DOCSLIB.ORG

PCA Case No. AA 228 in the MATTER of an ARBITRATION BEFORE a TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED in ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 26 of the ENERGY CH

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PCA Case No. AA 228 in the MATTER of an ARBITRATION BEFORE a TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED in ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 26 of the ENERGY CH PCA Case No. AA 228 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY AND THE 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES - between - VETERAN PETROLEUM LIMITED (CYPRUS) - and - THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINAL AWARD 18 July 2014 Tribunal The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, Chairman Dr. Charles Poncet Judge Stephen M. Schwebel Mr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the Tribunal Mr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the Tribunal Ms. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the Tribunal Registry Permanent Court of Arbitration Representing Claimant: Representing Respondent: Professor Emmanuel Gaillard Dr. Claudia Annacker Dr. Yas Banifatemi Mr. Lawrence B. Friedman Ms. Jennifer Younan Mr. David G. Sabel SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Mr. Matthew D. Slater Mr. William B. McGurn Mr. J. Cameron Murphy CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP Mr. Michael S. Goldberg Mr. Jay L. Alexander Dr. Johannes Koepp Mr. Alejandro A. Escobar BAKER BOTTS LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF DEFINED TERMS ..................................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 2 A. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION ................................................................................... 2 B. CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ............................................................................................. 3 C. PRELIMINARY PHASE ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ................................................... 4 D. BIFURCATION AND OTHER SCHEDULING MATTERS ................................................................... 5 E. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................... 6 F. HEARING ON THE MERITS .......................................................................................................... 8 G. POST-HEARING PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 11 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 12 A. THE PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................... 13 1. Claimants and Related Entities ...................................................................................... 13 2. Respondent ..................................................................................................................... 13 B. OAO YUKOS OIL COMPANY .................................................................................................... 13 C. THE RUSSIAN LOW-TAX REGION PROGRAM ........................................................................... 14 D. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................................................... 16 E. ADDITIONAL MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 17 1. Alleged Frustration of Merger Between Yukos and Sibneft .......................................... 18 2. Tax Reassessments for Years 2000–2004 ...................................................................... 18 3. Auction of YNG ............................................................................................................. 19 4. Bankruptcy Proceedings ................................................................................................ 20 5. Withdrawal of PwC’s Audits ......................................................................................... 20 III. PARTIES’ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 20 A. CLAIMANTS’ SKELETON ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... 21 B. RESPONDENT’S SKELETON ARGUMENTS ................................................................................. 34 IV. PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 48 A. RELIEF REQUESTED BY CLAIMANTS ........................................................................................ 48 B. RELIEF REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT ...................................................................................... 48 - i - V. APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 49 A. PROCEDURAL LAW .................................................................................................................. 49 B. SUBSTANTIVE LAW .................................................................................................................. 49 1. Energy Charter Treaty .................................................................................................... 49 2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ................................................................... 53 VI. SUMMARY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY ...................................................................................... 54 A. CLAIMANTS’ WITNESSES ......................................................................................................... 55 1. Mr. Jacques Kosciusko-Morizet .................................................................................... 55 2. Mr. Vladimir Dubov ...................................................................................................... 57 3. Mr. Frank Rieger ............................................................................................................ 59 4. Dr. Andrei Illarionov ..................................................................................................... 61 5. Mr. Leonid Nevzlin ........................................................................................................ 64 6. Mr. Bruce Misamore ...................................................................................................... 