How to decipher PPP

State and business in search of a model of cooperation

Will public-private partnership (PPP) become a real tool that will help economic growth, increase investment, update infrastructure, and implement new projects - the topic of the round table in the editorial office of Vremya Novostei. It was attended by Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Development Bank - Vnesheconombank Sergei VASILIEV, Director of the Center for Strategic Research of the Bank of Moscow Alexey VEDEV and Director of the Institute for Regional Development Bulat STOLYAROV. The round table was moderated by Vremya Novostey editor-in-chief Vladimir GUREVICH.

Gurevich: The topic of this “round table” seems “narrow” only at first glance. In fact, behind it are trillions of rubles, huge needs and no less interests, public and commercial . The topic is not only ripe, it is in full swing. The state now has money and is actively expanding the economy. This raises a lot of questions, as well as criticism and concerns. But at least everyone agrees: there are several key areas (among the most obvious is infrastructure) where active government involvement is not just desirable, but necessary. In some cases it enters the market itself, in others it must create conditions for it to develop. How does it interact with those who work in the market, is partnership possible between them? Not forced, but mutually beneficial. PPP is not a new thing in the world, in Russia they have been talking about it for several years, but what has already been done, and even what has already been said, does not correspond at all to the scale of the problem. What can the mechanism of public-private partnership give to the economy and society, what is this mechanism in general, what is primary in it - the state or private business. What is the role of state money and institutions created by the state, is the Development Bank, in particular, capable of becoming a kind of locomotive of this process, given its status and increasing resources. Is there legislation on PPP in nature, is special legislation needed at all, what can we rely on from existing regulations and what is missing. Finally, do you have any idea in which industries and regions the partnership looks most relevant?

Mutual obligations

Stolyarov: I don’t agree that PPP has not been formalized in Russia. In a fairly short period of time, we have created a whole palette of specific public-private partnership instruments. This is also an investment fund with its own algorithms, which currently provides three forms of financing from the state. These are special economic zones of three types. This is the Development Bank. This is both a Russian venture company and a venture fund as a subsidiary of an investment fund. This is also a separate venture fund in the communications industry, which is supervised by the Ministry of Communications. These include industry-specific state corporations that are being created like mushrooms after rain to solve specific government problems: Olympstroy, Rosnannotech, Rosatom, etc. All these are forms of managing government money and government decisions in certain algorithms for certain purposes.

Vasiliev: It’s bad that we didn’t start with a definition. For example, attracting private investment using public money in itself is not a PPP. Or simply lending by a state bank to private borrowers is not a public-private partnership. VTB gives loans to private borrowers, normal, ordinary work in the market. PPP is a special tool. In my opinion, a distinctive feature of PPP is that the mutual obligations of business and the state are clearly stated.

Vedev: I raised the MEDT definition. PPP is cooperation on a contractual basis between government agencies, local governments and business. At the same time, the state maintains strict control over the volume and quality of services provided.

Vasiliev: In this regard, I would like to say about the Development Bank. We are not a government agency. What we are signing is not an obligation of the state. Our money is guaranteed not by the state, but by us. This must be understood. And in this definition we are talking about a government agency. Here's an investment fund - yes.

Stolyarov: The key word is “contractual”. And here the form of concluding agreements between the investor and the state within the framework of the Civil Code regarding mutual interests and obligations for the implementation of the project is important. Just three or four years ago, relations between the state and investors in terms of state investments were not regulated by any contractual obligations. The state's obligations were not secured in any way either within the framework of federal target programs (FTP) or within the framework of federal targeted investment programs (FAIP). And for the investor it was a special exercise to try to somehow fix the interests and obligations of the state. It is very important that now both the investment fund, and special economic zones, and everything related to venture investment are mandatory regulated by investment agreements, within the framework of which the state and business enter into a certain agreement. On the one hand, this is the main advantage of the PPP mechanism, on the other hand, it is the main source of risk, since our state is not yet very good at negotiating, there is no extensive law enforcement practice, and all this happens in a certain legal vacuum.

Gurevich: That is, PPP is not spelled out at the level of laws? Does this need to be written down?

Vasiliev: There is no need to prescribe this; this concept is, let’s say, academic.

