Revisiting the question of the Russian Arctic policy making

Waves of interest towards the Russian Arctic policy could be observed in 2007--‐2008 and 2013 after the end of the expedition “Arctic--‐2007”, when the Russian flag was placed at the ocean bottom and “Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period up 2020 and beyond” and “Development Strategy of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020” were approved and analyzed by Russian and foreign experts and journalists. In terms of foreign policy, these documents clearly identified priorities, goals and objectives of Russia in the Arctic. On the other hand, the adoption of these documents was only a first step towards established state policy in the region. In 2014 this process was continued by the publication of the Presidential Decree “On the land territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation” and the state program “Socio--‐economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period till 2020”. At the same time we cannot say that the Arctic was forgotten periphery of the country after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that the achievements of the Arctic policy during 1990s were relatively modest and fragmented. The aim of this study was to show the evolution of the Arctic Policy. Achieving the stated goal was made possible by the consideration of the key events, analysis of key documents, emerging Arctic policy issues, and consideration of prospective of this area, which allowed us to estimate the speed and efficiency of efforts made by of state bodies in order to establish and provide the Arctic policy of the Russian Federation, as well as to see the real prioritization, its difference from the legal statements.

The study was started from the search and selection of legal acts adopted by the federal government between 1991 and 2014 with respect to the Arctic theme. A tendency of a sharp increase in the number of legal acts with references to the terms “Arctic” and “Arctic zone”

revealed itself in the second half of the 2000s. At the same time, the Russian Federation has more well--‐established legal concept of “Far North”, which means the land areas in the high latitudes and is exclusively used in connection with the benefits of the local population of these lands. It was decided not to define separate stages of establishment of the Arctic policy due to the fact that it is not possible to determine the equivalent criteria for its differentiation1. It is much more important to review the key events affecting the Arctic policy, which allowed to start with the specific conclusions on the individual units and move to generalizations covering large time intervals and taking into account the context of the Arctic policy establishment.

Arctic vector is one of the most relevant issues of the Russian home policy. Appeal to the study of these issues, which are finally coming to their implementation, may provide food for thought about the forecasts, the dynamics of its development in the future. Active and increasingly intensifying attention of officials reflects the priority of the region and requires a very careful and responsible approach to identifying and solving its problems.

Establishing the Arctic policy of RF

In the 1990s, the situation in the Russian Arctic as a whole was characterized by the presence of the same problems as in the country as a whole. The privatization of enterprises led to the disintegration of the NSR economy, industrial decline and outflow of people, especially skilled workers. These tendencies remain typical for the northern territories. The results of the comprehensive studies done in 1980 showed the effectiveness of the Soviet program--‐target approach to the problems of regional development in the harsh climate, but were not very applicable for the transition market economy and absence of mobilizing centralized management system [1]. Despite this, the government actively took over regulatory, institutional and international aspects of the regional disign.

During this period, the federal elite regarded the Far North as an important resource and conducted the policy of state protectionism [2]. Since 1991, all the issues related to the scientific, economic, social and environmental activities in the Arctic were the jurisdiction of the State Commission, and then since 1992, the Interdepartmental Commission for the Russian Arctic and Antarctic (abolished in 2004). The Commission was aimed at developing the proposals on strategy of public activities of the Russian Federation in the Arctic and Antarctic. Throughout the ‘90s there existed State Committee on Northern Affairs (Goskomsever) in Russia. It was the independent federal executive authority and then a part of the Federal Ministry of Regional policy. In the end, this body was abolished by Presidential decree in 2000. In addition, in 1992 All--‐Russian Scientific Coordination Center for Complex Problems of the North, the Arctic and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples of the North was established. In 1994, the Federation Council created the Committee for Northern Affairs and Indigenous Peoples. Thus, we were facing the institutional uncertainty, attempts to preserve the continuity of the Soviet management system. In a difficult political situation of 1990s and presence of more pressing problems, it was difficult to count on the fast establishment of the state Arctic policy.

At the same time, first documents relating to the socio--‐economic development of the North appeared: the federal law “On the basis of the state regulation of social and economic development of the Russian North”, repealed in 2004. In 1997, the Government adopted a decree “On the reform of the system of state support for the northern regions”. The main objectives proclaimed were the creation of favorable conditions for life and economic activity of northerners and indigenous people as well, and to increase the effectiveness and public support.