67 7. Mr. Steven Theede ......................................................................................................... 69 8. Mr. Brent Kaczmarek ..................................................................................................... 72 9. Mr. Philip Baker QC ...................................................................................................... 73 10. Mr. Yuri Schmidt ........................................................................................................... 74 11. Dr. Sergei Kovalev ......................................................................................................... 75 B. RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES ..................................................................................................... 76 1. Professor James Dow ..................................................................................................... 76 2. Mr. Oleg Y. Konnov ...................................................................................................... 78 3. Professor Reinier Kraakman .......................................................................................... 81 4. Professor H. David Rosenbloom .................................................................................... 83 5. Professor Thomas Z. Lys ............................................................................................... 85 6. Ms. Felicity Cullen QC .................................................................................................. 87 7. Mr. Dale Hart ................................................................................................................. 88 8. Mr. Polyvios Polyviou ................................................................................................... 89 9. Mr. John Ellison ............................................................................................................. 90 10. Mr. Raymond Gross ....................................................................................................... 91 11. Professor Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg........................................................................... 93 - ii - 12. Professor Stef van Weeghel ........................................................................................... 94 C. THE SO-CALLED “EMPTY CHAIRS” ......................................................................................... 95 1. Individuals that Claimants Wished were Available for Examination ............................ 96 2. Individuals that Respondent Wished were Available for Examination ......................... 97 VII. ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 98 VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD ......................................................................... 102 A. THE TAX OPTIMIZATION SCHEME ......................................................................................... 102 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 102 2. The Structure of the Tax Optimization Scheme ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harvard University
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY ROBERT AND RENÉE BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT 2 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword 5 Overview From the Executive Director 7 Environment and Natural Resources Program TABLE 8 OF Harvard Information Infrastructure Project 52 CONTENTS International Security Program 71 Science, Technology and Public Policy Program 109 Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project 155 WPF Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution 177 Events 188 Publications 219 Biographies 241 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 3 2000-2001 Annual Report 4 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword —————————————♦ For the hub of the John F. Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, conflict prevention and resolution, and science and technology policy, the first academic year of the new century has been bracing. According to our mission statement, The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs strives to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, and international affairs intersect. BCSIA’s leadership begins with the recognition of science and technology as driving forces transforming threats and opportunities in international affairs. The Center integrates insights of social scientists, technologists, and practitioners with experience in government, diplomacy, the military, and business to address critical issues. BCSIA involvement in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. BCSIA was privileged to have senior advisors in both camps in one of the most unforgettable American elections in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Finno-Ugrian Cooperation and Foreign Relations
    UC Irvine UC Irvine Previously Published Works Title Eastern Finno-Ugrian cooperation and foreign relations Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4gc7x938 Journal Nationalities Papers, 29(1) ISSN 0090-5992 Author Taagepera, R Publication Date 2001-04-24 DOI 10.1080/00905990120036457 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Nationalities Papers, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2001 EASTERN FINNO-UGRIAN COOPERATION AND FOREIGN RELATIONS Rein Taagepera Britons and Iranians do not wax poetic when they discover that “one, two, three” sound vaguely similar in English and Persian. Finns and Hungarians at times do. When I speak of “Finno-Ugrian cooperation,” I am referring to a linguistic label that joins peoples whose languages are so distantly related that in most world contexts it would evoke no feelings of kinship.1 Similarities in folk culture may largely boil down to worldwide commonalities in peasant cultures at comparable technological stages. The racial features of Estonians and Mari may be quite disparate. Limited mutual intelligibility occurs only within the Finnic group in the narrow sense (Finns, Karelians, Vepsians, Estonians), the Permic group (Udmurts and Komi), and the Mordvin group (Moksha and Erzia). Yet, despite this almost abstract foundation, the existence of a feeling of kinship is very real. Myths may have no basis in fact, but belief in myths does occur. Before denigrating the beliefs of indigenous and recently modernized peoples as nineteenth-century relics, the observer might ask whether the maintenance of these beliefs might serve some functional twenty-first-century purpose. The underlying rationale for the Finno-Ugrian kinship beliefs has been a shared feeling of isolation among Indo-European and Turkic populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasitic Nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in the Volga Basin
