Inspection of technoparks created in Russia revealed serious shortcomings in the monitoring and control system of their activities. This is the conclusion made by the auditors of the Accounts Chamber, the report of the department is published on its website.
The effectiveness of the development tool turned out to be impossible to assess at once for several reasons. For example, the requirements for residents have not yet been unified, which is why among them there were found credit organizations, a branch of a political party and individuals who do not conduct scientific, technical or innovative activities and are not engaged in production.
In some cases, the auditor Svetlana Orlova noted, a technopark is created just like that, without specifying the type. For example, the national project “Development of the Far East” provides for the creation of six such zones by 2024. However, it is still unknown what form of ownership they will have, parameters of state support, funding sources, executors and coordinators.
Because of this, support for technoparks is carried out at random. During the audit, several cases were found when the Ministry of Industry and Trade, through its line, provided support to those parks that had previously received it from the Ministry of Economic Development. For example, the extra support for the SEZ “Alabuga” and the park KIP “Master” amounted to 3.2 billion rubles.
The geoinformation system of industrial parks, technoparks and industrial clusters (GISIP) was to become a monitoring tool. But incomplete and irrelevant information was entered into it, and at the regional level in most subjects it was not filled at all, the report says.
The Accounts Chamber proposed to appoint a body that will begin to coordinate state support and assess the effectiveness of parks. According to auditors, the Ministry of Industry and Trade is best suited for this role.
Earlier, the department established that serious money is spent on projects for the development of small towns in Russia, but due to the lack of goals and control, it is impossible to assess the effect of costs. In some cases, the city authorities spend the funds received on completely different needs and do not bear any responsibility.