Où achat cialis sans ordonnance et acheter viagra en France.

Investment fund of russia.indd

The paper focuses on projects delivered by the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation as at the beginning of 2011. TheInvestmentFundoftheRussianFederation (IF, ortheInvestfund) wasestablishedin 2005 to procure financing of federal and regional development projects. During 2007-2010, the Investfund allocated finance to 15 federal and 23 regional projects based on the RF Government’s Resolution “On Adopting the Procedures for Formation and Allocation of Budgetary Appropriations from the RF Investment Fund”. The survey examines various aspects of property relations with regard to the IF projects, project value, financing structure and execution of financing, as wel as some other issues.
1 Advisor, Public-Private Partnership Centre, State Corporation “Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank)»2 The author expresses her sincere thanks to Kirill Maliutin (Vnesheconombank) for his valuable comments and notes made during the work on the paper.
Projects of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation (IF, or the Investfund) considerably differ in all the key economic parameters. To a certain extent, it is attributable to a wide range of tasks set in delivering investment projects based on public-private (PPP) principles. The diversity in the volumes and structure of financing IF projects makes it rather difficult to appraise their financial efficiency and economic expediency.
As a result, the purpose of the financial support is somewhat blurred: what were the funds allocated for? Nor is it always obvious why involve the government in such projects and to what extent such participation is feasible. There are no clear-cut criteria for the IF financial support, only a minimum threshold. Consequently, the IF participation, as wel as project budget considerably vary in range. The largest federal/regional project is 32/28 times as large as the respective smallest one.
Financing efficiency is directly related to the amount and tenor of the public financing. General y, IF resources for the project delivery are advanced and allocated for preparation of project and budget documentation (PBD) or construction of transport and/or engineering infrastructure. De facto, IF resources are a subsidy to a private investor, which increases his interest in project implementation. It results in undue fulfillment by the private sector of its obligations (at least, in terms of time). Often enough, IF investment in federal projects exceeds that of the private sector. As for the financing commitments, in 2007-2010, it is only the Investfund who ful y performed its obligations under all the projects. Financing obligations discharged by regional and municipal budgets with regard to regional projects represent 80%.
One third of the federal projects are underfinanced by private investors with the shortfall exceeding 35% of the estimates. In eleven out of twenty three regional projects, the financing was less than 80% of the planned one, with two projects hardly receiving 45% of the financing.Only five regional projects were financed according to the schedule.
Borrowing funds to deliver a project enhances private partner’s financial discipline and project transparency. Borrowed funds account for more than 40% of the total regional project budget and exceed financing out of investor’s own funds. Moreover, thelargertheproject is, themoreis significantrole of debt financing.Infederalprojects, borrowedfundsareless important – they account for some 30% of the total financing. Usinginvestor’sownfundsismuch more common – about 40%. It looks somewhat strange, since the bigger and more qualified (i.e. more reliable) investors are, the more likely they are to borrow funds for large projects in required amounts and on competitive terms.
Some of the IF resources are allocated for preparation of PBD but there appears to be no direct correlation between the developing PBD for the project and financing its construction stage.
Overal , in terms of project financing and delivery structure, regional projects appear to be better IF’ssharein federal and regional project financing accounts for 32% and 18%, respectively. Consequently, regional projects are noted for a higher degree of private investment leverage, more appropriate execution of financing and more transparent project documentation. More detailed information is made available about regional projects. To illustrate, almost all passports of the IF regional projects provide discounted project value (in terms of interest rates). Only two federal projects employ a similar methodology.
4. Are the Ongoing IF Projects PPP-based Ones? According to international standards, the overwhelming majority of IF projects are not PPP-based. The key requirement to a project is risk sharing. The federal government performs its financial obligations in ful , whereas other risks inherent in project delivery are borne by a private investor. Today, the IF activities are practically reduced to co-financing of private sector project (subsidies), when initially allocated public funds are then leveraged with private ones. The results are rather negative: project goals unclear both to the state and private business, breakdown of market financing mechanisms (distorted prices and interest rates), competitive approach to subsidizing, significant risk of inefficient utilization of public funds. Overall, there are no effective tools to influence a private investor in case the latter fails to fulfill obligations.
1. The Investment Fund: Major Characteristics Russia’s Investment Fund was established by the Resolution of the RF Government in November 2005 as part of the federal budget formed out of the RF Stabilization Fund’s revenues generated due increased reference oil prices, as wel as to reduced interest payments (early repayment of the sovereign debt).