    Journal MVZ Cordoba 2019; 24(3):7314-7321. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 Research article Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Igor V. Chikhlyaev1 ; Alexander B. Ruchin2* ; Alexander I. Fayzulin1 1Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin, Russian Academy of Sciences, Togliatti, Russia 2Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park «Smolny», Saransk, Russia. *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: Febrary 2019; Accepted: July 2019; Published: August 2019. ABSTRACT Objetive. Present a modern review of the nematodes fauna of the pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) from Volga basin populations on the basis of our own research and literature sources analysis. Materials and methods. Present work consolidates data from different helminthological works over the past 80 years, supported by our own research results. During the period from 1936 to 2016 different authors examined 1460 specimens of pool frog, using the method of full helminthological autopsy, from 13 regions of the Volga basin. Results. In total 9 nematodes species were recorded. Nematode Icosiella neglecta found for the first time in the studied host from the territory of Russia and Volga basin. Three species appeared to be more widespread: Oswaldocruzia filiformis, Cosmocerca ornata and Icosiella neglecta. For each helminth species the following information included: systematic position, areas of detection, localization, biology, list of definitive hosts, the level of host-specificity. Conclusions. Nematodes of pool frog, excluding I. neglecta, belong to the group of soil-transmitted helminthes (geohelminth) and parasitize in adult stages. Some species (O. filiformis, C. ornata, I. neglecta) are widespread in the host range.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Rodents and Insectivores of the Mordovia, Russia
    ZooKeys 1004: 129–139 (2020) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1004.57359 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Checklist of rodents and insectivores of the Mordovia, Russia Alexey V. Andreychev1, Vyacheslav A. Kuznetsov1 1 Department of Zoology, National Research Mordovia State University, Bolshevistskaya Street, 68. 430005, Saransk, Russia Corresponding author: Alexey V. Andreychev ([email protected]) Academic editor: R. López-Antoñanzas | Received 7 August 2020 | Accepted 18 November 2020 | Published 16 December 2020 http://zoobank.org/C127F895-B27D-482E-AD2E-D8E4BDB9F332 Citation: Andreychev AV, Kuznetsov VA (2020) Checklist of rodents and insectivores of the Mordovia, Russia. ZooKeys 1004: 129–139. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1004.57359 Abstract A list of 40 species is presented of the rodents and insectivores collected during a 15-year period from the Republic of Mordovia. The dataset contains more than 24,000 records of rodent and insectivore species from 23 districts, including Saransk. A major part of the data set was obtained during expedition research and at the biological station. The work is based on the materials of our surveys of rodents and insectivo- rous mammals conducted in Mordovia using both trap lines and pitfall arrays using traditional methods. Keywords Insectivores, Mordovia, rodents, spatial distribution Introduction There is a need to review the species composition of rodents and insectivores in all regions of Russia, and the work by Tovpinets et al. (2020) on the Crimean Peninsula serves as an example of such research. Studies of rodent and insectivore diversity and distribution have a long history, but there are no lists for many regions of Russia of Copyright A.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation of the Presidential Election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012)
    Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 12903 23 April 2012 Observation of the presidential election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012) Election observation report Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau Rapporteur: Mr Tiny KOX, Netherlands, Group of the Unified European Left Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Political and legal context ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Election administration and voter and candidate registration .................................................................3 4. The campaign period and the media environment.................................................................................. 4 5. Complaints and appeals ......................................................................................................................... 5 6. Election day ............................................................................................................................................ 5 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1 – Composition of the ad hoc committee.................................................................................... 8 Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral mission (Moscow,
    [Show full text]
  • OON31.P65 19.01.04, 14:04 1 Cyan
