DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 Annual Report Annual Report 2013 PhosAgro Annual Report 2013 Annual Report What quality means to us Headquartered in Russia, we are the world’s largest producer of high-grade phosphate rock and Europe’s largest producer of phosphate fertilizers. We control a high-quality, premium phosphate resource and we leverage this exceptional asset through our vertically integrated, flexible production and distribution model to deliver tailored fertilizers across the globe. For further information and to download our Sustainability Report please visit our website www.phosagro.com Contents What quality Strategic report Year at a glance ................................................. 2 means to us Chairman’s statement ...................................... 4 What quality means to us ................................. 6 About PhosAgro .............................................. 10 Quality defines our business. It is how we generate strong The importance of quality ............................... 14 Market review .................................................. 18 returns for our shareholders and create value for our broader Chief Executive Officer’s report ...................... 24 stakeholders. It starts with our competitive advantage in controlling Business model .............................................. 28 one of the highest-quality phosphate resources in the world – Strategy ........................................................... 30 our igneous apatite-nepheline reserves at the Khibiny deposit Key Performance Indicators .......................... 32 in northern Russia. Risk .................................................................. 34 Operational review .......................................... 42 Our production model enhances the value of our phosphate Financial review .............................................. 46 rock through a vertically integrated, flexible production model Sustainability report ....................................... 54 to produce 25 different grades of high quality fertilizers for farmers Governance in Russia and across the world. We maximise our returns through Board of Directors ........................................... 58 flexible production which is able to rapidly adapt to changes Executive Management .................................. 61 in demand. We combine this with a netback driven sales Corporate governance report ........................ 62 strategy, enabling us to deliver our fertilizers to markets that Board Committees .......................................... 65 will give us the greatest return, whatever the market conditions. Management Responsibility Statement ........ 72 All of our operations are underpinned by high-quality processes Financials and sustainable business practices, as we detail both in this Auditor’s Report .............................................. 74 report and in our 2013 Sustainability Report, which is available Consolidated Statement at www.phosagro.com of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income .................................. 75 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position ....................................... 76 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows ........ 77 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity ........................................................... 79 Notes to the Consolidated Financial This symbol directs you to further Statements ...................................................... 80 information on our website. Additional information Shareholder information .............................. 122 This symbol directs you to more information Glossary ......................................................... 125 in the Sustainability Report 2013. Names of legal entities used in this report .................................................. 128 This symbol directs you to more information within this report. – 1 – PhosAgro Annual Report 2013 DAP/MAP sales, NPK/NPS sales, PhosAgro Annual Report 2013 Annual Report PhosAgro – 2 than6%. of more production fertilizer than 19%andinourphosphate-based ofmore production fertilizer innitrogen This includedanincrease 11%year-on-year. byover increased by9%andsales increased production ourfertilizer conditions, market challenging Despite 2013 highlights Operational Highlights at a glance YEAR AT A GLANCE A AT YEAR 2009 872 2009 2,544 2010 1,046 2010 2,500 2011 1,246 2011 2,533 kt kt 2012 1,918 2012 2,027 2013 2,154 2013 2,139 Downstream productsales to RussiaandCIS, Fertilizer andMCPsales fertilizers. andnitrogen STPP, MCP, 1. fertilizers, Phosphate-based 2009 4,557 2009 1,223 2010 4,692 2010 1,052 2011 4,951 2011 1,071 2012 5,338 2012 1,238 kt 2013 6,056 2013 1,676 1 , kt Fertilizer andMCPsalestoAsia Fertilizer andMCPsalestoIndia, 1. India. Excluding 2009 1,215 2009 319 2010 851 2010 377 2011 710 2011 414 2012 483 2012 661 2013 35 2013 760 1 , kt kt STRATEGIC REPORT STRATEGIC EBITDA margin, RUB bln Cash flowfromoperatingactivities, Source: PhosAgro Source: in2013. prices andurea inDAP drops bysignificant 23%, impacted by10p.p.to deceased margin of1.0x.OurEBITDA level our target periodexceeded of1.8xattheendourreporting