At first, allocation of the Investfund’s resources was governed by the Russian Government’s Resolution N 694 of 23.11.2005 “On Investment Fund of the Russian Federation”, which laid down rules and procedures to select projects requiring state support.
Absence of a single decision-making centre was a distinctive feature of the procedure for project application selection. Nominally, a decision was deemed taken the moment the State Commission on Projects of National Significance approved the respective project and the Russian Government issued an order to approve the project passport. The situation changed after the Russian Government’s Resolution N 134 of 01.03.2008 “On Adopting the Procedures for Formation and Allocation of Budgetary Appropriations from the RF Investment Fund” came into force. Starting from its effective date, the Resolution expressly designated the Ministry for Regional Development of the Russian Federation as a new state regulator of the Investfund. In compliance with the new Rules, MRD administers and monitors the process of an investment project preparation for selection at the first stage - by the Investment Commission, and at the second stage - by the State Commission. Moreover, MRD is authorized to keep a registry of projects that received budgetary appropriations from the Investfund.
The Investfund projects may be divided in 2 major groups: ¬À. Investment projects (or complex investment projects) of national significance i.e. federal projects. Over 2007-2010, the Investfund participated in preparation or financing of 15 federal projects.
Two federal projects – Construction of the Western High-Speed Diameter (WHSD) in St.-Petersburg and Construction of the Orlovskiy Tunnel under the NevaRiver in St.-Petersburg to Develop the Volga-Baltic Waterway – are currently31 not on the State Register of Projects that Received Budgetary Appropriations from the RF Investment Fund (the Register) since their financing wil start in 201142.
Neither is on the Register a federal project on Organization of Production of Integrated Circuits on 300 mm Diameter Wafers with 65-45 Design Rules (financing completed in 2009).
Somewhat apart stand the projects for which documentation is drawn up using the Investfund’s budgetary appropriations. Suchprojectsarealso viewed asfederal. Aninvestmentproject on PreparationofProjectDocumentationto DeliverInvestment Project on Comprehensive Development of the Southern Yakutia” was financed in 2008-2010. Another five projects on project documentation preparation were either financed by the Investfund in 2008-2009 or wil receive financing in 2011-2012.
3 Asat 1 January 20114 Neither is on the Register a federal project on the Organization of Production of Integrated Circuits on 300 mm Diameter Wafers with 65-45 Design Rules since its financing was completed in 2009.
Chart 1: Federal projectsvalueby industries, % Chart 2: Regional projects valueby industries, % As at the beginning of 2011, the total value of the Investfund’s projects amounted to USD 45 bil ion5 , of which USD 41.3 bil ion accounted for federal projects. Overall, the Investfund’s commitment stood at USD 11 bil ion (federal projects – USD 10.4 bil ion).
The total amount of financing by the Investfund reached USD 15 bil ion with USD 13.4 bil ion accounting Over 2007-2010, the Investfund participated in financing of 23 regional projects.
Chart 3: Federal projects valueby regions, in mil ions of US dollars 5 Original amounts of financing were converted in US dollars at the official Central Bank’s mean rate for 2008-2010, i.e. RUB 29.6/USD 1 Chart 4: Regional projects value by regions, in mil ions of US dollars.
By its Resolution “On Adopting the Procedures for Formation and Allocation of Budgetary Appropriations from the RF Investment Fund” the Russian Government approved the selection criteria for projects requiring budgetary appropriations out of the Russian Investment Fund’s resources (Table 1).
Table 1: IF Project Selection Criteria::Criterion * * in compliance with articles 11, 14 and 53 of the RF Government’s Resolution N 134 of 1 March 2008 Investment Fund Financing: Terms and Conditions ¬The Investfund provides finance for investment (concession) projects, as wel as projects of the national and regional significance subject to delivery on the PPP basis. ¬Investors’ commitment must be no less than 25% for federal projects and 50% - for regional projects.
¬In the event a regional project is delivered with IF support, a certain amount of co-financing wil be allocated from the regional budget.
