Climate change and challenges to sustainable development in the Russian Arctic

Abstract

The Arctic region is one of the most exposed to the global climate change. Russia accounts for more than a half of the whole Arctic territory and population and allocates most of the economic activity of the region. From the Soviet time till now, the Arctic region also accounts for a substantial share of Russia's wealth. The article analyzes often ambiguous knowledge on climate change implications for the long-term economic development of the Russian Arctic. Based on the review of the key policy documents issued in Russia and ongoing and planned development programs, the study aspires to contribute more clarity on Russia's standing in the Arctic region. We aim to analyze the convergence of Russian climate and Arctic policies boosting the synergies between each other. The paper discovers, among other issues, the climate change adaptation priorities in policy areas aimed at minimizing net costs of climate change. While policies rhetorically aim at contributing to resilient and sustainable growth in the Russian North, they remain under-developed in accounting for multiple climate-related risks. Our analysis suggests that a comprehensive framework of Arctic policy measures should be centered around climate change as a core factor underlying the future of the region and should encompass two main policy dimensions: (a) strengthening the knowledge base on climate change, the adjunct risks, and emerging opportunities in the region and (b) developing the system for climate change risk management and resilience building ensuring that regional diversity and climatic and socioeconomic features of various locations are taken into serious account.

Continuous Militarization as a Mode of Governance of Indigenous People in the Russian Arctic

“…Participation in BEAR and other international initiatives has helped politicians improve the image of the country in the areas of peace-building, Indigenous rights, and environmental sustainability, and increase the international credibility of the present regime through environmental discourse and imitating the rhetoric of such actors as the EU or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Ambrosio et al, 2022;Hall et al, 2022). However, despite the employment of "environmental discourse," and legally promised support to Indigenous peoples (Russian Federation, 1999), there were no efficient implementations of specific policies for sustainable development or of Indigenous people's rights to land and resources, self-determination, and culture in their homeland in the Arctic (Garbis et al, 2023;Stepanov et al, 2023;Vladimirova, 2023b). The important role of legitimacy and rhetorical tools in autocratic regionalism has been studied elsewhere (Obydenkova, 2022b;.…”

“…The 1990s witnessed democratization and diffusion of environmental values by the EU, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and nation-states (Garbis et al, 2023;Hall et al, 2022;Mavisakalyan et al, 2023;Obydenkova et al, 2022;Vladimirova, 2023b). Studies point to the role of the EU enlargement in implementing environmental policies in post-communist states as well as raising public awareness about environmental challenges (Ambrosio et al, 2022;Nazarov & Obydenkova, 2022;Stepanov et al, 2023). Cooperation started as bilateral and multilateral projects:…”

“…Environmental cooperation is institutionalized through various regional organizations such as the EU and the Arctic Council, but also adjusting newly launched organizations to policies of sustainable development, such as the Eurasian Economic Union before the war in 2022 (Garbis et al, 2023;Hall et al, 2022;Hartwell, 2023;Lavelle, 2022;Stepanov et al, 2023). Nuclear safety has been central to BEAR, established with the Kirkenes Declaration in 1993.…”

Arctic environmental governance: challenges of sustainable development

“…Among various RIOs acting in the Arctic, the AC stands out as one of the most influential ones. Contributions to this TC look into the AC at the edge of geopolitical shifts in 2022 (Filimonova et al 2023;Mavisakalyan et al 2023;Stepanov et al 2023). However, the main focus of existing studies has traditionally been on the AC's member-states (Borozna 2024;Kochtcheeva 2022;Stepanov and Makarov 2022).…”

Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations

“…Only recently, scholars have started to pay more attention to the different implications of these under-studied actors for sustainable development and climate governance, for socio-political and economic transformation, and security governance (Ambrosio et al, 2022;Hall et al, 2022;Hartwell, 2023;Obydenkova, 2022b). There are also emerging challenges to ARG in the context of the war in Ukraine, ongoing since 2022, affecting environmental governance, scientific international collaboration, and the lives of IP in the Arctic (e.g., Garbis et al, 2023;Stepanov & Makarov, 2022;Stepanov et al, 2023;Vladimirova, 2023). Yet we know little about the depth of these recent transformations in ARG.…”