ratio EBITDA althoughthenetdebt/ strong Our financialpositionremained 2013 Financial highlights 2009 22 2009 8.7 2010 27 2010 15.1 2011 35 2011 32.4 % 2012 33 2012 25.5 2013 23 2013 17.9 GOVERNANCE EBITDA, Revenue, 2009 13.2 2009 60.8 2010 2010 20.5 RUB bln 77.0 RUB bln 2011 35.4 2011 100.5 2012 34.9 2012 105.3 FINANCIALS 2013 23.9 2013 104.6 Net debt/EBITDAratio Payout ratio 1. in2011(2011April-December). IPO Since 2009 -0.1x 2011 44 2010 0.2x 2012 43 seepage46. review Finance For seepage42. review Operational For KPIsseepage32. For ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ADDITIONAL 1 2011 2013 , 0.4x 52 % PhosAgro Annual Report 2013 Annual Report PhosAgro 2012 0.8x 2013 1.8x – 3 CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT Responding to a challenging year This year, the robustness of PhosAgro’s business model and strategy was fully illustrated: 2013 was the most difficult year for the fertilizer industry since 2009 and our vertically integrated, flexible production model enabled us to respond successfully to these market conditions. As discussed in our Market review, increased both fertilizer production Our Board and people 2013 saw considerable volatility in and sales. We succeeded in doing so Clearly, the most important personnel pricing. This was caused by stagnation in a market environment where some development this year was the in global consumption combined with producers’ margins dropped even below appointment of our new CEO a number of other factors, notably levels experienced in 2009 with DAP Andrey A. Guryev. Andrey has worked India’s budget constraints, currency prices bottoming at just US$ 350 per within PhosAgro for close to a decade, devaluations in key markets, a delayed tonne – while we continued to generate and prior to his appointment was Deputy spring planting season and the breakup sustainable cash flow for our shareholders. CEO of Sales and Logistics for two years, of the Uralkali/Belaruskali consortium. This is where the high quality of our during which time PhosAgro significantly The strength of our business enabled us phosphate ore, its low processing increased sales volumes to both domestic to respond to these challenges, and unlike costs and our self-sufficiency in inputs and international markets. I would many of our competitors we continued truly came to the fore: the strength and sincerely like to thank his predecessor, to capture value – indeed we maintained quality of our business has been tested Maxim Volkov, and I know Andrey will 100% production capacity and significantly and proven. build on his excellent legacy. – 4 – PhosAgro Annual Report 2013 We also had two additional Board report in conjunction with our Annual market conditions, PhosAgro continued REPORT STRATEGIC retirements in Vladamir Litvinenko and Report. In our Sustainability Report we to generate sustainable cash flow and Vasily Loginov and I would like to set out in detail our commitments to pay out dividends higher than the upper welcome our two new board members, our people, our communities and the limit stated in our dividend policy. Andrey G. Guryev and Yuriy Krugovykh, environment and our overarching desire Looking forward who both bring deep experience to effectively leverage our high-quality The success we have had during one to PhosAgro. We also continued to phosphate ore by operating responsibly of the most challenging times for our strengthen our governance processes and to best practice standards. I would industry gives me great confidence and this year we approved a new like to thank all our people who contributed that we have the right strategy in anti-corruption policy. to this important next step in our place to steadily increase value for business reporting. We also continued to more tightly our shareholders and our broader integrate and centralise our management, Results and dividend stakeholders – in full awareness that GOVERNANCE and in particular I would like to thank the PhosAgro raised more than US$ 210 we are subject to the cyclical nature of many individuals who continued to work million through a new share issue via the commodities sector. This year, we to ensure we operate safely for the a second public offering (SPO). These continued to strengthen our business, protection of all our workforce. To add proceeds were used by the Group to both through the consolidation of our further robustness to our approach, consolidate minority stakeholdings Group structure and through capital a new health,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Sanctions on Russia