In 1992--‐1996 the Russian Federation became a member of key international and regional organizations, the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro--‐Arctic Region as well. In 1997 the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was ratified and Russia immediately started to prepare a formal presentation on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to the UN Commission (Federal Law “On the Continental Shelf” was adopted in 1995). In 2001, the application was sent to the Commission, so Russia demonstrated its commitment to the UN Convention (1982) and it become the legal foundation for the delineation of the Arctic spaces and brought Russia closer to the positions of other Arctic states. On the other hand, it actually meant a turn from the concept of sectoral differentiation in the Arctic (1926) to the conventional approach that made it difficult to protect and promote the national interests of Russia in this region. Such a rush could only be justified if Russia intended to develop oil and gas fields located in the northern seas strait after these events [3].

In 1998 new federal laws appeared: “On the inland waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone” and “On exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation”. In 1999, a draft of the federal law “On t e Arctic zone of t e Russian Federation” was introduced. Its focus was made on social benefits for of the population and tax incentives for business. The draft defined the geographic boundaries of the Arctic zone and proposed the principle of differentiation of the state policy taking into account their specific features of each territorial unit. That federal law was not adopted and t e sout ern land borders of t e Arctic zone of t e Russian Federation was identified in 2014

by Presidential decree. Up to this point, we can say that the policy of the Russian Arctic remained without an object for particular legislation.

Analysis of the documents mentioned above, as well as state policy in the region as a whole during the 1990s, shows that the attention was paid to solving the most pressing social and economic problems and prevention of social crisis. State exercised more sporadic interest in the region, while Arctic policy had revealed itself as a necessity, but its establishment took a lot of time. The lack of a unified concept may be fully explained as a lack of material resources for its implementation and consensus of the national elite aimed at solving the most acute problems. Speaking about the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that during this period the Arctic theme did not become a subject of global international political discourse. Russian claimed its role of a key player in the international politics and was actively involved in the establishment of regional intergovernmental organizations and bilateral relations and was generally regarded as an essential participant in Arctic cooperation.

Since the beginning of the 2000s and elections of the new Russian president, there have been seen significant changes in the state policy in the Arctic based on a clear understanding of national interests. Speaking at the meeting on the Northern Sea Route and shipbuilding in Murmansk in April 2000, V.V. Putin said that the "northern territories still are huge, undeveloped space. This is our strategic reserve, not only for the next century, but also in the longer term perspective. It cannot only be, but must become a reliable support for the development of Russian statehood, our significant foreign economic and foreign policy argument” 2. First of all, it should be noted the emergence of the basic documents, such as the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, where the significance of the Arctic regional policy “is determined by the particular importance of ensuring the free exit of the Russian fleet to the Atlantic, the wealth of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Russian Federation, the decisive role of Northern Fleet in the defense of the state from the possible marine threats, as well as the growing importance of the Northern Sea Route for the sustainable development of the Russian Federation “. The role of the Arctic in the national security of the country is outlined in the National Security Concept (2000) and Presidential Decree “On the

National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020”. In particular, the development of the Russian Arctic is linked to the issue of border security, increasing economic competitiveness, improving the efficiency of fuel and energy complex and the use of public--‐private partnerships.

In June 2001 the government approved a draft “Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic” and sent to the President. The draft stated: “taking into account the special interests of Russia in the Arctic and its specificity, it is necessary to provide more strict government regulation and the priority of existing problems”3, at a government meeting it was decided to examine the feasibility of creating a Governmental Commission on the Arctic. Also in the 2000s there was a series of other documents related to the exploration and development of the Arctic. It should be noted that from the very beginning of the presidency of Vladimir Putin Arctic topics gained a great importance and the Arctic related issues were mentioned in the course of parliamentary hearings and meetings at the highest level, in the speeches of the President and the meetings of the Security Council. However, a summary of the state of Arctic policy of the mid--‐ 2000s is to be found in the words of the deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs G.T. Khripel. During the parliamentary hearings on the topic “The Arctic is a region of global cooperation in the implementation of the Russia state policy” in October 2004 he said: “To sum up all the work carried out since the 1990s, it can be characterized as follows. Funding was not appropriate, parliamentary work has not been done properly, those government programs which we have today, and even laws, programs for the development of socio--‐economic opportunities in the Arctic are fulfilled to some small fraction of percent” 4.

