Opening the Conference, Greg Kaser, the HTSPE Director of CNCP, argued that the statistics and the recognition according to its activities within the Global Partnership demonstrated that CNCP was fulfi lling its job-creation mission successfully. This work was of considerable current interest, and other G8 countries were considering becoming involved in Global Partnership activities. For example, France was planning to organise a Programme similar to CNCP, which would include activities in the Closed Cities of Sarov and Seversk. The geographical scope of the British Programme was also being extended to include new countries.

The Rosatom Coordinator for the Closed Nuclear Cities, Vladimir Sterekhov thanked the British side for the logical and conscientious way in which they had set about fulfilling the obligations which they had taken on, whatever the external circumstances. He underlined that the Closed Cities had to take in hand the problems of job creation themselves and overcome their fear of independent entrepreneurship. The experience of commercialisation provided by the Programme was extremely important and necessary.

One outcome of the previous year was an increase in the number of high technology projects. The Programme was already engaged in close and constructive collaboration with the Administrations of the Closed Cities. However, the relationship with the nuclear enterprises and institutes called for further work. «The door is open, and, in conjunction with Rosatom, we are ready to work towards broader cooperation», – stressed the CNCP Programme Leader, Patrick Gray.

British Ministry of Defence representative, Oliver Welch, outlined general aspects of the Global Partnership and new British Government plans relating to the disposal of chemical weapons, biological threats and concerns regarding countries beyond the borders of the former USSR. Current political thinking was that the Global Partnership should be extended beyond 2012, and that its geographical scope should be broadened.

Over the previous year, CNCP had achieved a variety of positive results: the first projects had begun in Novouralsk; projects in the other five Closed Cities were developing well, and some had now been successfully completed; the number of new proposals was increasing, and steps had been taken to tighten up the system of project cycle management. In other areas, additional efforts were still called for. These included increasing the number of high technology projects, intensifi cation of cooperation with the Rosatom Closed City enterprises, and adjusting to possible changes in the future role of ISTC.

Plans for the next year included exploring the possibility of supporting larger projects, elaborating new business development modules, strengthening procedures for resolving problem project issues, and extending the opportunities available for the Business Development Agencies (BDA).

Business development structures from the Closed Cities, both BDAs and International Development Centres (IDCs), were represented at the Conference by their leaders and were the focus of considerable interest and discussion. After the presentation by the Director of the Snezhinsk IDC, Andrei Kruglov, questions were raised regarding efforts to increase the number of small and medium sized businesses, and how the Snezhinsk City administration supported this work.

IDC’s own sustainability and its cooperation with VNIITF were also discussed. As speakers explained, technologies needed by the nuclear facility would be supported and developed within Rosatom. Non-core technologies ńould be saved by organising sustainable businesses in the private sector. However, irrespective of whatever was understood by the increasingly fashionable expression «outsourcing», the process itself would not be without diffi culties, and the involvement of the CNCP Programme and the BDAs would be very much needed.

One particular discussion turned on the legal aspects of using municipal resources in support of entrepreneurship, and the deployment of appropriate structures and specialists. With regard to existing legal problems in this area, those taking part in the discussion, who included the Heads of three Closed City Administrations, agreed, first of all, that the existence of the CNCP Programme, was of considerable benefit and currently provided the most effective mechanism: without the Programme, assistance for entrepreneurship would be very weak. Second, even though the way forward was still far from clear, and there were pros and cons for each of the alternatives, nevertheless such assistance could and should be provided.

In his address, the Head of the Administration of Ozersk, Sergei Chernyshev, presented the statistics of CNCP activities in the City. Four of the twelve projects which had been launched had already been successfully completed. More than 150 jobs had been created and more were planned; so far, a total of about 3.5 million pounds had been committed. A municipal business incubator had been established in the City and, drawing on the resources of both CNCP and the City Administration, a BDA had been organised. The Director of BDA Ozersk, Konstantin Malkov, described the first steps in the establishment of this structure, which was new for Ozersk. He emphasised both successes, such as the first agreements and projects, as well as obstacles to carrying on business – such as lack of qualified staff and finance, competition and bureaucratic hurdles.

In their presentations, the representatives of the Rosatom nuclear enterprises attempted to explain the low level of activity of their organizations in developing small and medium size businesses. Reasons given by the speakers included operational demands, the immobility of the regulatory and legal framework, certain corporate interests, and also in the view of the speakers, a lack of understanding, and a fear of, working under market conditions. However, they expected that changes which were currently underway, both in the State Corporation and at the local level, would both contribute positively to the solution of these problems and increase interest in CNCP. The current optimization of the structures both of the weapons complex as a whole, and of each separate large enterprise within it, would involve a policy of both replacing older employees with younger recruits to positions which were to be retained, as well as reducing the overall headcount where possible.