    U.S. Sanctions on Russia Updated January 17, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45415 SUMMARY R45415 U.S. Sanctions on Russia January 17, 2020 Sanctions are a central element of U.S. policy to counter and deter malign Russian behavior. The United States has imposed sanctions on Russia mainly in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Cory Welt, Coordinator Ukraine, to reverse and deter further Russian aggression in Ukraine, and to deter Russian Specialist in European aggression against other countries. The United States also has imposed sanctions on Russia in Affairs response to (and to deter) election interference and other malicious cyber-enabled activities, human rights abuses, the use of a chemical weapon, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, and support to Syria and Venezuela. Most Members of Congress support a robust Kristin Archick Specialist in European use of sanctions amid concerns about Russia’s international behavior and geostrategic intentions. Affairs Sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are based mainly on four executive orders (EOs) that President Obama issued in 2014. That year, Congress also passed and President Rebecca M. Nelson Obama signed into law two acts establishing sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Specialist in International Ukraine: the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Trade and Finance Ukraine Act of 2014 (SSIDES; P.L. 113-95/H.R. 4152) and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (UFSA; P.L. 113-272/H.R. 5859). Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Countering Russian Influence Legislation in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Investments (Unaudited) Blackrock Advantage Emerging Markets Fund January 31, 2021 (Percentages Shown Are Based on Net Assets)
    Schedule of Investments (unaudited) BlackRock Advantage Emerging Markets Fund January 31, 2021 (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) Security Shares Value Security Shares Value Common Stocks China (continued) China Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Class H .................. 221,000 $ 469,352 Argentina — 0.0% China Longyuan Power Group Corp. Ltd., Class H ....... 52,000 76,119 (a) 313 $ 60,096 Globant SA .......................................... China Mengniu Dairy Co. Ltd.(a) ......................... 15,000 89,204 Brazil — 4.9% China Merchants Bank Co. Ltd., Class H ................ 36,000 275,683 Ambev SA ............................................. 236,473 653,052 China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd.................. 66,500 151,059 Ambev SA, ADR ....................................... 94,305 263,111 China Pacific Insurance Group Co. Ltd., Class H......... 22,000 90,613 B2W Cia Digital(a) ...................................... 20,949 315,188 China Railway Group Ltd., Class A ...................... 168,800 138,225 B3 SA - Brasil Bolsa Balcao............................. 33,643 367,703 China Resources Gas Group Ltd. ....................... 30,000 149,433 Banco do Brasil SA..................................... 15,200 94,066 China Resources Land Ltd. ............................. 34,000 134,543 BRF SA(a).............................................. 22,103 85,723 China Resources Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.(b) .......... 119,500 62,753 BRF SA, ADR(a) ........................................ 54,210 213,045 China Vanke Co. Ltd., Class A .......................... 67,300 289,157 Cia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais-COPASA .......... 52,947 150,091 China Vanke Co. Ltd., Class H .......................... 47,600 170,306 Duratex SA ............................................ 19,771 71,801 CITIC Ltd............................................... 239,000 186,055 Embraer SA(a).......................................... 56,573 90,887 Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd., Class A .... 1,700 92,204 Gerdau SA, ADR ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Boards of Directors at Russia's Largest
    An Overview of Boards of Directors at Russia’s Largest Public Companies Andrei Rakitin Milena Barsukova Arina Mazunova Translated from Russian August 2020 Key Results According to information disclosed by 109 of Russia’s largest public companies: • “Classic” board compositions of 11, nine, and seven seats prevail • The total number of persons on Boards of the companies under study is not as low as it might seem: 89% of all Directors were elected to only one such Board • Female Directors account for 12% and are more often elected to the audit, nomination, and remuneration committees than to the strategy committee • Among Directors, there are more “humanitarians” than “techies”, while the share of “techies” among chairs is greater than across the whole sample • The average age for Directors is 53, 56 for Chairmen, and 58 for Independent Directors • Generation X is the most visible on Boards, and Generation Y Directors will likely quickly increase their presence if the development of digital technologies continues • The share of Independent Directors barely reaches 30%, and there is an obvious lack of independence on key committees such as audit • Senior Independent Directors were elected at 17% of the companies, while 89% of Chairs are not independent • The average total remuneration paid to the Board of Directors is RUR 69 million, with the difference between the maximum and minimum being 18 times • Twenty-four percent of companies disclosed information on individual payments made to their Directors. According to this, the average total remuneration is approximately RUR 9 million per annum for a Director, RUR 17 million for a Chair, and RUR 11 million for an Independent Director The comparison of 2020 findings with results of a similar study published in 2012 paints an interesting dynamic picture.
