RESOLUTION
following the meeting of the Committee on Science of the International Congress of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (ICIE), held on 20 November 2025, on the topic: “Science and Innovation in the Development of the Food Industry and the Agro-Industrial Complex: Priorities and Prospects.”
Reports of scientists and experts were presented for discussion:
• “Food as a Weapon: Ensuring Food Security” – Igor L. Trunov, Chairman of the ICIE Committee on Science, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union of the Food Industry, Doctor of Law, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Professor.
• “Production and Consumption of Dairy Products: Current Global and Russian Trends” – Alla L. Novokshanova, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Laboratory of Food Biotechnology and Specialized Products, Federal Research Center for Nutrition and Biotechnology.
• “The Level of Food Security in Russia and China” – Svetlana V. Ivanova, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of World Economy at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Deputy Chair of the Economic Council of the Union of the Food Industry.
• “Problems of Financing the Agro-Industrial Complex: Systemic Risks, Volatility and Stabilization Approaches” – Alexey Yu. Migenko, Vice-President of the Union of the Food Industry, Director of the Department for Lending and Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex at AK BARS Bank, Member of the ICIE Committee.
Following an in-depth and substantive analysis, the Resolution of the meeting was prepared:
Presenter: [Trunov I.L.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Food as a Weapon: Ensuring Food Security”
1. Assessment of the Current International Situation
1.1. An unprecedented increase has been noted in the use of food and food supply chains as tools of political pressure, including sanction measures not based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
1.2. It is stated that unilateral coercive economic measures affecting access to food violate international law, contradict the 1996 Rome Declaration and create humanitarian threats.
1.3. Food restrictions imposed on Cuba, the DPRK, the USSR and other states resulted in large-scale humanitarian crises, confirming the need for international legal regulation of food restrictions as a form of pressure.
2. Major Challenges to Food Security
2.1. Global population growth to a projected 9 billion by 2050 and a corresponding increase in food demand by 40–70%.
2.2. The existence of more than 23,960 anti-Russian sanctions, some directly affecting the agricultural sector, logistics and the food industry.
2.3. The lack of regulation of unilateral sanctions creates systemic risks to international food stability and expands the global “hunger zone,” currently encompassing 673 million people.
3. Russia’s National Policy
3.1. The adoption of the Russian Food Security Doctrine and the recognition of food security as an element of national economic security are welcomed.
3.2. The need for legislative reinforcement of this area is noted, given the absence of a Federal Law “On Food Security of the Russian Federation.”
3.3. It is confirmed that state policy must consider the need for structural economic transformation, including in the agro-industrial complex.
4. International Legal Initiatives
4.1. The absence of a universal humanitarian-legal mechanism regulating the inadmissibility of sanctions that create a threat of hunger is acknowledged.
4.2. It is necessary to support the idea of developing an international legal act (a convention or protocol by analogy with the Geneva Conventions) prohibiting food pressure and limiting the use of food as an instrument of political coercion.
4.3. It is recommended that the ICIE initiate an inter-parliamentary discussion involving FAO, relevant UN commissions, and interstate organizations.
5. National Legal Proposals
5.1. Support the development and adoption of a Federal Law “On Food Security of the Russian Federation,” establishing:
– key areas of state policy;
– mechanisms for interagency planning of food resources;
– a system for monitoring and assessing risks;
– measures of responsibility for violations in ensuring food security;
– unified requirements for the food industry, agricultural sector and processing industry.
5.2. Recommend the introduction of measures to harmonize private and public interests within food supply chains.
5.3. Develop stable mechanisms for stimulating food science, innovation, biotechnology and agricultural engineering.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Support the proposals of the report as reflecting real threats to food security.
6.2. Establish an ICIE working group to prepare proposals for national parliaments and international bodies.
6.3. Continue scientific and expert work on developing legal guarantees of national food independence.
Presenter: [Novokshanova A.L.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Production and Consumption of Dairy Products: Current Global and Russian Trends”
1. The Uniqueness of Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition
1.1. Medical and biological substantiation of the unique properties and composition of milk components and their metabolites was presented, based on epidemiological observations and pre-clinical and clinical studies.
1.2. Data on actual milk and dairy consumption in the Russian Federation from 1990 to 2025 were provided and compared with recommendations of the Ministry of Health.
1.3. Negative trends in public health caused by insufficient consumption of milk and dairy products were demonstrated.
2. Prospects for the Development of the Dairy Industry
2.1. A positive annual growth rate (4–5%) of the global dairy market was shown, driven by global population growth and WHO recommendations on healthy nutrition. Foods containing dairy proteins represent the fastest-growing segment of the global and Russian food industries.