¬All the projects must meet the following quantitative criteria: ¬ Financial viability: a project is financially viable if its net present value (NPV) is negative without Investfund’s support and positive should such funds be allocated. ¬ Budgetaryefficiency: the proportionofthe discounted aggregate amount of direct and indirect tax revenues to the federal budget and expenditure savings (within a 10-year period) to the projected budgetary appropriations from the Investfundequals or exceeds 1. ¬ Economic efficiency: a project is economically efficient if the proportion of direct and indirect benefits from the project to GDP (within a 10-year period) exceeds 0.01%6 .
¬Any project requiring state support from the Investfund must have a positive opinion by an investment advisor to confirm the project compliance with the Investfund’s qualitative and quantitative criteria.
1. Forms of Budgetary Appropriations from the Investfund and Ownership Relations To finance federal projects entered into the Register as at 01.01.2011, five forms of budgetary funds Table 2. Forms of Budgetary Appropriations construction of state-owned assets of the Investfund’sfinancialresources: budgetaryfundsaretransf erredtotheendoperator. Ownership rights to the facilities financed by the Investfund are granted to the Russian Federation (federal property). Investor receives the property right to the facilities financed by the investor. Example: DevelopmentofNizhniePriangarie. The project is state-owned assets of Russian constituent not financed out of the regional budget. Ownership rights are ascertained based on the investment agreement.
Reconstruction Program for Water Supply and Drainage Facilities in the City of Rostov-on-Don. The project is delivered in the public utilities sector and co-financed from the regional and municipal budgets. The municipal entity receives 100% ownership rights to the facilities financed by the Investfund, Rostov regional budget and municipal budget. Rights of other investors are ascertained based on the investment agreement. If any facility is co-financed then it is jointly owned according to 6 In November 2008,this criterion stopped being used due to cancelling the method for assessing budgetary and economic efficiency of the Investfund’s appropriations as devised by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development. Today, the economic efficiency criterion is optional.
Example: “ConstructionofaNewExitRamptothe MoscowRingRoadfromM-1 “Belarus” Moscow- MinskFederalMotorRoad” and “ConstructionofMoscow – St. PetersburgHighway (15 – 58 km)”. Theprojectsarede liveredintheformofconcessions. 100% of the rights to the facilities constructed under the project are transferred projectdocumentationprepared using the funds of Federation and contribution of budgetary Example: Federal property right to a share in charter appropriations to the charter capital of capital of “RusHydro” open joint-stock company and EGMK-Project open joint-stock company pro rata the Investfund’s resources contributed to the charter capital Regional projects appear to be more uniform. In this case, a single form of budgetary funds appropriation is used – subsidies to the budget of the Russian constituent territory to co-finance capital construction of those state-owned assets of the Russian constituent territory, which receive budgetary appropriations from the regional budget.
Rights of regional investment project participants to the project outcomes are defined as follows: ¬facilities constructed using the funds of the regional/municipal budget are 100%-owned by the region/municipality; ¬facilities constructed using the funds of an investor are 100%-owned by the investor.
Federal projects financed in 2010 considerably vary in the amount of funds required for their delivery. Given an average budget of USD 2.1 bil ion, the maximum budget amounts to USD 9.2 bil ion (Comprehensive Development of NizhniePriangarie) and the minimum one – USD 300 mil ion (Construction and Subsequent Operation of Multipurpose Transshipment Complex “Yug-2” in the Ust-Luga Commercial Sea Port).
Normally, the payback and construction period of federal projects impacts project value: the bigger the budget, the longer the payback and construction period. In many cases, a federal project increases in value during its delivery. In three of twelveprojects, the project budget exceeded the original estimatesby over 25%, in two projects – by over 10%. Projects the Investfund is not financing yet, increased in value as wel : Construction of the Western High- Speed Diameter (WHSD) in St.-Petersburg – 2-fold; and Construction of the Orlovskiy Tunnel under the Neva River to Develop Volga-Baltic Waterway in St.-Petersburg – by half.
Three projects had their budgets cut by less than 5%. Only in one case a substantial reduction in the project value was witnessed – by 40% (Construction of Transport Infrastructure to Develop Mineral and Raw Material resources in the South-East of the Transbaikal Territory), which is attributable to a considerable revision of the project including its name. The budgets of two federal projects remained unchanged.
Judging by the foregoint, one cannot assert that the project value correlates with the inflation rate. Evidently, quality of project preparationis the main reason. The total value of federal projects entered in the Register amounts to USD 33 bil ion. Together with the projects on WHSD, Orlovskiy Tunnel and Organization of Production of Integrated Circuits on 300 mm Diameter Wafers with 65-45, the totalbudget increases to USD 43 bil ion.