    [Show full text]
  • ROADSHOW PRESENTATION February 2013
    ROADSHOW PRESENTATION February 2013 0 Disclaimer This presentation does not constitute an offer or invitation to sell, or any solicitation of any offer to subscribe for or purchase any securities, and nothing contained herein shall form the basis of any contract or commitment whatsoever. No reliance may be placed for any purposes whatsoever on the information contained in this presentation or on its completeness, accuracy or fairness. This document, its presentation and its contents are confidential and are being provided to you solely for your information and may not be copied, recorded, retransmitted, further distributed to any other person or published, in whole or in part, by any medium or in any form for any purpose. The opinions presented herein are based on general information gathered at the time of writing and are subject to change without notice. We rely on information obtained from sources believed to be reliable but do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Investors and prospective investors in securities of the Company are required to make their own independent investigation and appraisal of the business and financial condition of the Company and the nature of the securities. Any decision to purchase securities in the context of the proposed Offering, if any, should be made solely on the basis of information contained in an offering circular or prospectus published in relation to such Offering. No reliance may be placed for any purpose whatsoever on the information contained in this presentation, or any other material discussed verbally, or on its completeness, accuracy or fairness. This presentation does not constitute a recommendation regarding securities of the Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Registered for GTR Russia Trade & Export Finance
    Companies registered for GTR Russia Trade & Export Finance Conference 2017 ( April 12, Moscow ) As per April 3rd Company Accuity Acron Aeroflot – Russian Airlines Agroterra Logistics AKA Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft mbH Albion Overseas Alfa-Bank Allen & Overy LLP Antipinsky Refinery Aon Aston Enterprise Auchan Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation Belarusian Potash Company BNY Mellon Bosco China Development Bank ChTPZ Commerzbank AG Confectionary Factory "Pobeda" Cotton Club Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank CS-Broker (Centr Sodruzhestva) Danone Deloitte Eastern Mining Company Egger EKN Erconproduct Eurasia Drilling Company EuroChem Everbridge Capital Evraz EXIAR - Export Insurance Agency of Russia Export-Import Bank of Hungary Gazprom GE Energy GE Healthcare GV Gold Henderson Herbert Smith Freehills Highland Gold Mining Holman Fenwick Willan HSBC Huawei Technologies Hungary Exim ICC Banking Commission Indukern-Rus ING International Finance Corporation (IFC) International Investment Bank Invest Company Group Jeans Symphony Jiulongfu Trading Joy Global JSC Arkhangelsk Pulp & Paper Mill KfW IPEX Bank Khaskel KOKS LBBW LLC Agrochemicals LogPro London Institute of Banking & Finance LUKOIL Lysva Metallurgical Company M3 Tonar Mechel Metro Cash & Carry Mizuho Bank MMK Natixis NewStream Trading Nizhnekamskneftekhim NLMK Nokia Norilsk Nickel Nova Roll Novatek Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (OeKB) OJSC Phosagro OMK Group Outspan International Phosagro PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) Raiffeisen Bank International Rani plast Kaluga Renaissance Construction ROLF Group Rosatom Rosneft Rusagro Group Rusal Russian Leather Russian Platinum RussNeft RZD International S7 Airlines (PJSC Siberia Airlines) Salym Petroleum Sberbank CIB SEB Group Senege Severstal Shate-M+ Sibur Siemens Sinosure Snow Queen SODEXO Sodruzhestvo SUEK Sumitomo Corporation Sveza TD Bashchem Tropic International TVEL TVOYO UBI Banca UniCredit SpA United Energy Commodities United Wagon Company Trading House Uralchem Uralkali Velpharm Volga Tannery VTB Bank White & Case LLP Zarubezhneft Zenden .
    [Show full text]
  • ESG Ranking of Russian Companies 2020 (As of 11.11.2020)
    ESG Ranking of Russian companies 2020 (as of 11.11.2020) Company Industry Sub-industry ESG Rank E Rank S Rank G Rank LUKOIL Oil&Gas Integrated Oil & Gas 1 3 10 2 SIBUR Holding Chemicals Petrochemicals 2 1 4 10 Passenger Russian Railways Transport Transportation, Ground 3 11 8 4 & Sea Wireless MTS Telecom Telecommunications 4 18 5 3 Services NLMK Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 5 6 2 16 Inter RAO Energy Electric Utilities 6 2 6 17 Integrated Rostelecom Telecom Telecommunications 7 17 12 8 Services Rosatom Energy Nuclear energy 8 8 23 5 SUEK Metals&Mining Coal 9 13 11 15 Sakhalin Energy Oil&Gas Integrated Oil & Gas 10 7 7 29 Gazprom Oil&Gas Integrated Oil & Gas 11 4 14 22 Severstal Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 12 24 3 11 Polyus Metals&Mining Gold 13 14 9 20 Non-Gold Precious ALROSA Metals&Mining 14 15 17 9 Metals & Minerals Sistema Holdings Holdings 15 20 15 13 Aeroflot Transport Airlines 16 26 1 27 FGC UES Energy Electric Utilities 17 12 30 1 RusHydro Energy Electric Utilities 18 5 16 26 Rosneft Oil&Gas Integrated Oil & Gas 19 9 22 18 Rosseti Energy Electric Utilities 20 10 28 6 Phosagro Chemicals Agricultural Chemicals 21 19 24 14 Specialty Mining & Rusal Metals&Mining 22 16 19 25 Metals NOVATEK Oil&Gas Integrated Oil & Gas 23 23 18 21 MMK Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 24 22 25 12 Oil & Gas Transportation TransNeft Oil&Gas 25 28 29 7 Services EVRAZ Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 26 29 20 24 Metalloinvest Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 27 21 21 31 TMK Metals&Mining Iron & Steel 28 25 27 28 Specialty Mining & Nornickel Metals&Mining 29 31 13 23 Metals Tatneft