Gurevich: From what we have already heard, it turns out that PPP can be spoken of, firstly, as a partnership in a broad sense. State structures and state money interact with the market and non-state structures in a variety of forms - providing loans, issuing bonds, etc. Secondly, we have come to a clearer definition of PPP, a partnership where there is contract law and corresponding legal relations. Question: is there at least one example of such a PPP today?

Why and why

Vasiliev: Where does this whole mechanism come from? The country is in great need of infrastructure investment. There are two reasons why the private sector needs to be involved in this. The first is that the budget money, despite all the apparent abundance, is not enough for this. Secondly, the presence of private economic calculations allows us to truly increase the efficiency of project implementation. When there is a private owner, he must respect his interests, the calculations will be more accurate. This is not a guarantee, of course, but an important condition.

Gurevich: That is, the message here is that the state, firstly, lacks money and, secondly, some kind of market control. Therefore, it invites business to partner with it. What if the situation is the opposite? A private investor is ready to implement a project, for example, Deripaska in the Lower Angara region, but he has problems with infrastructure, there are no roads, etc., and he is already offering partnership.

Vasiliev: In any case, this project should have a so-called external effect. When there are no externalities, then there is no basis for PPP. Here is the effect of the road. A road is a good example where there is an externality.

Vedev: I propose to look at the partnership problem from a slightly different angle, from above. Firstly, from the point of view of the task of maintaining positive rates of economic growth. After the financial crisis in 1998, the growth factors of the national economy consistently changed. At first, production grew due to a sharp devaluation and import substitution, then economic growth was ensured by a sharp increase in prices for oil and other raw materials on the world market. Finally, the main growth factors now are the expansion of consumer and investment demand. This phase of development looks unstable, since right now there is a strategic choice for further development - through investment and innovation (giving a fundamentally different quality of economic growth) or through natural resource rent. Possible scenarios for further development are described in detail in the program until 2020 of the Ministry of Economic Development. It is not clear what the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade itself chooses - the inertial path of development, energy resources or innovation. And within these three scenarios, the content of PPP takes on a completely different meaning.

Gurevich: Different in content, but in form? Is it also different in terms of the scale of resources needed?

Vedev: Money is needed in any case. The second point is precisely that we have a shortage of domestic savings in the private sector. These are illusions when they talk about some kind of excess savings of the population - they are all known. This year we estimate this deficit to be approximately $25 billion in the banking system alone. And in fact there are two sources of replenishing this deficit. This is either international borrowing or government funds. In fact, for three years it happened that the stabilization fund and foreign exchange reserves were stored there, and we borrowed from them in almost the same volumes. So, there is money either on the foreign market or from our monetary authorities - this is the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. And if our government nevertheless decides to use the funds accumulated from the sale of raw materials, then the question of public-private partnership will inevitably arise - if, of course, we are interested in their effective use.

Stolyarov: Both money and ideas are important. We are seeing an increase in state investment opportunities that are not backed by ideas. At the same time, business has undergone quite a big evolution in this regard. Now all companies, in one way or another, have development programs and strategies, quite material investment plans that will be implemented within the framework of specific investment project passports. According to our list of investment projects with an investment volume of $50 million or more, which are planned for implementation in Russia by more or less prominent companies - both private and public, by 2015 about $700 billion will be invested in the country's economy. But in this There is not a single project on the list that does not have infrastructure limitations. Everyone needs something: one needs an energy sector, another needs a railway, another needs a highway, and another needs a bridge. According to our estimates, the construction of the necessary infrastructure for these $700 billion projects will require at least $400 billion. This is the field for the state’s investment activity.

Gurevich: And how to deal with this, with this wave of intentions and lack of infrastructure?

Stolyarov: PPP in the developed world, primarily in Western Europe, is associated with the state’s ambition to attract private capital to the construction of infrastructure. Hence the demand, first of all, for concession tools. But our concessions will most likely fail. Look at the statistics of the investment fund selection bodies. There are more than 20 already approved projects and some idea of ​​the applications being prepared. These are mainly complex projects for the development of territories, where investments in infrastructure development will make it possible to implement investment projects in a variety of industries. In these projects, as a rule, the state is responsible for infrastructure - transport, energy. And only when the state signs the infrastructure obligations, business can begin construction of industrial facilities. This is the main main vector of PPP; according to statistics from the investment fund, more than 80% of projects are exactly like this. And this is very significant.