2.2. Analytics of global food markets show even higher annual growth rates (8–9%) for foods with added health benefits and specialized products for target groups: children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, athletes, military personnel, and individuals with diet-related diseases.
2.3. To eliminate import dependence and ensure food stability, the use of dairy raw materials in developing and industrializing health-enhancing and specialized foods was justified.
3. Milk Processing in the Context of Sustainable Development and Zero-Waste Technologies
3.1. Global environmental trends and “critical points” in milk processing were presented. The greatest concern arises from incomplete processing of dairy raw materials and the absence of zero-waste technologies both globally and in Russia.
3.2. Losses from inefficient use of secondary dairy raw materials, particularly whey, were shown. In Russia, annual losses exceed 90 billion rubles and, in raw-material equivalent, include 358 thousand tons of lactose, 55 thousand tons of whey protein, 39 thousand tons of minerals, 31 thousand tons of lactic acid, and 27 thousand tons of fat.
3.3. At the current level of global and Russian industrial development, membrane technologies (microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis) are the optimal solution for zero-waste dairy processing. At present, fewer than 20% of Russian milk-processing plants are equipped with such technologies.
4. Reconstituted Products and Membrane-Separated Secondary Dairy Raw Materials
4.1. Reconstituted products (skimmed milk powder, buttermilk and whey powders) and membrane-separated secondary raw materials (isolates and concentrates of milk proteins, lactose) are necessary for forming state reserves to ensure national food security.
4.2. Deep processing of dairy raw materials enables extraction of biologically active ingredients (β-lactoglobulin, α-lactalbumin, glycomacropeptide, whey albumin, immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme, oligosaccharides, lecithin, peptides) required for producing health-enhancing foods, including for children and for clinical and preventive nutrition.
4.3. In Russia, only a few enterprises produce membrane-separated dairy ingredients, and there is no industrial production of biologically active ingredients, resulting in dependency on imports.
5. Scientific-Industrial Cooperation
5.1. Within the Consortium “Health Preservation, Nutrition, Demography,” established in 2021 under the Russian Academy of Sciences at the Federal Research Center for Nutrition and Biotechnology, technologies for a number of specialized dairy products have been developed.
5.2. Experience with scientific-industrial cooperation has shown that most bioactive ingredients for specialized food production are imported due to lack of domestic production.
5.3. Neither producers nor research organizations have funding for clinical trials required to obtain evidence of efficacy for specialized food products.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Sustainable development strategies and industrial greening require investment and public-private partnerships in the agro-industrial complex to overcome the high scientific and capital intensity of deep milk-processing projects. 6.2. Stimulate investment in methods for studying bioactive ingredients in dairy raw materials and products, and in the development and implementation of industrial technologies for extracting minor components. 6.3. Overcome barriers to obtaining clinical evidence on the effectiveness of specialized food products, including dairy-based ones.
Presenter: [Ivanova S.V.] Key Provisions of the Report
“The Level of Food Security in Russia and China”
1. Differences in the Legitimate Definitions of National “Food Security”
The Russian Food Security Doctrine emphasizes national self-sufficiency in key foods and agricultural raw materials; In China, the new Grain Security Law and the annual Document No. 1 (given limited farmland, water shortages and demographic constraints) define self-sufficiency primarily through grain; FAO bases food security on population access to food regardless of the territory of production.
Under sanctions pressure from the collective West, the Russian and Chinese approaches are considered justified. External management of hunger is undeniably a geopolitical strategy of domination.
2. The Paradox of the “National Producer” under Sanctions
2.1. It was noted that political-economic and legal interpretations of “national/domestic producer” differ significantly.
Russia and China, upon joining the WTO, created favorable conditions for attracting FDI, primarily into the 1st and 3rd sectors of their agro-industrial complexes. However, the effects differed markedly due to differing forms of FDI.
In China, the predominant model was “greenfield” investments with full transfer of technologies (“market in exchange for technologies”). In Russia, mergers and acquisitions of profitable existing enterprises often dominated, sometimes accompanied by partial bankruptcy of less profitable ones and market monopolization.
Western geopolitical pressure and sanctions—particularly affecting international financial transactions and insurance—created risks of mass withdrawal of foreign producers from Russia, potentially destabilizing food markets and labor markets.
2.2. A link was demonstrated between food, technological, investment security (sovereignty) and the need for adequate state regulation.
