UK-Russia Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership

CNCP Projects in Sarov

Interview with Alexander Orlov, the Mayor of Sarov on the UK-RF CNCP conference 2006

What is your view of the UK-Russia Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership? How necessary and relevant do you think it is?

First of all, I would like to thank the British specialists for their commitment and their contribution to the Global Partnership and CNCP in particular. A lot has been written about the importance of cooperation in the area of nuclear non-proliferation. The main outcome of the Partnership in Sarov is that those who have sensitive information relating to nuclear technology and security have a choice as to who they work for in the city. We have had no cases in Sarov of people with such knowledge leaving and using their experience of nuclear weapon production somewhere else.

In general, although the relevance of the Global Partnership and CNCP in particular is not questioned by anyone, the partnership can take different forms. In your view, how successful is the CNCP implementation approach?

I am certainly not familiar with all the details and mechanisms of the CNCP programme, but it is important that efforts are underway to create alternative employment for nuclear specialists. From my perspective, it is a new trend, at least for Sarov, for local authorities in Rosatom’s closed cities to become actively involved in this process. Along with city-forming enterprises actively establishing spin.out companies, it is helpful for municipal authorities to aspire to similar goals, in particular, to provide production and office space, sometimes with preferential conditions. The involvement of municipal authorities generally gives additional business guarantees, as well as a better use of funding resources.

How do you evaluate the work of CNCP in your city? In particular its dynamics, and last year’s outcomes?

At the conference all the cities and city-forming enterprises presented their reports on the implementation of CNCP projects in their areas, which gave us the opportunity to compare approaches, scale and level of these efforts. I think we lag behind our colleagues in some areas. This is probably because CNCP focused more on other closed cities. For some time, there had been lack of understanding between VNIIEF and the city administration, which, undoubtedly, held the programme back. But in 2006 a CNCP Cooperation Agreement was signed. It should be mentioned that the projects being implemented in Sarov generally have an innovative focus. This remains a top priority for us. Sarov can and should initiate projects that create jobs for engineering and technical personnel, such as design engineers and technologists.

How do you view CNCP development in Sarov? What obstacles might lie in the way?

I see the key obstacles as being the limited access to the closed nuclear city (CNC), and difficulties to establish joint ventures with foreign capital in CNC territories in the framework of Russian Federal Legislature. On the other hand, the CNCs were established in order to maintain the security of our main nuclear defence complex enterprises, and, should have highest standards of living than many other Russian cities, in line with the goals of the Global Partnership.

Another important challenge the programme might face is the lack of a clearly defined and coordinated leadership position in the enterprises and in the city administrations, both inside CNCs and between cities.

The lengthy process of document review for project funding was also brought up at the conference. But this can be easily overcome.

Do you have suggestions taking a shortterm perspective? Are there possibly other focuses, or new types of projects, that would naturally fall within the Partnership’s goals?

At the CNCP conference I, along with my colleagues, suggested we should review the projects underway in different cities to identify the most successful in order to then try and replicate them in other cities. This would reduce time and funding, and would enable us to make best use of our experience. I think it would be valuable to determine which projects might be suitable for all or some CNCs, as I believe there might be quite a few. These projects could address the kind of problems facing all city-forming enterprises and their cities. I think the Partnership should focus on the development of existing commercial enterprises, which propose development programmes, business expansion and the creation of additional jobs. This approach reduces risks and considerably speeds up the process, since projects are then built on the foundation of existing resources and production facilities.

This was your first time at the annual conference of the Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership. What were your impressions?

Yes, it was my first time, but as I have been actively involved in the US Nuclear Cities Initiative, and worked as a Chief Engineer and then as a General Director of FSUE Avangard Plant, I am familiar with the aims and methods of the partnership.

I think that a very interesting exchange of views took place. We all share a common task, to prevent nuclear proliferation and create new jobs for former weapons specialists, which was emphasised in all presentations and discussions.

I feel that very useful discussions took place, and I enjoyed the opportunity to network with other people. I am pleased that some of my suggestions received support, and I hope that the information gained at the CNCP conference will help me, and the specialists in the City Administration, in our future work.

[Print version]