How much does a kilometer cost?

Vasiliev: I wanted to clarify about the roads. What, there is no need to build roads?

Stolyarov: It is necessary.

Vasiliev: Without private money?

Stolyarov: In Russia now, of course, only for state money. But any Western investment consultant will write in his conclusion on a highway construction project that the concession enterprise will not work within the framework of such travel tariffs, such a concept for developing a roadside strip and such a price per kilometer of road.

Vasiliev: Don’t regular highways pass through us either? Is there really no scheme by which a private investor can be attracted to the construction of roads in Russia?

Stolyarov: Our cost per kilometer of highway construction is five to ten times higher than Western analogues. What travel tariffs and what roadside services can a private investor use to recoup such investments?

Gurevich: Well, if only on the right along the casino, and on the left...

Vasiliev: Why did this situation arise?

Stolyarov: This is a question for the construction industry, SNiPs, GOSTs, etc.

Gurevich: Since road construction is a typical example of PPP and the concession form is the most common, then these unrealistic prices, conditions, tariffs - how do they arise? Who and how does the government negotiate?

Stolyarov: In order to show the profitability or at least break-even of the project, following the inflated cost of infrastructure, private investors are forced to artificially increase tariffs. Business will always deceive the state, no matter the algorithm.

Gurevich: Thank you. But they said above that if the state itself, directly from the budget, invests, then losses are inevitable. And we need a private owner, he thinks better, respects the interest. Now, it turns out, in the presence of business, things don’t look very nice either. Maybe the problem is in the choice of partners?

Vasiliev: Business, without a doubt, will always deceive the state. But if this business acts as a contractor in construction with government money, then it will deceive the state by a much larger amount than if it deals with a private project operator.

Gurevich: Okay, can your bank act as such a partner?

Vasiliev: For the Development Bank, the PPP issue is now a key one. Because our task is to invest in infrastructure. But when entering into such projects, we will inevitably encounter a situation where the presence of the state and our presence is not yet enough. Let's say we gave our money, the state gave money from the budget - this is a road to nowhere. Everything will be stolen. Therefore, we are forced to proceed from a triple scheme: so that we give our money, the state is ready to give some of its own, but there must be a private borrower. This is how PPP automatically arises. Let's take ports, roads, any infrastructure, even utilities, water utilities - the PPP structure is emerging everywhere. It is inevitable, you will have to deal with it anyway.

Instruments and institutions

Stolyarov: Is it possible to voice what instruments the Development Bank plans to enter into the partnership with, what is the “product line”? Lending - understandable...

Vasiliev: Entry into capital.

Stolyarov: Project financing...

Vasiliev: Yes. Bank guarantees...Honestly, for investment and infrastructure projects, I think there will be nothing overly complicated here. Venture financing is a subject being discussed. I think that what the bank will do in the innovation sphere will also relate to infrastructure, but in the innovation sphere. Investments in the basic infrastructure of technology parks, for example.

Gurevich: It turns out that this bank, in the form in which it is currently developing, actually looks like the only institution so far...

Stolyarov: What about the investment fund?

Gurevich: An investment fund is not an organization. This is a wallet. And the bank contains both a wallet, and ways to fill the wallet, in addition to the money initially received, and a mechanism - at least, it is assumed. Such an institution is capable of working in the market. But an investment fund is, first of all, the availability of money.

Stolyarov: Not true. The investment fund has a product line, there are rules for accessing this money, and there is an algorithm for making decisions. Everything is quite transparent, although there are some difficulties...

Vasiliev: There is only no institute. The problem is that officials are the people least capable of operating such instruments.

Gurevich: That's what I'm talking about. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade cannot issue loans and participate in PPPs. And the Ministry of Regional Development cannot. They can set priorities and develop standards. No more. This is not a market institution.

Stolyarov: Okay. And in Kazakhstan, for example, an investment fund is a legal entity in the form of an open joint-stock company. Does this mean that the investment fund there is also not a PPP instrument?