3. Current State of Food Security in Russia and China
3.1. Russia has achieved stable self-sufficiency in most major food groups except fruits and berries; table salt; vegetables; milk and dairy products. Russia is a net exporter of agricultural raw materials and processed products.
China is self-sufficient in rice and is a net importer of agricultural raw materials, including from Russia.
3.2. Russia and China now show comparable levels of per-capita consumption of animal protein (including fish and seafood).
China demonstrates dynamic strengthening of its food security, while maintaining lower quality and safety levels of food products compared to Russia. China’s advantages include stronger government support for farmers, developed SME cooperation, low refinancing rates, a stable onshore currency, low inflation, planned state/private investment in the 1st and 3rd sectors of the agro-industrial complex, progressive digitalization of rural areas and active AgTech funding.
4. Conclusions
It was decided to support the proposals of the report regarding the need to refine the Russian Food Security Doctrine, including strengthening national sovereignty in the 1st and 3rd sectors of the agro-industrial complex and in areas of investment, technological and financial stability.
Presenter: [Migenko A.Yu.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Financing the Agro-Industrial Complex: Systemic Risks, Volatility and Stabilization Approaches”
1. Assessment of Systemic Risks and Challenges
1.1. A number of risks were identified: climate and natural risks reducing harvests and revenues; price volatility on grain markets complicating cash-flow forecasting, especially for small farms; geopolitical and currency risks requiring flexible financial tools; and structural constraints limiting access to capital.
2. Impact on Banking Sector Credit Policy
2.1. Elevated credit risk in the agro-industrial complex limits long-term financing and leads to the predominance of short-term seasonal loans. 2.2. Investment lending for infrastructure (farms, elevators, processing facilities) shows low dynamics due to long payback periods (5–7 years) and high uncertainty in income forecasting.
3. National Legal Initiatives
3.1. Ensure development of insurance and guarantee tools, setting a target insurance coverage of at least 70% of croplands by 2030.
3.1.1. Amend Federal Law No. 260-FZ of 25.07.2011 “On State Support in Agricultural Insurance,” providing for subsidized premiums up to 100% for priority investment projects with a horizon exceeding five years.
3.1.2. Recommend integration of guarantees by the Deposit Insurance Agency (ASV) or the Agro-Industrial Development Fund into the Agricultural Insurance Plan for 2026 and beyond (approved by the Ministry of Agriculture Order No. 521 of 12.08.2025) to cover catastrophic risks.
3.2. Legislate mandatory use of digital platforms for monitoring crops and yields.
3.2.1. Supplement Article 17.1 of Law No. 264-FZ with provisions integrating the unified information system of agro-industrial digital services with AI-based risk-analysis models.
3.3. Strengthen partnerships with the state by increasing and simplifying subsidies and concessional lending.
3.3.1. Amend Government Resolution No. 1474 of 27.12.2012 to increase subsidies (by 1.5–2 times) for 2026 and subsequent years, with simplified procedures for modernization projects (5+ years).
3.4. Support the implementation of new financial instruments to diversify financing sources: agrobonds, factoring, warehouse receipts.
3.4.1. Develop a dedicated section on agrobonds (green bonds for the agro-industrial complex) within Law No. 264-FZ, with tax benefits and subsidized issuance up to 100% (based on Federal Law No. 39-FZ “On the Securities Market”); launch pilot issuances in 2026.
3.4.2. Supplement the Civil Code (Articles 824–833) with regulations on factoring in the agro-industrial complex, including state guarantees for seasonal supplies.
3.4.3. Update Federal Law No. 451-FZ of 21.12.2020 “On Warehouse Receipts,” expanding its application to agro-industrial exports with logistical subsidies up to 100%.
4. Decision of the ICIE Committee on Science
4.1. Support the conclusions of the report as addressing missed opportunities for industry modernization and emphasize the need to minimize risks and stimulate long-term financing in the agro-industrial sector.
4.2. Take note that implementation of the proposals will reduce banking sector risk costs by 2–3 percentage points, increase the share of investment lending, and boost processing investments by at least 25% by 2028, contributing to sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex.
4.3. Forward proposals to the Government of the Russian Federation and relevant ministries (Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Digital Development).