Presentations by the representatives of Sarov emphasised the need for a mechanism for technology transfer to encourage the commercialisation of research results. Fourteen production projects, with a total budget of more than £3,5 million, which were being developed within the framework of CNCP, were presented. In addition to the lack of a mechanism for technology transfer, problems of innovation development in the City included a lack of managers and of design engineers for serial production, and of access to venture capital.

The Head of the City Administration of Seversk, Anatoly Abramov, described the experience of attracting investment to the City, which, despite being “closed” had successfully participated in Federal level investment forums. Thanks to its success in winning a competition organized by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, a business incubator was being developed in the City.

The Seversk BDA, which had been created in collaboration with CNCP, served as coordinator for the Programme in the region and had achieved remarkable successes. The Agency had the official status of a Centre for the Support of Entrepreneurship having won a competition to become the management company for the new business incubator, which was under construction.

The number of new businesses created on the territory of the Closed City of Seversk through the Programme had reached 12, and it had now been decided to finance a further three. In the opinion of the Director of the Agency, its establishment provided an experience that was unique in Russia and showed how, despite all of the difficulties, it was possible to stimulate dynamic economic development in the City. The Seversk Investment Passport, which the Agency had prepared, was one instrument for attracting investors with resources and new opportunities. In that respect, the CNCP Programme served as one of the key factors in ensuring that Seversk continued to be attractive to investors. This was particularly relevant at this moment in time in view of the closure of two reactors within SCK and the fact that the construction of the proposed Seversk nuclear power plant was still a fairly distant prospect.

Particular interest was aroused by the work of the International Development Center in Zheleznogorsk, which had the greatest experience of creating work places - accounting in total for over 2,000 jobs. In the opinion of the Director, the most important factor in attracting investment to the City was the organisation of seminars by the Center, where entrepreneurs and City leaders could meet face to face, together with explanatory and informational work.

Attention was drawn to the start of the Programme in Novouralsk, which just a year ago appeared to be in doubt. In the opinion of the Head of the City Administration, Leonid Penskikh, this was especially important because the position of the leadership of the nuclear enterprise in Novouralsk UECK, had undergone a significant change. If earlier there had been a sense of confidence that there would always be work for 17,000 employees within the strongest Russian production complex, structural changes within the sector and in the Kombinat linked to corporatisation meant that the CNCP Programme was now of greater interest.

Leonid Penskikh in particular noted CNCP’s educational activities: «educational programmes such as these are necessary, they bring concrete results”. A whole new class of leaders was needed with new ideas; tackling this problem was no less important a task than the creation of jobs itself. “Education does not happen through the classroom but through real life experience”, he stressed.

A further presentation by Vladimir Sterekhov addressed the subject of electronic commerce which, he argued, was a good means of creating employment for former nuclear complex workers, as it did not require large initial investment and levelled out the playing field in terms of the problems of closed status and remoteness which faced the cities.

Key seminars organized by CNCP in the previous year on the subjects of energy efficiency and financial mechanisms, which the Programme might be able to additionally make use of in the Closed Cities, were also reviewed separately.

Towards the close of the Conference, the activities of the British Nuclear Centres Programme, which works in former Soviet Institutes outside of Russia, were described. In comparison with CNCP’s activities in the Closed Cities, the Programme outside of Russia was engaged in helping to create mainly technology-based projects in direct collaboration with the nuclear Institutes. In most cases these projects were created on the basis of material and technological resources and specialists within the institutes themselves. A further interesting feature was the way in which successful projects were copied from one institute to another. CNCP specialist Jonathan Perks spoke about one such group of linked projects based on radiation treatment and the production of radioisotopes. The Deputy Director of KIPT, Vladimir Chizhov also gave a case study of the work of CNCP in Kharkov.

In his concluding address, Greg Kaser stressed that, according to the statistics, CNCP was on course to make a substantial contribution to meeting the need for new jobs resulting from cutbacks in the nuclear facilities in the Closed Cities. He also pointed out that the Programme was coming to be seen as a model for collaboration: «the Programme doesn’t just follow its own narrow objectives but is an example of real partnership. This can be very useful both for programmes which are already underway, but also for others which are being planned for the future».