    OON31.p65 1 19.01.04, 14:04 Cyan Visit of the UNESCO Director-General, Ko¿tiro Matsuura, to Russia The UNESCO Director- Art in the presence of minis- General visited the Russian ters, including ;irst Deputy ;ederation for the second Prime-Minister of R;, Ms. time 2526 November 2003 Karelova, Minister of ;oreign on the invitation of the Pres- Affairs, Mr. Ivanov, Minister ident of the Russian ;eder- of Culture, Mr. Shvydkoy, as ation, Mr. Vladimir Putin. well as Chairperson of the The programme of the visit Commission of the Russian included a meeting of Mr. ;ederation for UNESCO, Matsuura with Mr. Putin, Mr. ;ortov, Permanent Del- the participation of the egate of the Russian ;edera- UNESCO Director-General tion to UNESCO, Mr. Kala- in the meeting of the Presi- manov, Assistant to the dential Council for Culture UNESCO Director-General and Art, a meeting with the for Culture, Mr. Bouchenaki, ;irst Deputy Prime-Minister Director of the UNESCO of the Russian ;ederation, Mr. Vladimir Putin greets Mr. Ko¿tiro Matsuura Moscow Office, Mr. Quéau, Ms. Galina Karelova, and in the Kremlin and other representatives of participation at the ceremo- the UNESCO Headquarters. ny of awarding Mr. Matsuura with After the meeting with Mr. Putin in the Opening the meeting, President the title of Honorary Professor of Kremlin Ko¿tiro Matsuura made a Moscow State University. speech at the Council for Culture and (To be continued on p. 8) Contents: UNESCO UNA Visit of the UNESCO Director-General, Students and Journalists Discuss the Present Ko¿tiro Matsuura, to Russia .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • VI Europe–Russia Economic Forum
    VI Europe–Russia Economic Forum Sejm of the Republic of Poland Warsaw, Poland ST OF MAY – ST OF JUNE Under the High Patronage of Grzegorz Schetyna, Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland Organizer Publisher Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies ul. Solec 85 00–382 Warsaw Tel.: + 48 22 583 11 00 Fax: + 48 22 583 11 50 e–mail: [email protected] www.forum–ekonomiczne.pl Layout BikerStudio www.biker.wns.pl Print Flexergis Sp. z o.o. (Drukarnia BAAD) Warsaw 2011 Contents Programme . 5 Speakers. 19 List of Participants . 55 Programme Programme 6 Programme Programme 7 May 31, 2011 Registration of participants 11:30–12:15 Presentation of the Economic Forum “Russia 2010. Report on Transformation”. Political and Economic 12:15–13:30 Situation in Russia in 2010 Break 13:30–13:45 Partnership for Modernization 13:45–15:15 Lunch 15:15–16:15 Russia in 21st Century. Expectations and Projects 16:15–17:45 Coffee break 17:45–18:00 European Union and Russia: Common Values 18:00–19:30 Reception 20:00 www.economic–forum.pl www.economic–forum.pl 6 Programme Programme 7 June 1, 2011 Energy Industry. Russian Resources and European Security 09:00–10:30 NATO–EU–Russia Relations after the Lisbon Summit 09:00–10:30 Coffee break 10:30–10:45 Europe and Russia in the Global Economy: Opportunities and Threats 10:45–12:15 EU and Russia – Foreign Policy Directions 10:45–12:15 Coffee break 12:15–12:30 EU–Russia. New Perspectives for Partnership and Cooperation 12:30–14:00 Regional Cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Report Submitted by the Russian Federation Pursuant to The
    ACFC/SR/II(2005)003 SECOND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES (Received on 26 April 2005) MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REPORT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES Report of the Russian Federation on the progress of the second cycle of monitoring in accordance with Article 25 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities MOSCOW, 2005 2 Table of contents PREAMBLE ..............................................................................................................................4 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................4 2. The legislation of the Russian Federation for the protection of national minorities rights5 3. Major lines of implementation of the law of the Russian Federation and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities .............................................................15 3.1. National territorial subdivisions...................................................................................15 3.2 Public associations – national cultural autonomies and national public organizations17 3.3 National minorities in the system of federal government............................................18 3.4 Development of Ethnic Communities’ National
    [Show full text]
  • The Study of Public Opinion on Industrial Mining in the Nefteyugansk District of Yugra © Said Kh
    Arctic and North. 2017. No. 28 87 UDC 67.01 DOI: 10.17238/issn2221-2698.2017.28.106 The study of public opinion on industrial mining in the Nefteyugansk district of Yugra © Said Kh. Khaknazarov, Cand. Sci. (Geol.-min.), Head of the Research Depart- ment for Social and Economic Development and Monitoring. Tel: +79124180675. E-mail: [email protected] Ob-Ugriс Institute of Applied Researches and Developments, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. Abstract. In this article, we consider the views of respondents on the industrial development of mineral deposits on the example of the Nefteyugansky district, Yugra. The analysis of views regarding the development of mineral deposits rep- resents a comparative sociological study. It summarizes the results of a poll conducted in 2015 on the territory of Nefteyugansk district and earlier studies done in 2008 and 2012. The results of polls showed that most respondents had positive sentiments to the industrial mining. On the other hand, in contrast to 2008, in 2015, the proportion of people, who opposed the commercial develop- ment of mineral resources, got bigger. At the same time, most respondents believed that industrial mining resulted in environmental degradation of the area (district) of their residence. Keywords: industrial mining, public opinion, poll, environmental condition, respondents, small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, experts, results of industrial mining The rapid growth and development of industrial facilities, new technologies, development of new mineral deposits, and creation of powerful industrial equipment represent a potential risk of industrial accidents and their negative consequences for human health and the environment. This is because the deposits of mineral resources that meet the industry needs are mainly on the territories of traditional nature use (TTNU) of indigenous peoples of the North (IPN).