Comprehensive Development of NizhniePriangarie Construction of Kyzyl – Kuragino Railway Line in Conjunction with Development of Mineral and Raw Material Resources in Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Plants in the Construction of Transport Infrastructure to Develop Mineral and Raw Material resources in the South-East of the 11 OrganizationofHigh-SpeedPassengerTrainOperationinSt.- Petersburg – Buslovskaya Section of Oktyabrskaya Railway ConstructionofMoscow – St. PetersburgHighway (15 – 58 km) Reconstruction of Oune – Vysokogornaya Section and Construction of a New Kuznetsovskiy Tunnel in the Komsomolsk-na-Amure – Sovetskaya Gavan Section Industrial Complex in the city of Novomoskovsk of the Tula Comprehensive Construction and Reconstruction Program for Water Supply and Drainage Facilities in the City of Rostov-on- ConstructionofaNewExitRamptotheMoscowRingRoadfromM-1 “Belarus” Moscow-MinskFederalMotorRoad 12 PreparationofProjectDocumentationto DeliverInvestment Project on Comprehensive Development of the Southern 10 Construction and Subsequent Operation of Multipurpose Transshipment Complex “Yug-2” in the Ust-Luga Commercial Construction in St.-Petersburg of the Western High-Speed ConstructioninSt.-PetersburgoftheOrlovskiyTunnelundertheNe Unlike federal, regional projects do not demonstrate any correlation of the project budget with its payback period and tenor of delivery. Consequently, one cannot assert that a larger project wil have a longer payback period or that a more expensive project wil take more time to be delivered. The average, maximum and minimum regional project budget approximates to USD 150 mil ion, USD 500 mil ion (First Stage of Agro-Industrial Complex Development in the Tambov Region) and USD 18 mil ion (Development of Heat Supply System in the city of Vladimir and Vladimir Region), respectively, with regional projects characterized by a much narrower value spread as compared to that of federal projects. Total regional project value amounts to USD 3.4 bil ion.
An average regional project budget is 14 times less than that of a federal one.
First stage of the Tambov Region Agro-Industrial Complex Development Program Construction of the Kurgan Heat and Power Plant-2 Construction of low-rise apartment houses, as well as public utility, power and transport Construction of engineering and transport networks, buildings and structures on the comprehensive development territory in the Yugo-Zapadnyi Residential District, the city of ReconstructionanddevelopmentofOAOIgorevskiyWoordworkingPlant. Construction of MDF plant. Infrastructure development of the Kholm-Zhirkovskiy District, Smolensk Region Construction of Container Glassware Plant and infrastructure development of the city of Aleksin municipal entity, the Aleksin District, Tula Region Large-scale low-rise development in the village of Voskresenskoe, the Ferzirovskiy District, Construction of the Armaks Group Industrial and Logistic Complex in the village of Maslovka, First stage of the “Zavolzhie” industrial zone construction Construction of engineering networks and facilities on the comprehensive development territory in the area of Bogdan Khmelnitsky Street (the Chuvash Republic) Construction of the Anzhi-Steklo Container Glassware Plant Construction of social and engineering infrastructure in the city of Ufa, the Republic of The Pribrezhnaya 110/10 kilowatt Substation Construction of the ZelenayaFabrika Advanced Wood Processing Plant Construction of the public utilities and power supply infrastructure for a hard cheese factory with the capacity of 250 tons of milk per day, the Republic of Mordovia Reconstruction of water supply system in the city of Perm Residential solid waste landfill, the city of Novokusnetsk, the Markino ground Construction and reconstruction of water purification facilities in the city of Petrozavodsk Construction of a feed mill in the Ruzaevskiy District, Republic of Mordovia Development of the heat supply system in the city of Vladimir and Vladimir Region Prearranged financing of federal projects by the Investfund on average comes to 32% (weighted average – 25%). The Investfund’s maximum equity financing is extended for ConstructionofaNewExitRamptotheMoscowRingRoadfromM-1 “Belarus” Moscow-MinskFederalMotorRoad” and “ConstructionofMoscow – St. PetersburgHighway (15 – 58 km). In this project the Investfund’s commitment amounts to 56% of the totalbudget.
It is expected that, on average, private financing wil make 2/3 of the total value. Given the delivery of projects in St.-Petersburg (WHSD and Orlovskiy Tunnel), private financing decreases to 55%.