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Markets, Political Situations, and Possible Strategies
    Equity Markets, Political Situations, and Possible Strategies Tension between the West and Russia over Ukraine over Ukraine has seemed to change slightly. The remain intact. Unfortunately, we did not anticipate a European media in particular has started to report political escalation in Ukraine and its negative influence more critically on Ukraine and its current government. on European equities markets. Comparing the US and After the referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk region, European equity markets, the US performed slightly the Ukrainian government declared that it is willing to better. talk to separatist leaders. This is a good sign and we would recommend buying Russia equities, especially We have been monitoring the situation with Ukraine in the energy sector. Russian equities are comparably closely over the last couple of weeks. Our view is cheap, with the Market Vectors Russia ETF showing that Russia does not want to get openly involved in a Price-to-Earnings ratio of 5.44 and Price-to-Book Eastern/Southern Ukraine, as it may lead to a much of 0.7 compared to an average P/E of around 10 for more serious situation. Some groups in Ukraine Emerging Markets and around 15 for MSCI World, are trying to provoke Russia to intervene, which respectively. has not succeeded yet. Western media sentiment Micex 5-Year Development 1 The political situation can still undermine our overweight on developed markets, especially Europe. recommendations. As said before, we see the Major risks remain and investors should be aware of situation getting better now but one should not forget the fact that markets are volatile.
    [Show full text]
  • Severstal Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Report 2017
    BUSINESS AND CORPORATE CORPORATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND SOCIAL PROJECTS AND ABOUT THIS ABOUT SEVERSTAL EMPLOYEES SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS REPORT Severstal Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Report 2017 1 Severstal 2 Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Report 2017 BUSINESS AND CORPORATE CORPORATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND SOCIAL PROJECTS AND ABOUT THIS ABOUT SEVERSTAL EMPLOYEES SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS REPORT Table of Contents Review by Chairman of PAO Severstal 2 Occupational Safety and Environmental 82 Alexey Mordashov 5. Protection Review by Chief Executive of AO Severstal 4 Occupational Safety 84 Management Alexander Shevelev Environmental Protection 92 Power Consumption and Energy Efficiency 102 1. About Severstal 6 Core Businesses And Corporate Structure 10 6. Social Projects and Investments 106 Industry Environment and Corporate 17 External Social Programmes of Severstal: 108 Business Strategy Policy and Management Contribution to Sustainable Development of 109 2. Business and Corporate Social Responsibility 20 Severstal Regions Management of Sustainable Development 23 Social Investments and Social Partnership 112 in Severstal Support for Culture 116 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 25 Corporate Volunteering 119 Severstal Awards in 2017 30 Employee Participation in Environmental 120 Initiatives and Collaboration With Communities 3. Corporate Governance 32 on Environmental Matters Standards
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in Corporate Reporting
    TRANSPARENCY IN CORPORATE REPORTING Assessing Russia’s Largest Companies “Transparency International-Russia” Report ASSESSING RUSSIA’S LARGEST COMPANIES “TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL— RUSSIA” REPORT This report was produced by Transparency International Russia as part of a project led by the Transparency International Secretariat with fund- ing from the Siemens Integrity Initiative. The Transparency in Corporate Reporting assessment conducted in Russia uses the same methodol- ogy as the Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing the World’s Largest Companies which is produced periodically by the Transparency International Secretariat. The latest edition of the global report, pub- lished in 2014, included Siemens as one of the 124 companies that were assessed. Project coordinator Anastasiya Ivolga Project team Anton Pominov, Ekaterina Sukhareva, Ilya Shumanov, Maria Maria Shigreva Project interns Alisa Velmiskina and Svetlana Ivanova © Bureau Verstak, design, 2017 Printed in Tara-Tut print shop (Moscow) TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 9 The Overall Results 10 Recommendations 12 Methodology 20 1. Anti-corruption documents 26 2. Organizational Transparency 38 3. Country-by-country reporting 44 Annexes 1. List of evaluated information 50 2. Data per companies 52 — 2 CENTER “TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL R” TRANSPARENCY ACP — ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAMS SCALE FROM 0–10, WHERE 0 IS THE LEAST TRANSPARENT, OT — ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSPARENCY 10 IS THE MOST TRANSPARENT. THE INDEX IS BASED ON THE IN CORPORATE REPORTING СВС — COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY REPORTING