Analyzing the evolution of the Russian Arctic policy it is impossible to ignore the “Concept of sustainable development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation”, introduced at the meeting of the expanded board of the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation in 2006. Fundamentally new element of this document was the offer of functional definitions for following areas of the Russian Arctic: the special areas of public interest, areas of new development, the old development zone, old--‐zone areas, and areas inhabited by indigenous peoples of the Arctic 5. The document contains paragraphs on ensuring environmental safety and calls it a mandatory component of the transition to sustainable development [4, p.40].

In 2008, after a meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, President D. A. Medvedev approved the “Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period until 2020 and beyond” (hereinafter — Fundamentals). This document addresses the issues of strengthening the borders, development of international cooperation, environmental protection, and development of socio--‐economic sphere. It reveals the national interests of Russia in the Arctic: the use of the Arctic region as a strategic resource base, preserving of peace and cooperation there, conservation of ecological systems and the use of the North Sea Route as a national transport artery. National interests defined the main objectives and strategic priorities of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic. Implementation of the State Policy in the Arctic was divided into three stages:

• i.    2008--‐2010: preparation of the application to substantiate the external border of the Russian Arctic; implementation of targeted programs and long--‐term investment projects.

• ii.    2011--‐2015: establishment of the external border of the Russian Arctic; restructuring of the region's economy and infrastructure development of the NSR.

• iii.    2016--‐2020: Transformation of the Russian Arctic into the leading strategic resource base of t e Russian Federation.

On the one hand, the main objectives set out in the Fundamentals were intended to stabilize the northern border of the country and to provide the legal framework for the development of natural resources. On the other hand, it was aimed at overcoming the differences in socio--‐economic development between the Arctic territories and other regions of the country. Moreover, there was some controversy: the desire to preserve the Arctic as a “zone of peace and cooperation” and the strengthening of military security in the region [5]. In general, the Fundamentals could be considered as a response to new geopolitical situation in the Arctic after the Cold War, but more as an important document for home policy, aimed at stabilization of situation in the country and the economy in particular [6, p.107]. Such a document made Russia able to indicate its priorities in the international arena and to be engaged in the political process as an equal partner.

In February 2013 President approved the document — “Strategy for development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020” (hereinafter — the Strategy). The aim of the Strategy was to secure Russian national interests. In accordance with the Fundamentals, there were some measures planned (by chapters) to improve the system of public administration, the quality of life of the population, the development of the resources of the country, the Northern Sea Route and fishery. In addition, separate chapters were devoted to the development of science, technology, communication, environmental protection, international cooperation, military security and border protection. At the same time the greatest attention was paid to the Northern Sea Route and the quality of life of the population and it indicates the presence of a large spectrum of problems in these spheres. The Strategy was planned to be implemented through the state program of socio--‐economic development of the Russian Arctic until 2020. Individual legal acts were supposed to fix the special status of the Arctic zone and its composition. The Strategy is now being implemented in two phases:

• i.    2013--‐2015: improving the regulatory legal framework; the establishment of coordination bodies at all levels; international legal formalization of the continental shelf boundaries; the establishment of the Coast Guard of the FSB; the creation of informational and communication infrastructure; development of the environmental monitoring system; scientific research; measures of state support of traditional sectors of the local economy.

• ii.    2015--‐2020: exploration of mineral resources, the development of border infrastructure, the development of an integrated security system; the establishment of a space system “Arctic”; infrastructure development of the NSR and reducing the negative impact on the environment.

In order to establish the control over the implementation of the Strategy it is planned to allocate the Arctic zone as an independent object of statistical observation. The Strategy also provides a number of indicators to describe the socio--‐economic development of the Arctic. Control over the implementation of the Strategy is provided by the Government of the Russian Federation, which annually reports to the President. “In general, the document is good, systematic, and it provides a mechanism for further action, — commented A. Bagin. — But to implement the Strategy we must solve three main problems: to define the boundaries of the Arctic zone, to create a state program and to ensure the incorporation of the Strategy’s points in other state programs, as well as in the departmental and regional programs”[7]. But not all researchers have considered the Strategy as a positive step. Against is the background of numerous of such documents “for all the good against the bad things” emerged in recent years [8, p. 65] and the point of view that the Strategy indicates the selection of too many priorities, unclear provisions and criteria and the lack of decision--‐makers. “This document cannot be the governing and normative. There is a strong suspicion that after a year no one will remember it” [8, p.66].