A rather low level of private investors’ participation in projects is attributable to the limitations set by the RF Government on the minimum private commitment (25%). For private investors, there is little commercial sense to raise additional funds. Regional budgetary funds are used in two projects (apart from those two in St.-Petersburg). Only one project is funded from municipal budget. The Investfund minimum participation (13%) is expected in the Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Plants in the city of Nizhnekamsk (without taking into consideration specific projects on project documentation preparation). There is a negative correlation between the project budget and Investfund’s commitment, which somewhat contradicts the dependence of the Investfund’s nominal financing on budget size. However, such a contradiction may be equally attributed to statutory limitations on the Investfund’s minimum commitment in projects.
The maximum financing out of the IF funds (USD 1.7 bil ion) is provided to the WHSD project though it ranks second in terms of size. Then comes the Kuzyl-Kuragino Railway with USD 1.6 bil ion worth of financing. The largest project, NizhniePriangarie, occupies the third place – USD 1.4 bil ion.
The weighted average structure of federal project financing is indicative of the project efficiency: the Investfund accounts for 25% of financing, regions and municipalities – 1%, private investors – 74%. In the case of St.-Petersburg projects, the regional participation share increases to 6% due to a reduction in private commitment (the leverage makes 1:2.2).
The funds borrowed by private investors to finance federal projects amounted to 33% of the overall financing, with private investors’ own funds standing at 42%.
Table 5. Federal Project Financing Structure Construction of the Kyzyl-Kuragino Railway Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Construction of Transport Infrastructure in SpeedTrainOperationbetweenSt.-Petersburg Reconstruction of Oune – Vysokogornaya Construction of a New Exit Ramp from M-1 Preparation of Project Documentation for the Comprehensive Development of the Southern Yug-2 Transshipment Complex in the Ust-Luga Average structure
Weighted average structure
Construction in St.-Petersburg of the Western The Investfund’s participation in regional projects is much smal er than that in federal ones not only in terms of nominal amounts, but also with regard to the financing percentage. When the amount of public funds is fixed, regional projects raise more private financing (the leverage makes 1:4.5). The Investfund’s weighted average commitment amounts to 12%, with that of regions and municipalities standing at 6% and private investors – at 82%. The structure of regional projects financing by the Investfund is subject to limitations set on the Investfund’s minimum commitment (the same as in federal projects). In eight major projects the Investfund’s commitment does not exceed 15%. The Investfund’s commitment is the largest in such small projects as Development of Heat Supply System in the city of Vladimir and Vladimir Region (33% - the minimum budget of USD 18 million) and Construction and Reconstruction of Water Purification Facilities in the city of Petrozavodsk (38% - USD 21 million).
In terms private investment attraction, regional projects are more efficient. On the other hand, private investors would rather join several small regional projects supported by the government than one large project. Thus, projectsmaybedividedtoreducetherisks.
Debt raised by private investors to finance regional projects accounted for 43% of the total financing, whereas investors’ own funds amounted to 38%.
Table 6: Regional Project Financing Structure Construction of the Kurgan Heat and Power Construction of low-rise apartment houses, as well as public utility, power and transport Construction of engineering and transport networks, buildings and structures on the comprehensive development territory in the Yugo-Zapadnyi Residential District, the city of ReconstructionofOAOIgorevskiyWoodworkingP lant. Construction of MDF plant. Infrastructure Construction of Container Glassware Plant and infrastructure development of the city of Large-scale low-rise development in the village Construction of the industrial and logistic Construction of the first stage of the Zavolzhie Construction of engineering networks and facilities on the comprehensive development territory in the area of Bogdan Khmelnitsky Construction of the Anzhi-Steklo Container infrastructure in the city of Ufa, the Republic The Pribrezhnaya 100/10 kilowatt Substation Construction of the ZelenayaFabrika Advanced Construction of the public utilities and power supply infrastructure for a hard cheese factory Reconstruction of water supply system in the Residential solid waste landfill, the city of Construction and reconstruction of water purification facilities in the city of Petrozavodsk Construction of a feed mill in the Ruzaevskiy Development of heat and supply system in the Information on federal project value(in terms of prices as at the beginning/end of the construction) is only available for two projects, i.e. Comprehensive Development of NizhniePriangarie and Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Plants in the city of Nizhnekamsk. Consequently, it appears impossible to assess how the interest rate mechanism operates. Based on the data on two projects, during 2007-2008, interest rates varied from 19% to 4% in 2008 and 2010 respectively. That, given the crisis planning environment (2008) is normal and for the year 2010 is low. It was forecast that fol owing the 2008 economic meltdown accompanied by an increase in interest rates, they wil drop to approximately 8%.