    [Show full text]
  • Global Energy Company Company SCALE TECHNOLOGY RESPONSIBILITY
    Global Energy Global Energy Company Company SCALE TECHNOLOGY RESPONSIBILITY Rosneft is the Russian oil Rosneft is the champion Rosneft is the biggest taxpayer Annual report 2013 industry champion and the of qualitative modernization in the Russian Federation. world’s biggest public oil and innovative change in the Active participation in the Annual report 2013 and gas company by proved Russian oil and gas industry. social life of the regions hydrocarbon reserves Proprietary solutions to of operations. and production. improve oil and synthetic Creating optimal conditions Unique portfolio of upstream liquid fuel production for professional development assets. performance. and high standards of social Leading positions for oshore Establishing R&D centers security and healthcare for development. in a partnership with global the employees. Growing role in the Asia- leaders in technology Unprecedented program Pacific markets. development and application. for land remediation. ROSNEFT Scale Technology Annual report online: www.rosneft.ru Responsibility www.rosneft.com/attach/0/58/80/a_report_2013_eng.pdf OUR RECORD ACHIEVEMENTS 551 RUB BLN RECORD NET INCOME +51% Page 136 4,694 RUB BLN RECORD REVENUES +52% Page 136 85 4 ,873 RUB BLN KBOED RECORD DIVIDENDS RECORD HYDROCARBONS PAID IN 2013 PRODUCTION +80.3%* Page 124 Page 28 90.1 42.1 MLN TONS* BCM** RECORD OIL GAS PRODUCTION, REFINING VOLUMES RUSSIA’s third largesT References to Rosneft Oil Company, Rosneft, or GAS PRODUCER the Company are to either Rosneft Oil Company or Rosneft Oil Company, its subsidiaries and affil- +46% iates, as the context may require. References to * TNK-BP assets accounted for from the date TNK-BP, TNK-BP company are to TNK-BP Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Finno-Ugric Republics and Their State Languages: Balancing Powers in Constitutional Order in the Early 1990S
    SUSA/JSFOu 94, 2013 Konstantin ZAMYATIN (Helsinki) Finno-Ugric Republics and Their State Languages: Balancing Powers in Constitutional Order in the Early 1990s Most of Russia’s national republics established titular and Russian as co-official state languages in their constitutions of the early 1990s. There is no consensus on the reasons and consequences of this act, whether it should be seen as a mere symbolic gesture, a measure to ensure a language revival, an instrument in political debate or an ethnic institution. From an institutional and comparative perspective, this study explores the constitutional systems of the Finno-Ugric republics and demonstrates that across the republics, the official status of the state languages was among the few references to ethnicity built into their constitutions. However, only in the case of language require- ments for the top officials, its inclusion could be interpreted as an attempt at instrumen- tally using ethnicity for political ends. Otherwise, constitutional recognition of the state languages should be rather understood as an element of institutionalized ethnicity that remains a potential resource for political mobilization. This latter circumstance might clarify why federal authorities could see an obstacle for their Russian nation-building agenda in the official status of languages. 1. Introduction The period of social transformations of the late 1980s and early 1990s in Eastern Europe was characterized by countries’ transition from the communist administra- tive−command systems towards the representative democracy and market economy. One important driving force of change in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was the rise of popular movements out of national resentment and dissatis- faction with the state-of-the-art in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations.
    [Show full text]
  • West Russia Tetsuya Uchida Head of EBRD St
    EBRD Your Partner in North- West Russia Tetsuya Uchida Head of EBRD St. Petersburg office 10 November, 2005 8989 regionsregions andand 77 FederalFederal DistrictsDistricts Chukota Kaliningrad Murmansk Karelia Koryask Nenets AO Pskov Archangelsk Taimyr Novgorod Komi Tver Vologda Smolensk Yaroslavl Moscow BryanskKaluga Kostroma Salekhard Magadan Ivanovo Oryol Tula Vladimir Kursk Ryazan N.Novgoro Kirov Komi-Permyatski Lipetsk Belgorod d Mariy El Tambov Mordovia Chuvashia Evenkysky Sakha Voronezh Udmurtya Perm Penza Khanty-Manskiysk Kamchatka Tatarstan Ulyanovsk Ekaterinburg Rostov Krasonda -on- Volgogra Saratov Samara Bahkortostan Tyumen r Don d Maikop Elista Orenburg Cherkessk Astrakhan Nal’chik Stavrop Chelyabinsk Vladikavkaol Kurgan Tomsk Omsk Krasnoyarsk z Nazran Groznyi Amur KhabarovskSakhalin Makhachkala Irkutsk Novosibirsk Kemerovo Chita Altai-T Ust-Ordynsky Jewish Khakssia Buryatia Aginsky Primorsk Buryatia Altai-O Tyva Region: NORTH-WEST Area: 1.68 mln km2 NorthNorth--WestWest FederalFederal DistrictDistrict Population: 15 mln Cities: 152 Capital: St. Petersburg 10% of Russian population 28% below poverty line 12% of workforce in SME Murmansk Large projects Growth above 5% 9% of GDP Kaliningrad SME financing Decline above 5% 7% of FDI 80% of shipbuilding Karelia 40% of timber production Apatite Bauxite FDI grows in Leningrad Oblast, St.Petersburg Nenets AO Iron ore St. Petersburg, Novgorod. Pskov Archangelsk Nickel Novgorod Current agenda Komi Oil & Gas o Key transport hub to Europe Vologda Timber o St. Petersburg tourism and property Titanium Potential: Agribusiness, general industry, infrastructure, tourism and property Risk: Average risk area Lower risk in Novgorod and St. Petersburg Higher risk in Komi A network of 32 offices in 27 countries EBRDEBRD RResidentesident OOfficesffices St. Petersburg RO Moscow RO Ekaterinburg RO Vladivostok RO Rostov RO Samara RO (2006) (2005) High Market Potential • EBRD has presence in 47 out of 89 regions.
    [Show full text]