October 16, 2013. Chairman of the RF Government approved the Action Plan to implement the Strategy. The plan includes about 60 activities in priority areas. In addition, in October 2013 it established an interdepartmental working group for coordination and monitoring the implementation of the “Strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020”, headed by Minister of Regional Development I.N. Slyunyaev. The working group was aimed at the coordination and consolidation of efforts, analysis of its achievements and the report to the President, monitoring of the implementation of the Strategy and examination of investment projects.

April 21, 2014. The Government approved the state program

“Socio--‐economic

development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period till 2020”. Work on the document was done quickly and its adoption was postponed due to the lack of funds in the federal budget. A significant negative factor was the composition of the program. It was actually presenting a set of sectoral policies that affect the Arctic. This was also reflected in the financing of the state program. Despite the fact that the text of the document was very similar to the previously adopted documents, it had more concrete actions with regard to the description of implementation mechanisms based on the frame--‐cluster approach — establishment of the support zones and selective development of public policy areas.

At a meeting of the Security Council on the 22nd of April 2014 President noted the following priorities for the development of public policy: creation of the body responsible for implementation of the Arctic policy; implementation of the state program of socio--‐economic development, full funding set to begin in 2017. No less important were the problems of the continental shelf boundary, development of the economic model of the Northern Sea Route, tightening of the environmental standards and strengthening of the military security 6.

May 2, 2014. President signed a decree “On the land territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation”. The composition of the RFAZ territory consists of 4 regions of the Russian

Federation and 16 municipalities: 1) the Murmansk region; 2) the seven municipalities of the

Arkhangelsk region; 3) Nenets Autonomous District; 4) city district “Vorkuta” of the Komi Republic;

• 5) the Yamalo--‐Nenets Autonomous District; 6) the urban district of Norilsk, Taimyr Dolgan--‐Nenets

Municipal District and the Turukhansk district of the Krasnoyarsk Territory; 7) five nomad camp

(districts) the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia); 8) of the Chukotka Autonomous District; 9) as well as land and islands in t e Arctic Ocean as it was defined in t e Decree of t e Presidium of t e USSR

Central Executive Committee on April 15, 1926 and other acts of the USSR. The need for establishment of the Arctic zone was determined by several factors: first , there was a clear zoning, necessary for the work of the local authorities; secondly , need to enable the collection and analysis of statistics; thirdly , to determine the specific measures of economic regulation in order to align the business environment with other regions and the integration of the region into a economic space of the country [9].

Unfortunately, in the May presidential decree Russia was only about land, but the Russian Arctic includes the waters of the Arctic Ocean and the White Sea as well. Thus, it was manifested the underestimation of maritime activities in the state policy and the establishment of the external borders of the Russian Arctic including the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the waters of the

Northern Sea Route, which is of great geopolitical significance. Adoption of the Federal Law on RFAZ by the State Duma was delayed and the time of its adoption is not clear so far [10, p. 53--‐54].

The issue of creating a new state body (ministry or inter--‐ministerial committee) has been actively discussed in the media. Its creation was supported by S.E. Donskoy, A.N. Chilingarov and many other experts. The state did not have the necessary budgetary resources, so there was the “State Commission for the Development of the Arctic” created and now there is an opportunity to coordinate the efforts of various ministries to address the Arctic issues in different spheres 7.

Conclusion

Chosen approach enabled us to achieve the objectives of the study and to draw conclusions about the dynamics of the Russian Arctic policy establishment, its key points, the meaning and significance of adopted legal acts. In conclusion, I would like to present generalizing thoughts about unresolved issues and possible ways to overcome the shortcomings of the modern Arctic policy, based on the data of numerous sources and works of scientists and experts in various fields of study.

We cannot say that the development of the Russian Arctic policy is a smooth evolutionary path or revolutionary and not justified. Establishment of the state policy in the Arctic had varying degrees of intensity. It should be noted that the issues on the agenda of the Arctic considered within the point of view of the federal government, especially the issues of legal regulation or ensuring the development of the region. At the same time, it has been and still remains a significant problem of a low level of carrying out of the proposed initiatives, which leads to the fact that the key legal solutions do not work or do not fully operate. Establishment of the Russian Arctic policy is characterized by contradictory and inconsistency, while today we are still speaking about its conceptual and legal design.