Interest rates on private and public (IF) investment differ, with a discount on the Investfund’s financial resources sometimes exceeding that on private investment. That is against both the common senseand competition principles.
Interest rates are much more detailed or regional projects, with virtually all the investment project passports (excluding The Clear Don) presenting the respective calculations in prices effective in the year of the project commencement/completion (with a breakdown by years). However, it is impossible to tel what method was used to calculate project value. In other words, almost all the project estimates are based on different interest rates but applicable to the same years. There is a certain consensus for 2009, a starting year, where the interest rate for all the projects is in the range of 17%. As for the year 2010, the interest rates vary from 23% to 2%. At the same time, many projects carried the interest rate of 13-14%, which is close enough to the reality. The interest rate analysis suggests that in regions, they either are careless about the issue or do not quite understand the importance of such calculations. What’s even more indicative is the interest rate spread in terms of investors (public vs. private). Starting from 2011, negative interest rates are not uncommon, especially with regard to public investment.
On a three-year time horizon, the Investfund has been dischargeing its project financing obligations in full.
One third of the federal projects happen to be underfinanced by private investors, the shortage exceeding 35% of the target figures. Of those, three projects were to be exclusively financed out of the investor’s own funds. Against this background, standing out is the project on the PreparationofProjectDocumentationto DeliverInvestment Project on Comprehensive Development of the Southern Yakutia. The Investfund financed 98% of this project, whereas the private investor’s commitment made only 16% instead of the targeted 26%. Thus, the formula “one rouble worth of public investment attracts four rubles worth of private investment” General y, the state is the first to provide project financing. In terms of delivery dynamics (3-5 years), the Investfund’s contribution to five projects exceeded that of private investors. The Investfund’s resources accounted for more than 30% of the overall investment.
Overall, on project completion as at year-end 2010, the leverage of public/private funds was 1:2.2 (against The leverage is likely to increase during the project delivery, but potential risk of the present situation persisting or even worsening is still high. In respect of two projects, private investors have not presented any financial statements yet. In case of three projects, the data submitted by the project operator (public authority/state company) contradict investor’s information.
In terms of financial discipline, it is more efficient to raise private funds in the form of borrowings rather Table 7: Federal Project Financing Execution by the Investfund in 2007-2010 Construction of Kyzyl – Kuragino Railway Line in Conjunction with Development of Mineral and Raw Material Resources in the Republic of Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Construction of Transport Infrastructure to Develop Mineral and Raw Material resources in the South-East of the Transbaikal Territory Reconstruction of Oune – Vysokogornaya Kuznetsovskiy Tunnel in the Komsomolsk-na- Industrial Complex in the city of Novomoskovsk Reconstruction Program for Water Supply and Drainage Facilities in the City of Rostov-on-Don DeliverInvestment Project on Comprehensive Construction and Subsequent Operation of Multipurpose Transshipment Complex “Yug-2” * Investor’s own funds are given as at 01.11.2010 In terms of regional project financing, the Investfund ful y discharged its obligations on a three-year time horizon. Moreover, the Investfund even outperformed in financing two projects (Reconstruction of OAO IgorevskiyWoordworking Plant in the Smolensk Region and Construction of the Public Utilities and Power Supply Infrastructure for a Cheese Factory in the Republic of Mordovia). Obligations to provide financing out of regional and municipal budgets were fulfilled by 80%.