Vasiliev: He appears only if he has contractual obligations from the state. As for us, I repeat, we will inevitably have to be very involved in organizing public-private partnerships in the implementation of our projects. If there is no regulatory framework, we will be forced to write to the government to change the laws. We will not solve the problem of organizing PPP, we will not solve the problem of infrastructure financing at all.

Gurevich: In Norway, the state largely controls the oil and gas sector, there is a mechanism for direct economic participation of the state in projects. The state has part of the shares, part of the profits, part of the investments and financial responsibility. And the private investor, for his part. These are clear forms. We are not talking about this yet.

Stolyarov: Why? Formally, it exists - a “contribution to the authorized capital” when a business invests its share in the creation of an enterprise, the state invests its share, and as a result of the efforts made, they share the capital of this enterprise. But, judging by the one and a half year experience, the work of the investment fund, this form is not in demand, not a single applicant, with the exception of one project with the participation of AFK System, did not use it. Why? Because the logic of the private investor is simple: you, the state, are developing infrastructure, and we, business, are enterprises, and do not bring the Lord to receive the state in partners in the capital of the enterprise or in the Council of Directors. Let the state enjoy the possession of the infrastructure.

Gurevich: Question: Who and, most importantly, how will it enjoy the infrastructure, without which there will be no enterprise?

Vasiliev: Who will provide infrastructure? How will this infrastructure pay off? This infrastructure has a huge number of external effects. Why is budget money spent on infrastructure? Because it gives a great return only on the economy, but not in a specific project.

Stolyarov: In the financial model of the project “Complex development of the Lower Angara”, 34 billion rubles were laid. state investigations only in infrastructure. What is the benefit of the state? Through the taxes of the new industrial region.

Vasiliev: Everything is fine for the state. Only the bank does not collect taxes. The bank, financing the infrastructure, must recoup the project through the cash flow, and not through the tax flow. The port, for example, is normal. We are building a port, its activity brings a profit, not only a tax flow. Thus, the bank returns the invested.

Leading: The question arises of repayment and irrevocability - if repayment, then which one.

Vasiliev: I’ll say now. We must repel investments. It is written that profit is not the goal of the development bank. But we still need to receive it. If we do not make a profit, the capital of the bank will go. In fact, we must at least make up for the level of capital. The problem is that there will be very strong pressure on the bank in order to reduce the interest rate. Keep a low margin - one of the main calls to the bank. The second challenge is borrowing. Until 2007, this was all right. And what will happen in 2008-2009? We will start with state money. But then we will occupy in international capital markets.

Gurevich: When you enter the international market, you can attract resources for a low percentage.

Vasiliev: We cannot get a higher percentage than a sovereign rating. We already have a sovereign rating. The money will be cheap.

Gurevich: Can you give it quite cheap?

Vasiliev: Naturally. But it will not be very cheap. Libor+1.5-2%. I think no less. Moreover, we will receive in dollars, but to give in rubles. This is a separate topic. Another is the ratio of own and raised funds.

Stolyarov: What is reasonable to you?

Vasiliev: In Kazakhstan for the Bank of Development 2: 1. It seems to me a reasonable ratio of 3: 1.

Stolyarov: This is a very interesting topic, with what efficiency the State Capital should work through different tools. At one time, Herman Gref was convinced that in the investment fund, each ruble of state investment should generate five rubles at the project level. In fact, all social and communal infrastructure, all regional -level investments, remained beyond the framework of the state -owned -volume projects, remained. If we count more correctly, Kazakh 1: 2 - similar to the truth.

Vasiliev: There are two different “effectiveness”, two multipliers. The first is how much we can take from the financial market on the ruble of the authorized fund. I think, by attracting 5: 1, this is the limit or even 4: 1. That is, we will be able to attract another 1 trillion for 250 billion of the charter of another 1 trillion. Probably, in the next five years, this is the limit. This is the first one. Second: we will not finance projects one hundred percent. The whole question is how much our investment will come to our ruble, maybe not necessarily private. It can be the money of international financial organizations. It is important how many other investments in the economy will come to the ruble of our money. I think 25% of our and 75% of others is the maximum, and this will also be very difficult to achieve.

Gurevich: About raising funds. If I am not mistaken, recently at the State Council, which took place in Krasnoyarsk and discussed the problem of transport and in general infrastructure, it was a question of the issue of “infrastructure” bonds. What are the prospects of such a tool?