4.4. Recommend establishing an interagency working group under the Ministry of Agriculture to monitor implementation.
Video and photo report available on the ICIE Committee on Science website: https://komitiet-po-nauke.ic-ie.com/zasedanie-apk
Respectfully,
Chairman of the Meeting of the ICIE Committee on Science, Professor, Doctor of Law, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Member of the Presidium Bureau, Head of the RANS Department
Igor Leonidovich Trunov
• “Food as a Weapon: Ensuring Food Security” – Igor L. Trunov, Chairman of the ICIE Committee on Science, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union of the Food Industry, Doctor of Law, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Professor.
• “Production and Consumption of Dairy Products: Current Global and Russian Trends” – Alla L. Novokshanova, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Laboratory of Food Biotechnology and Specialized Products, Federal Research Center for Nutrition and Biotechnology.
• “The Level of Food Security in Russia and China” – Svetlana V. Ivanova, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of World Economy at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Deputy Chair of the Economic Council of the Union of the Food Industry.
• “Problems of Financing the Agro-Industrial Complex: Systemic Risks, Volatility and Stabilization Approaches” – Alexey Yu. Migenko, Vice-President of the Union of the Food Industry, Director of the Department for Lending and Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex at AK BARS Bank, Member of the ICIE Committee.
Following an in-depth and substantive analysis, the Resolution of the meeting was prepared:
Presenter: [Trunov I.L.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Food as a Weapon: Ensuring Food Security”
1. Assessment of the Current International Situation
1.1. An unprecedented increase has been noted in the use of food and food supply chains as tools of political pressure, including sanction measures not based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
1.2. It is stated that unilateral coercive economic measures affecting access to food violate international law, contradict the 1996 Rome Declaration and create humanitarian threats.
1.3. Food restrictions imposed on Cuba, the DPRK, the USSR and other states resulted in large-scale humanitarian crises, confirming the need for international legal regulation of food restrictions as a form of pressure.
2. Major Challenges to Food Security
2.1. Global population growth to a projected 9 billion by 2050 and a corresponding increase in food demand by 40–70%.
2.2. The existence of more than 23,960 anti-Russian sanctions, some directly affecting the agricultural sector, logistics and the food industry.
2.3. The lack of regulation of unilateral sanctions creates systemic risks to international food stability and expands the global “hunger zone,” currently encompassing 673 million people.
3. Russia’s National Policy
3.1. The adoption of the Russian Food Security Doctrine and the recognition of food security as an element of national economic security are welcomed.
3.2. The need for legislative reinforcement of this area is noted, given the absence of a Federal Law “On Food Security of the Russian Federation.”
3.3. It is confirmed that state policy must consider the need for structural economic transformation, including in the agro-industrial complex.
4. International Legal Initiatives
4.1. The absence of a universal humanitarian-legal mechanism regulating the inadmissibility of sanctions that create a threat of hunger is acknowledged.
4.2. It is necessary to support the idea of developing an international legal act (a convention or protocol by analogy with the Geneva Conventions) prohibiting food pressure and limiting the use of food as an instrument of political coercion.
4.3. It is recommended that the ICIE initiate an inter-parliamentary discussion involving FAO, relevant UN commissions, and interstate organizations.
5. National Legal Proposals
5.1. Support the development and adoption of a Federal Law “On Food Security of the Russian Federation,” establishing:
– key areas of state policy;
– mechanisms for interagency planning of food resources;
– a system for monitoring and assessing risks;
– measures of responsibility for violations in ensuring food security;
– unified requirements for the food industry, agricultural sector and processing industry.
5.2. Recommend the introduction of measures to harmonize private and public interests within food supply chains.
5.3. Develop stable mechanisms for stimulating food science, innovation, biotechnology and agricultural engineering.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Support the proposals of the report as reflecting real threats to food security.
6.2. Establish an ICIE working group to prepare proposals for national parliaments and international bodies.
6.3. Continue scientific and expert work on developing legal guarantees of national food independence.
Presenter: [Novokshanova A.L.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Production and Consumption of Dairy Products: Current Global and Russian Trends”
1. The Uniqueness of Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition
1.1. Medical and biological substantiation of the unique properties and composition of milk components and their metabolites was presented, based on epidemiological observations and pre-clinical and clinical studies.
1.2. Data on actual milk and dairy consumption in the Russian Federation from 1990 to 2025 were provided and compared with recommendations of the Ministry of Health.
1.3. Negative trends in public health caused by insufficient consumption of milk and dairy products were demonstrated.
2. Prospects for the Development of the Dairy Industry
2.1. A positive annual growth rate (4–5%) of the global dairy market was shown, driven by global population growth and WHO recommendations on healthy nutrition. Foods containing dairy proteins represent the fastest-growing segment of the global and Russian food industries.
