resorted to this instrument in the last 13 years. If we decide to go ahead with it, then we should be aware of the responsibilities assumed by the regions when they resort to this kind of borrowing. Let's see how it will play out. The situation has to be monitored. Some time later, just like you said, we will sit down and discuss what we should be doing next under such programmes.
Another monitoring-related issue has to do with monitoring compliance with the presidential and governmental directives. Compliance standards are a key factor behind the effectiveness of our work. We regularly analyse the situation. There are preliminary data about directives issued from 2010 to 2013, a period that covers two election cycles. Overall, the compliance standards on the available data have improved. However, we still need to monitor not only formal compliance with the directives and the time it takes to fulfill them, but also the content of the work, which, of course, is a fairly difficult task. Mr Prikhodko, what has been done and what else do you plan to do at the Government Executive Office, which is responsible for this work?
Sergei Prikhodko: Mr Medvedev, the Government Executive Office strives to conduct systemic work as it monitors compliance with the presidential orders, the executive orders issued in May, your orders, resolutions and directives of the Government, the Constitutional Court rulings and the implementation of the provisions of federal laws. We also want this work to be based on real imperatives of the Russian economy and to fit into the general guidelines for its modernisation. Indeed, we have managed to achieve major progress in improving compliance standards of federal executive bodies.
In some cases, this required taking disciplinary measures with regard to the directors of individual ministries and departments. We will continue this work. It is built on the system-wide planned approach. In conjunction with deputy prime ministers, we regularly approve corresponding plans, but, as you have rightly pointed out, this is not what we should focus on.
Most importantly, the monitoring activity should not only provide stimulus, but should deal with issues of quality and should focus on the content of the Government regulations. We will continue to strive to make this work systematic and to the point.
Dmitry Medvedev: Yes, by virtue of my office, I receive all the reports that you submit to the President and the reports that you, as deputy prime ministers, submit to me as Prime Minister regarding the fulfillment of my orders. In my opinion, they have become less substantive. My judgment is based on certain reports that I received in my previous office when reports were limited to three or four sentences saying that a directive was fulfilled or asking to extend the deadline. We must abandon this practice. We no longer provide extensions for the execution the presidential and governmental directives. The reports must be meaningful, which is what I want you to focus on as Government leaders.
<…>