Vasiliev: The key question is again, how the project itself is structured. For bonds, the engineering, financial viability of the project is fundamentally important. In general, this is a huge resource for raising funds for infrastructure. At the same time, the state should take on part of the risk of the project. If the risks are not closed, the bonds simply will not be dispersed. I would start with regional, municipal bonds focused on a specific project. And work out technologies. Budgets of a number of regions are in good condition. There will be good involvement conditions.

Vedaev: Let me remind you that in the past few years, the share of securities (including bonds) in banking assets decreases (now at the level of 10%). The population in cash, perhaps $ 10 billion, is 20 billion from strength. It turns out that we have no money inside.

Vasiliev: There is on the international market. But in principle, such long bonds are a very good thing for the pension system. Therefore, investments in infrastructure bonds are one of the options for investing pension funds. In short, this is a very real thing. For a Western investor, this tool will also be quite attractive. The experience of other developing countries that produce such bonds also talks about it.

Gurevich: And bonds of development institutions?

Vasiliev: Bonds of the Bank of Development are also possible. Moreover, we can release bonds to finance a particular investment project. For investors, this may also be interesting. But frankly, it would be more profitable for us to release general-purpose bonds for financing and give our credit money to a specific project-20-25% so that the rest of the amount comes from private customers, because then the animated effect is much larger .

Bank and banks

Gurevich: Is there an idea of ​​which of the existing and created structures is now able to engage in the development of PPP?

Vasiliev: Is the Housing and Utilities Development Fund?

Stolyarov: Even less is known about him ...

Vasiliev: "Rosnanotech" is probably capable of ...

Gurevich: And, for example, the Moscow municipal bank, for example, at the regions level?

Vedaev: The Bank of Moscow is as aimed at working with the regions as much as possible, at cooperation with the development bank. We covered 65 regions. Strategic is the expansion of work in the regions, primarily in the Central Federal District. This district does not have noticeable natural resources. At the same time, there is a fairly acceptable level of development of the manufacturing industry. When implementing an innovative scenario for the development of Russia in front of the region’s enterprises, sustainable growth is opened. In addition, the implementation of investment programs of natural monopolies forms the real demand for their products. For Moscow Bank, cooperation with manufacturing enterprises is a priority. However, the scale of the task of reviving industry requires maximum cooperation with state bodies and development institutions. Moreover, infrastructure restrictions are a natural obstacle. Here is a set of problems that cannot be solved only by a large bank, as, indeed, and only by the state itself.

Vasiliev: In principle, large banks, such as VTB, Sberbank, are difficult to conduct many large projects. For a commercial bank, this is hard. There, the standards immediately fly. On the other hand, there is a clear criterion that the development bank cannot conduct projects that can conduct commercial banks. The only question is how to understand and prove who can. In general, one of the ideas is that the development bank will be able to cooperate with commercial banks in the implementation of projects. We, say, could evaluate loans, and a commercial bank can do technical work. If we talk about the Brazilian Bank of Development, then they implement almost all projects through commercial banks. That is, technical work is carried out by the agent bank. And the development bank conducts a technical and economic analysis, solves global problems. Project management can be delegated to a commercial bank. The question is open. Most likely it will be resolved positively, since there will be saving costs.

Leading: From my point of view, this is even inevitable.

The main partner is society

Gurevich: Now let's try to return from important details to fundamental things. In the PPP, nevertheless, what is primary-state or private?

Vasiliev: I think that the state. Since there are external effects. The key concept is external social effects, the general effect for society, and this area is usually a sphere of state regulation. Let's just say that if it were possible, if there was a sufficient amount of money from the state, if the implementation mechanism was effective, then all these projects could conduct the state itself. But, firstly, it does not work out. And secondly, the initiator of the PPP project may not be a state, but a private trader. In the world, by the way, all this is called Public Private Partnership-a socially-private partnership. This is more correct. Not state private, but public private. The main in the PPP should be society.

Gurevich: Maybe instead of a threatening PPP is better than neutral PC?