Today we can confidently assert that Russia has finally completed the concept of the Arctic development. The analysis of the fundamental documents of public policy could make us conclude that the issue of the Arctic development has been comprehensively worked out. The important point here is to determine its status as a “strategic resource base, able to provide a solution to the socio--‐ economic development of the country”, so the Arctic should be awarded the national importance.

The analysis suggests that the most important future activities may include: filing an updated application to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (despite fears about the possibility of territorial disputes with Denmark and Canada, there is no doubt that such conflicts can be resolved at diplomatic level); functioning of the State Commission on the

Development of the Arctic; oil and gas projects on the shelf in conditions of sanctions and search for new partners among the companies from non--‐Arctic countries (China, Japan, India, Brazil and

South Korea). According to Y. Lukin, the key Arctic megatrends, providing a large--‐scale and most lasting impact on the situation in the Arctic, are: 1) environmental interdependence and Arctic solidarity; 2) Great redistribution of the Arctic: the struggle for space, communications and Arctic resources; 3) establishment of a Arctic multipolar model and the increasing activity in the Arctic.

Thus ecological interdependence is defined as the quality of the “man--‐nature” relationship in order to preserve the environment, as well as the Arctic solidarity of human activity as the ability to engage in dialogue and negotiate the introduction of restrictions, standards and the rules of human behavior, business and government in the Arctic and the necessary balance between economy and ecology [10, p. 47--‐48].

Recommendations on the implementation of Russia's state policy in the Arctic could be the following: it is necessary to pay attention to the image of the Russian Federation in connection to the re--‐militarization of the region. It seems reasonable to associate the process with the prosecution of economic interests, rather than the existence of threats to the sovereignty, because it is profitable for the Russian Federation to strengthen the international cooperation, rather than to focus on the conflict with the other Arctic states. Ultimately, the militarization is fraught with growing threat near the northern borders of Russia. In the prevailing international conditions, foreign support for the development of bilateral contacts can bring our country better results than attempts to win the support of multilateral institutions.

The future of the Arctic is only possible with the sustainable development that can ensure the leading role of the Russian state. Only it is able to implement long--‐term capital--‐intensive infrastructure and technological projects aimed at creating a unified space for production services.

This requires a more differentiated policy. In addition, the most important condition for success is the interaction of all the actors of economic and social development and cooperation at various levels: public--‐private, public, aboriginal, aboriginal--‐ corporative and etc. This means the promotion and active involvement of regional experts in the development of legal acts and their enforcement. An urgent problem is the inter--‐regional integration of the 4 regions of the Russian

Federation and 16 municipalities included in the Russian Arctic area. At the meeting of the

“Mercury Club”, President of the St. Petersburg Arctic Academy of Social Sciences V.Mitko suggested to create the Arctic Bank for Reconstruction and Development in order to attract investments to the region [11, p.25]. This initiative deserves further consideration by experts. However, when it comes to the financing the large--‐scale Arctic projects, their future depends on the success of extra budgetary sources of financing and public--‐private partnerships than the state. Perhaps this should be the main direction in the activity of the newly created State Commission on Arctic development.

One of the most pressing problems is to eliminate the backlog of the Russian Federation Research in the Arctic, especially mapping the terrain and the seabed, deep--‐sea drilling and seismic surveys. Monitoring and collection of statistics on the main indicators, possible after the definition of the land border of the Russian Arctic could be a powerful stimulus for all types of research, including humanitarian one.

On the one hand, Arctic geographical extent and its economic importance for the future make it logical to consider this area in terms of national security. But at the same time and it is absolutely essential in a changing world, to widen the concept of national interest, including personal dimension, sustainability of local communities and preservation and integration of small indigenous communities in its content. Alternatives to the development of the Arctic do not exist, so one needs to make the ideas, introduced in the legal documents, true.

"The outgoing 2014 has become a landmark for the Russian Arctic ... right now there are the first results of work, started many years ago — the first million barrels from “Prirazlomnaya”, discovery of large a deposit “Pobeda” in the Kara Sea, development of major infrastructure projects”, — said Minister of Natural Resources and Environment S.E. Donskoy at a scientific session of the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences 8. Despite the crisis financial and economic situation and the pessimistic forecasts for 2015, the Russian Arctic policy has good prospects.