2.2. Analytics of global food markets show even higher annual growth rates (8–9%) for foods with added health benefits and specialized products for target groups: children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, athletes, military personnel, and individuals with diet-related diseases.
2.3. To eliminate import dependence and ensure food stability, the use of dairy raw materials in developing and industrializing health-enhancing and specialized foods was justified.
3. Milk Processing in the Context of Sustainable Development and Zero-Waste Technologies
3.1. Global environmental trends and “critical points” in milk processing were presented. The greatest concern arises from incomplete processing of dairy raw materials and the absence of zero-waste technologies both globally and in Russia.
3.2. Losses from inefficient use of secondary dairy raw materials, particularly whey, were shown. In Russia, annual losses exceed 90 billion rubles and, in raw-material equivalent, include 358 thousand tons of lactose, 55 thousand tons of whey protein, 39 thousand tons of minerals, 31 thousand tons of lactic acid, and 27 thousand tons of fat.
3.3. At the current level of global and Russian industrial development, membrane technologies (microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis) are the optimal solution for zero-waste dairy processing. At present, fewer than 20% of Russian milk-processing plants are equipped with such technologies.
4. Reconstituted Products and Membrane-Separated Secondary Dairy Raw Materials
4.1. Reconstituted products (skimmed milk powder, buttermilk and whey powders) and membrane-separated secondary raw materials (isolates and concentrates of milk proteins, lactose) are necessary for forming state reserves to ensure national food security.
4.2. Deep processing of dairy raw materials enables extraction of biologically active ingredients (β-lactoglobulin, α-lactalbumin, glycomacropeptide, whey albumin, immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme, oligosaccharides, lecithin, peptides) required for producing health-enhancing foods, including for children and for clinical and preventive nutrition.
4.3. In Russia, only a few enterprises produce membrane-separated dairy ingredients, and there is no industrial production of biologically active ingredients, resulting in dependency on imports.
5. Scientific-Industrial Cooperation
5.1. Within the Consortium “Health Preservation, Nutrition, Demography,” established in 2021 under the Russian Academy of Sciences at the Federal Research Center for Nutrition and Biotechnology, technologies for a number of specialized dairy products have been developed.
5.2. Experience with scientific-industrial cooperation has shown that most bioactive ingredients for specialized food production are imported due to lack of domestic production.
5.3. Neither producers nor research organizations have funding for clinical trials required to obtain evidence of efficacy for specialized food products.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Sustainable development strategies and industrial greening require investment and public-private partnerships in the agro-industrial complex to overcome the high scientific and capital intensity of deep milk-processing projects. 6.2. Stimulate investment in methods for studying bioactive ingredients in dairy raw materials and products, and in the development and implementation of industrial technologies for extracting minor components. 6.3. Overcome barriers to obtaining clinical evidence on the effectiveness of specialized food products, including dairy-based ones.
Presenter: [Ivanova S.V.] Key Provisions of the Report
“The Level of Food Security in Russia and China”
1. Differences in the Legitimate Definitions of National “Food Security”
The Russian Food Security Doctrine emphasizes national self-sufficiency in key foods and agricultural raw materials; In China, the new Grain Security Law and the annual Document No. 1 (given limited farmland, water shortages and demographic constraints) define self-sufficiency primarily through grain; FAO bases food security on population access to food regardless of the territory of production.
Under sanctions pressure from the collective West, the Russian and Chinese approaches are considered justified. External management of hunger is undeniably a geopolitical strategy of domination.
2. The Paradox of the “National Producer” under Sanctions
2.1. It was noted that political-economic and legal interpretations of “national/domestic producer” differ significantly.
Russia and China, upon joining the WTO, created favorable conditions for attracting FDI, primarily into the 1st and 3rd sectors of their agro-industrial complexes. However, the effects differed markedly due to differing forms of FDI.
In China, the predominant model was “greenfield” investments with full transfer of technologies (“market in exchange for technologies”). In Russia, mergers and acquisitions of profitable existing enterprises often dominated, sometimes accompanied by partial bankruptcy of less profitable ones and market monopolization.
Western geopolitical pressure and sanctions—particularly affecting international financial transactions and insurance—created risks of mass withdrawal of foreign producers from Russia, potentially destabilizing food markets and labor markets.
2.2. A link was demonstrated between food, technological, investment security (sovereignty) and the need for adequate state regulation.
3. Current State of Food Security in Russia and China
3.1. Russia has achieved stable self-sufficiency in most major food groups except fruits and berries; table salt; vegetables; milk and dairy products. Russia is a net exporter of agricultural raw materials and processed products.