Stolyarov: Then, I am afraid, they will call just a chop ... as for the origin of projects, they arise from the most diverse motives of a variety of initiators. Thus, the project “Complex development of the Lower Angara” grew out of Putin’s decree on the need to complete the Boguchanskaya hydroelectric power station in the face of the Bazel corporate conflict and RAO UES. And initially we did not come up with a new industrial area, but just a hypothesis about potential consumers of electricity of the BoES. Hence the concept of the integrated development of the district and the two -stage format for its implementation. The project “Complex development of South Yakutia”, the largest industrial region to date, has been structured from the state plan. The President of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) Vyacheslav Shtyrov instructed the Institute of Regional Policy to prepare a program for the development of this territory using PPP-instrumentation. We conducted an audit of all opportunities, compiled a long-list of promising enterprises, went through industry investors and selected a short list. Six months later, this was embodied in business plans and infrastructure schemes of the new industrial region with the determination of state and private obligations. The project “Complex development of Transbaikalia” was formed at the initiative of the Metropol group of companies, which owned deposits for the development of deposits that did not turn into enterprises without state support. On the territory of promising development, a natural economic desert is now, there is nothing at all from the point of view of infrastructure. So the new industrial district arose based on the plans of a private investor to implement specific projects. Each project develops differently. But for me, the presence of a real private or state investor is absolutely important for the initial assessment of the project. And the capitalization of the company must comply with the obligations that it is going to take.

Gurevich: Well, when there is already a specific enterprise or at least a license for the field, the effect can be calculated. And when there is just an idea that “you need to develop the region”, then how is it to count?

Stolyarov: There are two possibilities. The first is when there is an investment plan, which is unrealized without state investment in infrastructure. We will adjust the infrastructure, enterprises will appear, and everything will be fine. Another possibility is the creation of large infrastructure sections, such as the Trans -Siberian Railway. Now a target is being developed from the Irkutsk region through Yakutia to the Far Eastern ports, including an oil pipeline, gas pipeline, energy industry, roads, and railways. In this case, instant effects in the form of enterprises that appear one after another at the level of preparation of the project and investments cannot be seen, the multiplier of the ratio of state and private investment 1: 5 cannot be obtained. At the stage of structuring, the multiplier will be 1: 2 or even 1: 1. But in the future, it will grow to 1:20, 1:30 and above. It is just about a fundamentally different grid of development of the country. Within the framework of these two extremes, today there is a whole palette of PPP tools.

From project to dawn

Gurevich: On the one hand, we experience huge investment hunger and needs, on the other hand, a lot of people who are ready to invest money complain of the terrible deficiency of well -worked out investment projects.

Vasiliev: Yeah. And this is a real problem for us.

Vedaev: I participated in the project of the World Bank for the study of Russian regions in 1990--1991. We made a fairly detailed survey of enterprises to find out the possibility of their restoration, growth, adaptation to market conditions. And I have the feeling that there were no production projects then, and now there is no.

Gurevich: It also becomes clear that the global problem for the construction of infrastructure, including in the form of PPP, will be long -outed building codes and rules, SNiPs, etc. If they are so much more expensive than the projects, then no state and private money will be enough, and international investors will not go either. Since how can all be recouped? Hence the threat that such a form, such as, for example, concessions in road construction, which is imposed on high hopes, will not be involved. Well, two or three objects will be built. So we just go broke to talk about infrastructure. The state, apparently, should take the function to reconsider these norms, but who else?

Vasiliev: Changing SNiPs will be extremely difficult. There will be colossal resistance. Roads are being built throughout the country. All contractors will suffer. A change in SNIPs will let a whole class of manufacturers under a knife.

Gurevich: At the same time, it is completely clear that the normal development, a competitive position in the international division of labor without solving infrastructure problems, no matter how bottomless they may seem due to our distances, SNIPs, etc., are unattainable. We have actually rested in the sense of economic growth in infrastructure restrictions. And on what mechanism for solving infrastructure problems will be laid, it depends on whether the country will develop. In my opinion, the biggest problem of the Russian economy, if completely briefly, is low efficiency. And while, due to the external situation, we could get good effects, this did not beat us. As soon as these growth sources are leveled, the question arises by and large about the existence of our country with its scale. At the same time, it is clear that the problem can be solved by the joint efforts of the state and business. It is good that we have at least approximate resources to start this process. How to start it on the basis of those resources that already exist, and on the basis of those institutions that just grow? This should be done by structures or expert groups, even if they are competing, which are at the junction between state interests and the market. It is hoped that when specific projects begin, we will encounter all the inconsistencies in the mechanism of PPP. But without its appearance, we are waiting for a decrease in the pace of development and the growth of costs. And such a forecast is obvious not for the next 20 years, but 5-7 years.

