Arctic Regions’ development problems and prospects (based on the expert survey)

Despite the radical change in the geopolitical situation Arctic vector of the development of Russia, is gathering pace. Last year, at the federal and inter--‐regional level there were many events related to the Arctic. Some of them could be regarded as strategic ones for the Arctic territories. In spring 2014 the state program “Socio--‐economic development of the Arctic zone of Russia until 2020” was adopted and President signed the Decree “On the land territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation".

In fact, the adoption of these documents started structuring process for the Arctic policy and social space of the Arctic territories. In this regard, it is important to assess the opportunities and risks of the Arctic policy and to understand the most important and complex issues of the Arctic region.

In November--‐December 2014 NArFU Expert--‐Analytical Center together with the NGO “Revival of the Russian Culture” made a survey in the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk regions and the Nenets Autonomous District. The study involved 55 experts representing government, business, media, science, education and non--‐profit organizations. Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the state and prospects of the Arctic policy, media coverage of the Arctic issues, prospects of cooperation in the Arctic, ways to support Arctic regions and populations of the Arctic zone, and other topics. Survey results are evaluated with the use of “regional affiliation of the expert” parameter.

Evaluation of the federal Arctic policy

It should be noted that most experts believe that the regulations on the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation (RFAZ), adopted in 2014, are insufficient and poorly worked out. Only the issues of the terrestrial part of the RFAZ we considered as worked out well by the participants of the survey. Meanwhile, even these issues got many comments. Thus, some experts believe that the Pinezhsky and Leshukonsky areas of the Arkhangelsk region were unfair “offended”. The areas do not have direct access to the sea, but are quite strongly linked to the Arctic (historically, geographically, culturally and economically). Some experts also expressed bewilderment due to the absence of the Republic of Karelia towns in the list of the Russian Arctic municipalities. According to the state program “Socio--‐economic development of the Arctic zone of Russia until 2020” it was claimed much more. Economics and social policy of the RFAZ were especially negatively evaluated by an expert on economic and social policy in the Russian Arctic, who stated that the program had poorly spelled management and implementation mechanisms and there were no financial resources for its full implementation.

It is noteworthy that few respondents noted an excessive bias in the Arctic strategy documents in the economic and industrial sphere, the residual approach to the social sphere. However, the position of the group of experts, who were convinced about the presence of this problem, was reasonable. Such a bias in the Russian Arctic policy could lead, in their opinion, to a slowdown development of the Arctic due to a lack of human resources and developed social infrastructure. Most clearly and precisely the problem was voiced by one of the experts, representative of the media: “It is very bad that the key to development of the Arctic is seen as a vast natural resource extraction. A man and his life in the Arctic, the development of the territories, preservation of culture and traditional economy, use of new technologies are left behind. But people, living in the Russian Arctic, are primarily interested in the normal infrastructure: the gas, clean water, airports, good roads, and other small aircraft. With this infrastructure, their efficiency would be much higher”. Thus, the idea of “habitation of the Arctic”, which is being actively discussed in scientific circles, has been accepted only by a small part of the expert community [1].

Experts’ ideas about the role of the different actors of politics and business in the development of the Russian Arctic are quite consistent. In their opinion, the federal government has a general influence on the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. The role of other political and economic actors is auxiliary or insignificant. 90% of experts believe that the federal government is the most powerful agent of the Arctic policy. Indeed, the development of these areas of the country requires huge financial and serious administrative resources available only in the federal center. Regional authorities are noticeably inferior to the influence of the federal government. The value of the regional companies, local authorities, small and medium enterprises is valuated as weak and very weak by experts. Many experts, such as representatives of mass media, noted that only the federal government has a real influence on development of the Russian Arctic.

However, in a study on the financing of the Arctic territories opposite viewpoint sounded: it is necessary to use business opportunities and international partners to support Arctic projects. If you only rely on the federal budget, the government will either be ruined or won’t be able to fund other important social and economic projects.

The views of the expert community are clearly dominated by a centralized management model of Arctic territories. Evaluation of the politics and business effectiveness in the Russian Arctic is shown in diagram 1.

In your opinion, to what extent is the development of the Arctic zone of RF dependent on politics and business?

Diagram 1

□ Очень сильно □ Сильно передне «Слабо зависит пПочти не зависит

Evaluation of the population support system in the Arctic regions

Participants were asked to evaluate the current system of indirect state support of the population of the Arctic regions, as well as to comment on the possible ways to develop this system. In fact, most experts acknowledged the current system of guarantees and support for the population of the Far North as insufficiently effective. Only 7% of respondents agreed with the idea to maintain the current system unchanged.

Table 1

How should the government support measures for the people living in the Arctic zone of RF be implemented?