China is self-sufficient in rice and is a net importer of agricultural raw materials, including from Russia.
3.2. Russia and China now show comparable levels of per-capita consumption of animal protein (including fish and seafood).
China demonstrates dynamic strengthening of its food security, while maintaining lower quality and safety levels of food products compared to Russia. China’s advantages include stronger government support for farmers, developed SME cooperation, low refinancing rates, a stable onshore currency, low inflation, planned state/private investment in the 1st and 3rd sectors of the agro-industrial complex, progressive digitalization of rural areas and active AgTech funding.
4. Conclusions
It was decided to support the proposals of the report regarding the need to refine the Russian Food Security Doctrine, including strengthening national sovereignty in the 1st and 3rd sectors of the agro-industrial complex and in areas of investment, technological and financial stability.
Presenter: [Migenko A.Yu.]. Key Provisions of the Report
“Financing the Agro-Industrial Complex: Systemic Risks, Volatility and Stabilization Approaches”
1. Assessment of Systemic Risks and Challenges
1.1. A number of risks were identified: climate and natural risks reducing harvests and revenues; price volatility on grain markets complicating cash-flow forecasting, especially for small farms; geopolitical and currency risks requiring flexible financial tools; and structural constraints limiting access to capital.
2. Impact on Banking Sector Credit Policy
2.1. Elevated credit risk in the agro-industrial complex limits long-term financing and leads to the predominance of short-term seasonal loans. 2.2. Investment lending for infrastructure (farms, elevators, processing facilities) shows low dynamics due to long payback periods (5–7 years) and high uncertainty in income forecasting.
3. National Legal Initiatives
3.1. Ensure development of insurance and guarantee tools, setting a target insurance coverage of at least 70% of croplands by 2030.
3.1.1. Amend Federal Law No. 260-FZ of 25.07.2011 “On State Support in Agricultural Insurance,” providing for subsidized premiums up to 100% for priority investment projects with a horizon exceeding five years.
3.1.2. Recommend integration of guarantees by the Deposit Insurance Agency (ASV) or the Agro-Industrial Development Fund into the Agricultural Insurance Plan for 2026 and beyond (approved by the Ministry of Agriculture Order No. 521 of 12.08.2025) to cover catastrophic risks.
3.2. Legislate mandatory use of digital platforms for monitoring crops and yields.
3.2.1. Supplement Article 17.1 of Law No. 264-FZ with provisions integrating the unified information system of agro-industrial digital services with AI-based risk-analysis models.
3.3. Strengthen partnerships with the state by increasing and simplifying subsidies and concessional lending.
3.3.1. Amend Government Resolution No. 1474 of 27.12.2012 to increase subsidies (by 1.5–2 times) for 2026 and subsequent years, with simplified procedures for modernization projects (5+ years).
3.4. Support the implementation of new financial instruments to diversify financing sources: agrobonds, factoring, warehouse receipts.
3.4.1. Develop a dedicated section on agrobonds (green bonds for the agro-industrial complex) within Law No. 264-FZ, with tax benefits and subsidized issuance up to 100% (based on Federal Law No. 39-FZ “On the Securities Market”); launch pilot issuances in 2026.
3.4.2. Supplement the Civil Code (Articles 824–833) with regulations on factoring in the agro-industrial complex, including state guarantees for seasonal supplies.
3.4.3. Update Federal Law No. 451-FZ of 21.12.2020 “On Warehouse Receipts,” expanding its application to agro-industrial exports with logistical subsidies up to 100%.
4. Decision of the ICIE Committee on Science
4.1. Support the conclusions of the report as addressing missed opportunities for industry modernization and emphasize the need to minimize risks and stimulate long-term financing in the agro-industrial sector.
4.2. Take note that implementation of the proposals will reduce banking sector risk costs by 2–3 percentage points, increase the share of investment lending, and boost processing investments by at least 25% by 2028, contributing to sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex.
4.3. Forward proposals to the Government of the Russian Federation and relevant ministries (Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Digital Development).
4.4. Recommend establishing an interagency working group under the Ministry of Agriculture to monitor implementation.
Video and photo report available on the ICIE Committee on Science website: https://komitiet-po-nauke.ic-ie.com/zasedanie-apk
Respectfully,
Chairman of the Meeting of the ICIE Committee on Science, Professor, Doctor of Law, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Member of the Presidium Bureau, Head of the RANS Department
Igor Leonidovich Trunov