Vedaev: In the Mainer program, until 2020, even in an innovative script, costs of costs were programmed. The real salary is growing until 2020 faster than labor productivity. It turns out that relatively low efficiency is laid down even in an innovative scenario.

Vasiliev: The problem is that now the leading increase in salaries compared with labor productivity is provided by the current conditions of foreign trade, which will no longer be. Therefore, this is impossible to lay.

Vedaev: Today, we, no doubt, have infrastructure restrictions and the problem of modernization. Now we cannot grow due to additional loading of capacities. Because even if they are, they do not fit in quality. It is not entirely clear how to implement the large -scale programs of our natural monopolies - the demand for the modernization of equipment within the framework of already approved investment programs significantly exceeds the possibilities of ensuring industries (and there are also restrictions on imports). It turns out that we must invest in suppliers. Therefore, we are doomed to public-private partnership. And not only with regard to the infrastructure, but also the manufacturing industry.

Stolyarov: I will return to the problem of partnership itself. According to formal signs, Russia is one of the most equipped with the PPP-instrumentation of the country. All mechanisms are known, access algorithms and rules of use are published, competitions are held and pilot projects are selected. At the same time, there are no real investments yet, the real PPP-buildings have not begun. The risks associated with the legal non -consumption of the entire PPP are layered on this situation. According to expert estimates, more than 124 laws need amendments so that the existing PPP-instrumentation becomes legal. Плюс уже обсуждавшиеся инженерные риски, а также отсутствие цементных заводов и промышленности стройматериалов под эти стройки. Плюс риски демографические: где взять рабочую силу на реализацию запланированных проектов? Плюс фискальная политика государства, зачастую противоречащая политике инвестиционной. А в дальнейшем обнаружатся риски более системные, связанные с огромной паузой в реализации крупных инвестиционных проектов в стране. У нас просто никто не умеет этого делать, от проектных организаций до госчиновников.

Васильев: Я бы все же добавил оптимизма. В последние годы я сталкиваюсь со многими менеджерами государственных и частных проектов. Надо понимать, что произошла смена поколений менеджеров. Пришли люди с западным образованием. Возникает совершенно другая управленческая культура. Если бы тема ГЧП возникла в 1995 году, я бы сказал, что это невозможно, в том числе невозможно было функционирование Банка развития. Потому что не было людей. Сейчас я говорю, что люди есть. Это довольно важно, потому что есть грамотные люди, которые могут все хорошо посчитать и которые знают технологии организации. В принципе таких людей довольно много. Это то, что помогает запускать достаточно сложные проекты. Есть люди с системным мышлением -- с западным образованием и российским опытом для того, чтобы запускать сложно структурированные проекты.

Гуревич: Если нас послушать, то вообще ничего не получится: давайте нам другую страну, и тогда, может быть, мы попробуем. Но 10--15 лет назад никто ведь не представлял ни сегодняшнего строительства, ни банков, ни автопарка, ни даже бытовой техники. Мы просто уперлись в другой этап. Вот если мы не захотим это признать, тогда останемся на этом или, еще хуже, пойдем вниз. Что касается непосредственно темы «круглого стола», то ничего другого, кроме движения с двух сторон -- в данном случае не бизнеса и государства, а по уровню решения проблемы, придумать нельзя. С одной стороны, постепенно снимать макропроблемы, включая расчистку законодательства и т.д. И с другой -- это движение к конкретным проектам государственно-частного партнерства, где можно продемонстрировать какие-то приличные образцы. Заодно они обнаружат те проблемы, о которых мы пока и не знаем. Если появились кадры, которые хотя бы способны подойти к этим проблемам, если возникли структуры, которые призваны этим заниматься, -- это хоть что-то для начала. Только не будем выдумывать того, чего явно не будет. Не надо опять «пятилетку в три года», не надо на один свой рубль якобы ждать десять, хотя на самом деле ждем только пять. Or two?