State support measures                                       %

Special legal acts and support measures should be developed for people living on these 50 territories

Support could be provided in accordance with the FL “About North”, but with changes of norms 33

Support could be provide in accordance with the present Federal Laws7

Other3

Difficult to say7

The disadvantages of the existing system are the following:

V wages for many sectors of the economy of the North are lower than in more favorable regions of residence. It is no longer an effective tool for attracting labor resources to the North;

V non-governmental organizations, small and medium business do not provide the “northern guarantees and benefits”, so the workers in the public and private sectors, large and small businesses are at a disadvantage;

V the current system of benefits and guarantees is attractive to people of mature age and is not very interesting for young people (the key elements of the system --‐ is an early retirement and increased pension, regional coefficient to the salary);

V increased social obligations of the business sector in the Arctic regions, increase its costs and thereby reduce its competitiveness;

V system of the “northern surcharges” violates the principle of social justice, and advancing incentives. After all, well--‐paid workers (in the public sector — status and mature aged employees) are using the regional coefficients and get much greater increase in salaries than younger and less experienced workers.

Experts disagreed about the transformation of the current system of support for the population. Representatives of the NAD, individual experts from the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk region believe that the support of the people of the Arctic regions should be implemented within the existing Federal Law “On State Guarantees and compensation for people working and living in the Far North and equivalent areas”, but after changes in some of the norms. Probably, such a negative attitude to radical changes in the regulatory system of the “northern guarantees and privileges” is caused by the fear that these actions might lead to a sharp deterioration in the social situation of the Arctic population. Approval, testing, introduction of new rules may take a long time. In addition, it is likely that due to the economic crisis, the new system will be introduced, taking into account the need to optimize expenditures. Therefore, we understand the position of experts from the NAD, who believe that it is better to correct the current system, especially in the financial self--‐sufficient regions, rather than risk benefits.

However, a significant part of experts believe that there should be a special law (in particular the Law “On the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation”) and specific measures to support the population of the Arctic regions. However many of experts could not prove this point of view. Possible arguments for this position can be taken from a number of materials of scientific conferences, held in 2012 and 2014:

• V    Arctic macro-region should be allocated as a separate object of planning, distinguishing between the concept of “Arctic”, “North” and “Far North”;

• V    it is advisable to change the “Soviet” approaches to social support of the population in the law on “North” and other regulations;

• V    need in serious impetus to the development of social entrepreneurship and social capital in the North [2,3].

Understanding the inter--‐regional cooperation

The survey results showed the importance of integrating the Arctic regions. Arctic territories have many common problems, extremely difficult to solve alone. However, the current level of inter--‐regional cooperation, in general, was recognized as satisfactory. For example, if the level of cooperation of the Arkhangelsk region and NAD was evaluated as the average, the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk region — below average, and the NAD and the Murmansk region — generally recognized as low.

According to some experts, Arkhangelsk and Murmansk have competitive relationship. They are associated but making attempt to take a leading position in the Arctic Euro--‐zone to receive larger resources and power. Moreover, some respondents noted that more aggressive policy is currently in the Murmansk region. To a certain extent this is due to Murmansk’s being insulted by neighbors who “have taken away” a number of important statuses (Northern Arctic Federal University was established in Arkhangelsk, the Scientific Center RAS on the integrated study of the Arctic is in Arkhangelsk and the city became the largest in the Russian Arctic).

However, there is a great potential of cooperation. According to experts, the interaction between the Arctic territories should be carried out both by the authorities and through companies and public organizations. The experts noted transport, research, education and tourism among the most urgent areas of cooperation.

The majority of respondents stressed the importance of scientific and educational sectors for the development of the Russian Arctic. Arkhangelsk was usually called a possible training center for Arctic exploration and research center for the study of the Arctic in the European North of Russia. At the same time, St. Petersburg and Murmansk were considered as serious competitors of Arkhangelsk in this area.

Table 2

What cities of the European part of Russia could be centers for personnel training for the development of the Arctic?

Cities of the AZRF

%

1.	Arkhangelsk	76
2.	St.--‐Petersburg	69
3.	Murmansk	59
4.	Moscow	35
5.	Severodvinsk	24
6.	Syktyvkar	22
7.	Petrozavodsk	19
8.	Apatiti	19
9.	Ukhta	19
10.	Naryan--‐Mar	9
11.	Vorkuta	7
12.	Other city	2
13.	Difficult to say	4

Understanding the Arctic regional politics and perspectives of the regions

The study has found significant differences in the views of experts on the role of their regions in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Arctic image of the Arkhangelsk Region is vaguer and less coordinated than the others. The experts mentioned the following roles of the Arkhangelsk Region: the Arctic educational and research center, a service and supply base for Arctic projects and a ship repair and shipbuilding center. Murmansk experts are more accurate and eager about their mission for the development of the Arctic. They see their region as a transport hub of the Northern Sea Route, a service--‐crossing point of the Arctic projects and the center of cooperation and scientific study of the Arctic. It is significant that many experts characterized Murmansk as “Arctic ambition”. No wonder they are more likely to point to the important role of the region and the city of Murmansk in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Experts from the NAD have been more “earthy” in placing themselves in the Arctic region. In their opinion, NAD is the base for development and transportation of oil and gas in the Arctic.

