The role of the Arctic Council in the management of the Arctic and Russia's activities in it

Alekseev Yurii Master's Degree, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 6 u.alekseev@fcomofv.ru Other publications by this author     Anuchin Sergei Master's Degree, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moskva oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 10/2 sergey-anuchin1999@yandex.ru Other publications by this author     Zamaraikina Liubov Master's Degree, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 10/2 lyubov.hm@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Surguch Sof'ya Lecturer, Department of Business Informatics, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 107258, Russia, gorod Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Sadovniki, 4, of. 2 Surguch17@yandex.ru

The Arctic today is a region in which there is no generally accepted clearly structured legal framework for interaction between key actors, which cannot be stated about another polar territory – Antarctica. This situation is due to the fact that the mechanisms of political governance of the region have not yet been fully developed and adjusted.

Currently, due to the increased interest of a number of countries in the Arctic region, the issue of institutions and mechanisms for regulating political processes has become relevant, since a sufficient number of problems of a very different nature have gathered around the Arctic – international legal, political, military, socio-economic and environmental. For the Arctic, the issue of the need to determine the regulatory framework and institutions that control political actions in the region is of enormous importance.  An equally important factor is the increasing activity of non-Arctic states that have indirect interests in the Arctic space, but nevertheless want to take an active part in the development of documents and declarations.

It is not possible to resolve all the problems that arise by any universal international agreements, treaties or declarations, by analogy with Antarctica, since the Arctic is considered by the Arctic countries as a zone exclusively of their interests. Countries with official Arctic status include: Russia, Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Norway, and the USA. Also, the Arctic states – Finland, Iceland and Sweden - are actively involved in political activities in the region. This position does not suit other actors in world politics, who, not being Arctic or near-Arctic states, also actively want to participate in the development of the region.

At the same time, there is still no formal leader country in the region, despite the fact that there is a constant struggle between the Arctic countries for this role, which in the future would allow managing the development of the legal regime of the Arctic. Russia, realizing its importance, also seeks to actively participate in the political processes in the region, so that in the future this role will be assigned to it.

An important destabilizing influence on the legal regulation of the Arctic is also exerted by the presence of many unresolved issues, in particular: disputes over the extraction of mineral resources, fishing and border demarcation. For their effective resolution, political and legal interaction of states in the format of bilateral and multilateral international agreements is necessary, as well as a single institution responsible for political processes in the region, which will allow achieving a fair result in conditions when universal international legal norms are not effective. And in the current situation, international organizations, as mechanisms for coordinating policy in the Arctic, have a special role to play. In this regard, it is necessary to understand what role the main Arctic organization, the Arctic Council, plays in the political regulation of the Arctic.

The history of the Arctic Council (AU, Council) began in 1989, when representatives of eight Arctic countries, at the initiative of the Finnish government, met in Rovaniemi (Finland) to discuss environmental protection issues in the Arctic^[1]. In 1991, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was adopted^[2], which marked the beginning of active cooperation between the countries, which in September 1996 contributed to the establishment of the Arctic Council. The document that initiated the organization was the Ottawa Declaration of September 19, 1996^[3], which defined the AU as a high-level intergovernmental forum. The Ottawa Declaration itself is not a fundamental international treaty and was not registered in the UN as an international treaty, it only outlined the main parameters of the functioning of the Council. The document paid special attention to the fact that the AU does not deal with military security issues^[4].

The next, no less important stage was the Iqaluit Declaration adopted on September 18, 1998^[5], according to which the main task of the Council was to create conditions for the development of cooperation, coordination and interaction between the Arctic countries with the participation of communities of indigenous peoples of the Arctic on common problems of the region, in particular in issues of sustainable development and environmental protection environments in the Arctic.

Five Arctic (Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the United States of America, Norway, the Russian Federation) and three near-Arctic (Finland, Iceland, Sweden) states joined the organization as full members. In addition, the forum included six organizations of indigenous people of the North. At the time of the organization's creation, three organizations received permanent status: the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Sami Council and the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation. Subsequently, three more organizations received this status: the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the International Association of Aleuts and the International Council of Gwich'ins. All of them have the status of permanent participants.

The declaration also mentions such a category as observers, whose status can be obtained by non-Arctic States, universal and regional intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary organizations, non-governmental organizations that, by decision of the Council, are able to make a positive contribution to its work. In 1998-2000 , this status was obtained: Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Great Britain, France and Spain. In 2013, 6 more countries, mainly Asian, gained observer status: China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore. In 2017, Switzerland also received observer status^[6].

The countries are represented in the Council at the level of Foreign Ministers. The working meetings, which are held twice a year, are attended by commissioners with the rank of ambassador. The main function of observers is to monitor the work of the Arctic Council, participate in the activities of working groups. Observers do not directly participate in decision-making, but they can bring up certain issues for discussion through mediation with any permanent member of the AU. Currently, about 20 more organizations and countries are seeking observer status^[7].

It should be noted that in the field of international environmental cooperation, the AU is a fundamental institution in the Arctic. The Council's leading projects are related to conducting research on environmental safety, environmental and human safety. According to the results of the research, the AU makes certain recommendations for States. The main goal is to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction between the Arctic states with the involvement of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic and other Arctic residents on common Arctic issues. 

Within the framework of the AU, there are six working groups that are responsible for various areas of activity:

- Working Group on the Implementation of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) (1991);

- Working Group for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) (1991);

- Working Group on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) (1991);

- Working Group on the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) (1996);

- Working Group on Sustainable Development in the Arctic (SDWG) (1998);

- Arctic Pollution Elimination Working Group (ACAP) (2006).