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Sanctions on Russia
    U.S. Sanctions on Russia Updated January 11, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45415 SUMMARY R45415 U.S. Sanctions on Russia January 11, 2019 Many observers consider sanctions to be a central element of U.S. policy to counter Russian malign behavior. Most Russia-related sanctions implemented by the United States have been Cory Welt, Coordinator levied in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. In addition, the United States has Analyst in European Affairs imposed sanctions on Russia in response to human rights abuses, election interference and cyberattacks, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, support to Syria, and use of a chemical weapon. The United States also employs sanctions to deter further objectionable Kristin Archick activities. Most Members of Congress support a robust use of sanctions amid concerns about Specialist in European Affairs Russia’s international behavior and geostrategic intentions. Ukraine-related sanctions are mainly based on four executive orders (EOs) the President Rebecca M. Nelson introduced in 2014. In addition, Congress passed and the President signed into law two acts Specialist in International establishing sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: the Support for the Trade and Finance Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (SSIDES; P.L. 113-95/H.R. 4152) and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (UFSA; P.L. 113- Dianne E. Rennack 272/H.R. 5859). Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation In 2017, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Phosphate Fertilizers from the Russian Federation
    C-821-825 Investigation Public Document E&C/OVIII: GA/WH November 23, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Laroski Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations FROM: James Maeder Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations SUBJECT: Decision Memorandum for the Affirmative Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Phosphate Fertilizers from the Russian Federation I. SUMMARY The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of phosphate fertilizers from the Russian Federation (Russia), as provided in section 703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). II. BACKGROUND A. Case History On June 26, 2020, Commerce received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, filed in proper form on behalf of the Mosaic Company (the petitioner).1 We describe the supplements to the Petition and our consultations with the Government of Russia (GOR) in the Initiation Checklist.2 On July 23, 2020, we published the initiation of a CVD investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia.3 On July 2, 2020, we released U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data under the Administrative Protective Order (APO), and requested comments regarding the data and 1 See Petitioner’s Letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties: Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia,” dated June 26, 2020 (Petition). 2 See Initiation Checklist: Phosphate Fertilizers from the Russian Federation (Russia), dated July 16, 2020 (Initiation Checklist). 3 See Phosphate Fertilizers from the Kingdom of Morocco and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 85 FR 44505 (July 23, 2020) (Initiation Notice).
    [Show full text]
  • New Projects for the Development of the Russian Arctic: Space Matters!  © Aleksandr N
    Aleksandr N. Pilyasov, Elena S. Putilova. New projects for the development… 17 UDC [911.3:33](98)(045) DOI: 10.37482/issn2221-2698.2020.38.21 New projects for the development of the Russian Arctic: space matters! © Aleksandr N. PILYASOV, Dr. Sci. (Geogr.), professor E-mail: [email protected] Lomonosov Moscow State University, Institute of Regional Consulting, Moscow, Russia © Elena S. PUTILOVA, expert E-mail: [email protected] Institute of Regional Consulting, Moscow, Russia Abstract. The article summarizes the results of the analysis of 23 recent projects for the development of Rus- sian Arctic resources in terms of the spatial effects they generate or rely on. It is proved to be the feature of the economic and geographical approach to the analysis of Arctic projects. The most critical change, com- pared with the realities of the late Soviet era, is the reliance on the sea logistics of most new projects for the development of Russian Arctic resources. Three main spatial effects of development projects are described in detail: the localization effect, the regional effect, and the corporate effect. The first one reflects the desire of companies to the utmost compactness and a sparsely populated production site, platform solutions using artificial intelligence, remote control, robotic mining, and processing schemes. The second effect revives the Soviet district effect within the contour of the resource corporation as their desire to provide cost savings on the “soft” infrastructure pairing of neighboring production facilities. The third effect characterizes the cooperation of usually competing companies in severe natural and economic conditions for the development of Arctic projects.
    [Show full text]