The respondents assessed the activities of the regional authorities aimed at establishment and implementation of the regional Arctic policy, mainly as “satisfactory”. Moreover, if the Murmansk government and NAD received an average of more than three points (3.26 and 3.17, respectively), the Arkhangelsk region authorities got 2.65 points. It is noteworthy that the majority of experts have evaluated the work of the authorities of the neighboring regions higher than their own. Especially noticeable is the fact that the experts of the Arkhangelsk region have the higher imbalance of such assessments.

Diagram 2 Evaluating the efficiency of the governmental bodies of the Federation on the development and implementation of the regional Arctic policy

The expert community believes that the implementation of the policy of the Russian Arctic will impact positively on the socio--‐economic situation in the region only in the long term perspective. More than half of survey participants were agree with that. The main reasons for the delayed impact of the “Arctic vector” policy on life in the regions is the complexity of the Arctic projects, due to the absence of consistency in the actions aimed at Arctic exploration and development of Arctic territories, as well as the limited resources, which can be used in this area, especially in the current difficult economic conditions. However, in this regard certain regional differences are noticeable. Thus, representatives of the NAD were more optimistic about the prospects of the Arctic Region, while the Arkhangelsk experts were much more pessimistic about the future of their region.

Table 3

In your opinion, how the implementation of the RF Arctic policy could influence the social and economic situation in your region?

% by column	Experts of Arkhangelsk region	Experts of Murmansk region	Experts of NAD
will have positive effect soon	11	15	40
will have positive effect in the long term perspective	56	60	50
will have no effect	27	10	0
don’t know, difficult to say	6	15	10
Sum	100	100	100

Thus, the expert community is cautiously optimistic about the “Arctic” future of their regions. At the same time, possible problems of implementation of the Arctic vector policy are associated with both external and internal factors.

The experts believe that the most promising industries in the North are geology, marine transportation, shipbuilding, oil and gas industry, construction, military sphere and mining. It is noteworthy that education, medicine, culture and ecology are in the bottom of the list. This can be regarded as a reflection of the federal Arctic policy primarily focused on the development of natural resources, the development of the Northern Sea Route and the militarization of the region.

The study has found strong dissatisfaction caused by discussion of the topic by the Arctic expert community. The respondents rather critically assessed the quantity and quality of discussions on Arctic policy by the expert community of their region. Most of them believe that the number of such events is not enough, and their productivity is minimal. This view is typical. Key to understanding the quality of activities is as follows: minimum discussions on conceptual approaches to the RFAZ development, superficial and formal discussions, minimum critical and analytic content, fragmented and inconsistent events, maximum emphasis on the development of natural resources in the Arctic and minimum one for the development of the Arctic territories.

The activity and the productivity Arctic region's media coverage were evaluated more positively. Moreover, many of experts indicated that the number of publications on this topic could be considered as sufficient. The majority of the interviewed representatives of the authorities, media and the experts from the NAD were agreeing with that. However, the quality of materials, their reliability and representativeness leaves much to be desired. Key to understanding the quality of media coverage of the Arctic topics is very similar to the complaints about the quality of expert discussions: superficiality, a low degree of realism, a high degree of pathos, unsystematic, poor vision of problems and ways to solve them, the minimum display of actual achievements and results, cut off from the life of people and weak link to the decision making issues.

The expert community believes that it is necessary to inform people, involve them in discussions on the prospects of the Arctic region, especially young ones, entrepreneurs, heads of organizations and enterprises, officials and journalists of the regions.

At the same time, the survey revealed two opposite approaches to the Arctic information policy. One part of the experts believes that the debate and media coverage of the Arctic exploration prospects and the development of Arctic territories are extremely important because they increase the attractiveness of the northern regions and contribute to improvement of the social well--‐being of the population. Therefore, the Arctic theme should be actively presented in the regional information space, even in an embellished form. It should be noted that this position is actually supported by the governor of the Murmansk region M. Kovtun in her speech at the Gaidar Forum [4]. The other group of experts defends the opposite point of view. They are sure to be very careful to discuss the Arctic theme. According to them, the dissonance between loud promises of virtual real prospects and modest achievements may cause irritation and frustration, especially among the “creative” people of the North. Therefore it is necessary to adhere to the principle of “less information, but more reasonable and realistic one”.