Back to the list

Open event "SPIC 2.0 confirmed status and what does it mean for investors"


Оn 17 September, 2020, the AEB Modernisation & Innovation Working Group held its third open meeting dedicated to the implementation of SPIC 2.0 mechanism, entitled "SPIC 2.0 confirmed status and what does it mean for investors".

The meeting was moderated by Michael Akim, AEB Board Member, Chairman of the AEB Working Group on Modernisation & Innovation; Associated Partner, Vitus Bering Management Ltd.; Professor of Graduate School of Business, HSE.


In introductory remarks, the moderator outlined the following key concerns by businesses in terms of the law enforcement and the prospects for further developing SPIC 2.0 as a tool:
-Expertise procedure: The adopted legislative framework presupposes exclusively Russian experts. However, it is necessary to attract international expertise, since a technological benchmark can only be actively carried out with the help of an international expert community.
-Tender procedure: The procedure is not entirely clear in terms of comparing the same technology from two different suppliers.
-Administrative aspects: Labor-intensiveness and complexity of procedures in terms of participation of small and medium-sized businesses. To what extent their resources are sufficient to prepare the necessary package of documents within the proposed time frame.
- Difficulty in obtaining the status of a Russian manufacturer.


Shushanik Marchenko, Head of Special Investment Contracts and Localisation Division, Industrial Development Fund (IDF) in her speech highlighted the key aspects that investors need to pay attention to when preparing a package of documents for participation in the competitive selection in accordance with the new rules for concluding SPIC 2.0. She also analyzed the algorithm for concluding a SPIC and the aspects related to the examination procedure. Special attention was paid to the issue of selecting investment projects in accordance with the terms of technology introduction, production volume, sales and localization conditions.


Maria Glukhova, Vice-President for Economic Policy and Competitiveness, Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) noted, that the full launch of the SPIC 2.0 mechanism is something that business has been waiting for a very long time, and which is now very important. The businesses do not always understand what the demand will be, how the situation with restrictions will develop, how the economy will recover. Under such conditions, SPIC 2.0 has a potential to become one of the most important tools for the implementation of high-tech projects. Maria analyzed in detail the positive changes associated with the launch of the SPIC 2.0 mechanism, but also listed the points that cause difficulties and concerns of investors.

Falk Tischendorf, Managing Partner, BEITEN BURKHARDT Moscow, in his speech he focused on several key aspects that are important for business: technologies; tender deadlines; application evaluation procedure; changes in the contract. With regard to the issue of technologies, Mr. Tischendorf noted that the big legal difference between SPIC 1.0 and SPIC 2.0 is that we are talking about the localization of technologies, but in practical terms, we are talking about the localization of production. Certain industries include several modern technologies. The question arising in this regard is whether one contract can be concluded only for one technology or for several technologies needed for production.


Maxim Grigoryev, Partner, Head of special projects, Vegas Lex, in his report he focused on the following issues: why to conclude a SPIC, how to properly prepare it, what the investor can expect at the moment, and what is the investor's interest in entering a rather complicated process that involves time and financial costs. Maxim analyzed the package of support measures available at federal and regional levels, that an investor may have in mind as a part of the SPIC 2.0 conclusion. He also described in detail the possible risks of the investor, and also presented tools to minimize them.


Anna Dupan,  Director of the  Institute of Legal Regulation,  National Research University Higher School of Economics, by summing up the discussion, emphasized that SPIC instrument in practice, if compared to subsidies, is the safest instrument, since it does foresee any funding from the state, that is often the cause of legal complications. So far, the tool cannot be called debugged. However, after the first tenders are held, a corresponding revision of the regulatory framework is planned.

Record of the event is available via link

Presentation_Maxim Grigoryev.pdf View/Open
Presentation_ Falk Tischendorf.pdf View/Open
Presentation_Shushanik Marchenko.pdf View/Open
Presentation_Maxim Grigoryev_ENG.pdf View/Open