the Basic problem of projects is state - private partnership in Russia consists that the state and business on - to a miscellaneous understand their purpose and advantages and trust each other a little, participants of poll spent Ernst and Young believe. The state is ready to go on partnership with business only in the conditions of shortage of own means: thus the authorities expect that private investors take the most part of risks on themselves, having agreed on rather small profitableness. Business, on the contrary, wants to receive various privileges and schemes of protection against risks for long term, however is inclined to put just in case these risks in potential profitableness of projects, raising their cost.
projects it is state - private partnership (GCHP) Russia is necessary, representatives of the state and business have agreed during discussion of research Ernst and Young " How to provide success GCHP in Russia ". However in questions on how these projects should look and with what should be their cost for tax bearers, unanimity it was not observed. The state considers GCHP, first of all, as a way to realise necessary projects on which the state does not have not enough means. At the same time, as one of moderators of discussion has noticed, the head of department of services Ernst and Young in the field of design financing and an infrastructure in the CIS Alexander Yerofeev, for constructed within the limits of GCHP an infrastructure, finally, all the same pays a society or directly the state, and cost of private money always above, than the state loans. Therefore it is no wonder that one of officials during discussion named projects GCHP " a priori more expensive " than their analogues created for budget money. Representatives of a private sector with this statement do not agree. According to 62 % of the Russian and foreign companies interrogated during research Ernst and Young, primary benefit GCHP is just the economy of budgetary funds at the expense of creation of a better product. However, only 8 % of representatives of state bodies divide this point of view. As it became clear during discussion, officials frequently do not see declared from the private partner " qualities " however clearly see sharp increase in cost of the project. Representatives of a private sector explain necessity of high profitableness under projects GCHP presence of variety of risks: risk of demand, tariff risk, currency risk and risk of refinancing. The banks interrogated during research have declared that the lower bound of joint-stock profitableness of projects in which they are ready to participate, makes 20 % annual, and top level in present conditions when pilot projects are realised, they consider 30 % annual. Meanwhile, for representatives of the state profitableness level in 20 % annual is maximum. " desire of banks to receive under projects GCHP profitableness (on a share capital. " " ) in 30 % is a result of an estimation of risks, - the assistant to the mayor of Moscow on economic policy Andrey Sharons who has taken part in discussion has noticed. - the credit organisations now trust a market situation a little and to guarantees of state partners, therefore are interested to put as much as possible risks in potential profitableness ". Demanding high profitableness, business, especially foreign, simultaneously aspires to shift the most part of risks on the state. So, according to 56 % of representatives of a private sector, the state should bear responsibility for risk of demand; at representatives of state structures opinion opposite. " it is wrong to shift all risk of demand for the state, - Andrey Sharons believes. - If the investor shows intention to shift this risk on the state partner, it means that he, most likely, does not believe that there is a sufficient demand for that active which he creates. And it is more similar to process of development of money ". Zammera has agreed that the tariff risk is in sphere of responsibility of authorities, and the state should give in this point in question to business certain guarantees. As to inflation of expenses, that, to opinion of mister Sharonov, an exception of this risk - just " that stimulus on which the state should be involved ". The state is interested in that once co-ordinated with partners in the project the volume of expenses remained immutable, and responsibility for keeping within the given limit, lay on the private partner. Participants of research have allocated three basic obstacles for more active realisation of projects GCHP: Imperfection of standard base, absence of a clear state policy in this sphere and bad preparation of projects. According to research, 86 % of respondents from a private sector and 67 % of representatives of state structures believe that the uniform state policy in the field of GCHP is absent. All respondents from bank sector adhere to similar opinion. As participants of discussion recognised, decisions on realisation of those or other projects GCHP frequently are accepted for tactical, political reasons, without the clear analysis of their necessity. As to quality of preparation of projects it, according to participants of research, makes 0,9 on a scale from 0 to 3. The Ministry of Economics in the end of June has published the bill about GCHP which should order relations in this sphere and provide the big protection of private investments. One of authors of research, the head of group of tax and legal services Ernst and Young for infrastructural projects Dmitry Babiner has expressed opinion that, probably, it is necessary to regulate less to the contrary the given area and to give the chance to the state and business to agree and distribute risks how it conveniently in the given concrete project. He has mentioned a recent case in Perm when local management of Federal antimonopoly service has cancelled competition on project GCHP, motivirovav the decision that concept " it is state - private partnership " in the legislation is absent. As a result competition has been again spent according to 115 - FZ " About kontsessionnyh agreements ". Nevertheless, 75 % of respondents have supported necessity of essential changes of the legislation for sphere GCHP. In particular, business disturbs a question of protection of investments. Any of the investors interrogated during research and creditors does not consider that the existing legislation and practice provides adequate protection of their rights. The representative of one of foreign banks even has supported that in Russia there was a judiciary practice favorable for private investors under projects GCHP. Summing up discussion, Andrey Yerofeev has noted, as abroad recently there is an inconsistent opinion on projects GCHP. For example, in Great Britain which last 15 years actively used GCHP for creation of the social infrastructure, many projects should be supported now by means of grants or at all to alter. Mister Yerofeev in this connection has underlined that projects GCHP should be studied more carefully.