Execution of financial commitments by private investors is extremely fragmented: in one case, financing was 4 times as large as the estimate (due to a loan). There were yet another six projects where financing exceeded the estimate. In 11 out of 23 projects financing amounted to 80% of the estimate, with two projects receiving less than 45% worth of financing. Only five projects were financed as planned. The actual leverage of public/private funds made 1:2.6 (againstthe estimated 1:4.4) Table 8: Regional Project Financing Execution by the Investfund in 2007-2010 Construction of the Kurgan Heat and Power Construction of low-rise apartment houses, as well as public utility, power and transport Construction of engineering and transport networks, buildings and structures on the comprehensive development territory in the Yugo-Zapadnyi Residential District, the city of Infrastructure development in the Smolensk Construction of Container Glassware Plant and infrastructure development of the city of Large-scale low-rise development in the village Construction of the industrial and logistic Construction of the first stage of the Zavolzhie Construction of engineering networks and facilities on the comprehensive development territory in the area of Bogdan Khmelnitsky Construction of the Anzhi-Steklo Container infrastructure in the city of Ufa, the Republic The Pribrezhnaya 100/10 kilowatt Substation Construction of the ZelenayaFabrika Advanced Construction of the public utilities and power supply infrastructure for a hard cheese factory Reconstruction of water supply system in the Residential solid waste landfill, the city of water purification facilities in the city of Construction of a feed mill in the Ruzaevskiy Development of heat and supply system in the * a portion of executed private financing against estimated private financing Regions. Despite the fact that federal projects are assessed from the viewpoint of their overall input in the country’s development, it is the leading regions whose projects have been approved: Moscow, Moscow Region, St.-Petersburg, Leningrad Region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Republic of Yakutia (project documentation). Tow capitals with their respective regions encompass 6 projects of the Investfund. Two projects are delivered in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.
Apart stands the Republic of Tyva – Russia’s major subsidized region (the first after Russia’s constituent territories comprising the North Caucasian Federal Region), which is the site for one of the largest projects in terms of total investment and the largest one in terms of financing by the Investfund (Kyzyl-Kurgan Railway Line).
Furthermore, a number of Investfund’s projects are delivered in the Khabarovsk Territory, Tula Region Some projects are of interregional significance and have several regions among their participants (Moscow, St.-Petersburg and the respective regions).
Regional projects delivered in 21 regions demonstrate much more even distribution among the Russian constituent territories.There are only two regions that have two projects being implemented in each of them: the Republic of Mordovia and Ulyanovsk Region.
By industries, nine federal projects engage with road infrastructure development. Besides, there are plans to deliver a number of projects in power engineering, mining, petroleum industry, public utilities and port construction.
Most of the projects (8) are aimed at industrial development. Furthermore, 4 regional projects are delivered in house-building, 4 - in public utilities, 3 - in power engineering, 1 - in agriculture, 2 - in innovations and 1 - in environment.
1. The Investfund’s Federal ProjectsProject Comprehensive Development of NizhniePriangarie Construction of Kyzyl – Kuragino Railway Line in Conjunction with Development of Mineral and Raw Material Resources in the Republic of Tyva Complex of Petroleum Refinery and Chemical Plants Construction of Transport Infrastructure to Develop Mineral and Raw Material resources in the South-East SpeedPassengerTrainOperationinSt.-Petersburg – Buslovskaya Section of Oktyabrskaya Railway ConstructionofMoscow – St. PetersburgHighway (15 Reconstruction of Oune – Vysokogornaya Section and Construction of a New Kuznetsovskiy Tunnel in the Komsomolsk-na-Amure – Sovetskaya Gavan Section Industrial Complex in the city of Novomoskovsk of the Comprehensive Construction and Reconstruction Program for Water Supply and Drainage Facilities in ConstructionofaNewExitRamptotheMoscowRingRoad fromM-1 “Belarus” Moscow-MinskFederalMotorRoad DeliverInvestment Project on Comprehensive Construction and Subsequent Operation of Multipurpose Transshipment Complex “Yug-2” in the 2. The Investfund’s Regional ProjectsProject

Source: http://www.pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/files/artikles/INVESTMENT_FUND_OF_RUSSIA.pdf

marmur.us

Jonathan D. Marmur, MD, FACC, FRCP Director of Cardiac Catheterization and Interventional Cardiology jonathan@marmur.com Cellular Phone 917-885-8854 CERTIFICATION American Board Certification in Interventional Cardiology Nov, 2000 FACC- Fellow of the American College of Cardiology Feb, 1995 American Board Certification in Cardiology March, 1990 Certificate of Competence in

hrsb.ns.ca

CODE: C.009 ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION TO STUDENTS CONTENTS 1.0 PRINCIPLES POLICY FRAMEWORK AUTHORIZATION PRINCIPLES The primary responsibility for administering medication to students is the parent(s)/guardian(s); Only prescribed medication that is determined a necessity in order for the student to attend school may be administered during school hours. The Halifax

Copyright © 2010-2014 Pdf Medic Finder