In your view, how relevant and timely is the Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership?

Any partnership is timely, as it helps parties to get to know each other better, and learn something valuable from the other side.

I’d like to share my own impressions of the 2006 conference. For the first time I was able to fully understand the partnership. I was not that familiar with it before, but now I appreciate how valuable its work is. The benefits are that it helps create new enterprises, implements projects and promotes communication. We are not just sharing something good and new in the scientific, technical and business spheres, but also in the area of general human values. I find this very exciting.

Secondly, the conference enabled us to network. It brought together those who work in closed cities, with those who face the challenge of having unemployed personnel from nuclear enterprises, and those who face economic stability problems in their cities. These problems are very topical and during our discussions those who had found solutions were able to pass on their experiences to others. This is great.

While everyone understands the importance of the Global Partnership and our Programme in particular, closed cities have quite definite problems, because historically they lack commercial experience and currently enough funding. The partnership with Great Britain is very effective, since Britain went down a similar route 15 years ago, and has a unique experience of reorganising its own nuclear industry and addressing the same problems, including social and economical ones. From this point of view, British-Russian cooperation can be very effective. What do you think about this?

Yes, very effective. I would like to emphasise the fact that Great Britain and Russia are at different stages of development, and that British support is crucial while Russia is going through a tough period of social development. We live on such a small planet, that global changes cannot affect one country or territory in isolation. They involuntarily affect the entire world.

The British experience is undoubtedly interesting and valuable to us. The thoroughness of the British approach, and its depth and consistency deserve respect and study, and we are fortunate that we have a chance to do that under this programme. I want to emphasise again that we share common goals, and those who have taken on the task of helping Russia overcome the difficulties it faces, deserve the greatest respect. I feel very positive having now met with Patrick Gray, Charles Monk and Trevor Hayward, both informally, and at the conference. Our discussions have proved very valuable and fruitful.

On the other hand, it’s important the British probably made mistakes when they de-monopolised their plants, which is an experience we can also benefit from.

And certainly the commercialisation process, as you quite rightly brought up in your question, is very complicated for small closed cities, such as Snezhinsk which is based on one industry, and has limited space, where there is a shortage of specialists, and a large number of unemployed people at the same time.

Going back to the recent conference, have there been any moments that you especially recall or that have led you to further thought?

I would not be the first person to suggest that every presentation had something new or different for colleagues from other cities. Despite the fact that we are all closed cities, we all differ. The cities have different population structures, locations, and industries. However, by communicating through a prism of issues via CNCP, we find we also have a lot in common. I liked the way the conference was organised. I want to emphasise that the people who put it together understand what they are doing and how it should be done. Both during the sessions and afterwards we were always kept busy, and were well looked after. The interpretation was wonderful. I will be honest and say it is very important that interpretation is needed not just during presentations, but throughout. There was always someone there at the right place at the right time, who, if we failed to understand each other, would join the conversation and get things back on track. The handout materials and process visualisation were all professionally done, too.

Thank you very much. I have one last question. It might seem hard to answer off the top of your head, but at the conference you learnt about the Programme. Could you tell me how you see its development, and possibly any barriers that may lie in the way?

First of all, we understand the Programme is scheduled to run until 2012.

Secondly, it did not start yesterday, and we have gained much valuable experience and clearly understand the Programme development dynamics.

Thirdly, we are able to work together with our British partners to update our aims and goals. And through attending the conference I feel very positive. I believe we are on the right path. We have one target — those people with knowledge and skills gained in the nuclear industry. They need to find a new role in life, and we should keep them in our sights. The creation of new jobs is primarily the goal of this country, which is now changing its geopolitical focus. We should be very thankful to our British partners for sharing their experience and offering financial assistance.

What problems might occur? They might include difficulties with security to visit closed cities and with different understanding of some issues. But they are all solvable. We all need to behave as ordinary people in international society and a solution can be found for any problem. Will there be problems with visits? There are certain rules that we need to observe, but do not think they will become a barrier to visits and interaction.

It is crucial to have results, which are operating enterprises. De facto. It is important that we