Already during the first years of the Council's work, the main structures of the Institute were established, key provisions of the agenda were formed and a range of issues for discussion both at the ministerial level and within the framework of emerging working groups was outlined.

In order to identify the role of each member country of the Arctic Council, the authors attempted to analyze the history of the development of the Arctic Council through the analysis of the presidencies of each country since 1996. In the course of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that during almost every presidency, a number of key points can be identified that predetermined the further institutionalization of the Arctic Council, as well as the strengthening of the role of the AU as the main mechanism in the region.

During Canada's first presidency (1996-1998), the Rules of Procedure of the Arctic Council were approved, which laid the foundations of the AU as an organization and gave rise to the negotiation process. In addition, the Council's action plan for the elimination of pollution in the Arctic was defined, and the establishment of the University of the Arctic was announced. During the same period, the countries agreed that the main activities of the Council will primarily focus on environmental issues.  At the ministerial session in Iqaluit, two intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Arctic Scientific Committee (IASC)), as well as 4 non-governmental organizations were admitted to the AU: the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (PCPAR), the International Union for Circumpolar Medicine (IUPM), the Northern Forum and the World wildlife fund^[8].

During the US presidency (1998-2000), the AU action plan for the elimination of Arctic pollution was developed and approved^[9]. The Committee of Senior Officials was instructed to carry out work on systematization of the areas of competence and powers of the working groups and other structures of the Council. There was also noticeable progress in the field of remote medical services in the region, cooperation between children and youth of the Arctic states, cultural and ecological tourism, support for coastal fishing. In 2000, 4 intergovernmental organizations were also admitted to the AU: the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Council of Ministers of the Nordic Countries (SMSS), the North Atlantic Commission on Marine Mammals (NAMMCO) and 3 non-governmental organizations: the Advisory Committee for the Protection of the Seas (ACOPS), the Circumpolar Union for Nature Conservation (CSOP) and the International Arctic Association of Social Sciences (IAASN)^[10]. Thus, the trend towards streamlining the activities and institutionalizing the work of the forum continued.

In the period from 2000 to 2002, during the presidency of Finland, the main focus shifted to the issues of sustainable development of the region, the development of programs of interaction with the indigenous peoples of the North, as well as the creation of programs aimed at cooperation with the inhabitants of the region and solving urgent problems for them. Work was also continued on rationalizing the activities of the Arctic Council bodies and streamlining interaction with other international structures: the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, the Northern Council, the Barents Council/The Euro-Arctic region, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, as well as with regional authorities in the Arctic. During the same period, one intergovernmental organization was admitted to the AU: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and 2 non-governmental organizations: the University of the Arctic (UArctica) and the International Working Group on Indigenous Peoples (IWGDCO)^[11].

Iceland's chairmanship (2002-2004) brought with it the discussion of new topics, among which the key was the issue of financing the activities of the Arctic Council. In this regard, the mechanism of the Arctic Council Project Support Fund was approved. Thus, a new impetus was given to the process of institutionalization of the AU. In addition, the problem of the development of information and communication technologies in the region was touched upon for the first time. Also, the Council worked out the issues of financing the AU. To this end, the mechanism of the Fund to Support its projects was approved^[12].

Under the chairmanship of Russia (2004-2006), sustainable development has again become a key issue. During this period, the countries also discussed climatic aspects, such as combating water pollution in the Arctic, as well as ways to prevent changes in climatic conditions and their detrimental impact on the region. In addition, preparations for the International Polar Year (2007-2008) were carried out under the Russian presidency. Russia also became the first country to raise the issue of the energy sector in the region and its development. During the same period, a ministerial meeting was held in Salekhard and the Salekhard Declaration was signed^[13], where the topic of interaction in the energy sector was touched upon for the first time.

During the Norwegian presidency (2007-2009), climate aspects again became the primary tasks. The issues of climate change, biodiversity conservation and prevention of further pollution of Arctic waters were actively discussed. The countries have also started to create joint monitoring programs to monitor the situation in the region.

An important step towards institutionalization during the Norwegian presidency was the Tromso summit, during which a corresponding declaration was adopted^[14] and at which an institutional decision was made: to hold additional meetings at the level of deputy ministers to coordinate the activities of the Council in the period between ministerial meetings; the ministers also supported the continuation of discussions on the future institutional structure and the order of functioning of the Council^[15].

In 2011, during the Danish presidency (2009-2011), several significant events took place, which were part of a serious stage in the long process of institutionalization of the AU. First of all, on May 12, 2011, the first legally binding agreement was signed under the auspices of the Arctic Council - an Agreement on Cooperation in Aviation and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic^[16]. This event has become a serious stage in the long process of institutionalization of the AU. Among other important points, it should be noted the development of criteria for new countries that the organization will accept as observers.

In addition, during the Danish presidency, it was decided to establish a permanent secretariat, and the process was finally completed in 2013 under the Swedish presidency, when the permanent secretariat of the Council began its work. Regardless of the permanent configuration as a political forum, the structure of the AU has undergone significant changes after these actions. There are two reasons why this reform has become an important step towards a structured system:

- The creation of a permanent secretariat is so far the only reform of the AU's institutional structure;

- permanent secretariats are bodies associated with more formal, treaty–based international organizations. 

During the Swedish presidency (2011 – 2013), the main work was carried out in the direction of combating climate change and supporting the proper level of ecology. The countries have made progress in the areas of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating ocean pollution as a result of increasing shipping every year. Another achievement of the Swedish chairmanship was the second legally binding agreement on cooperation in the field of preparedness and response to oil pollution in the Arctic, signed on May 15, 2013^[17].

In 2013, the second cycle of presidencies began with the chairmanship of Canada (2013 – 2015). It is impossible not to note Canada's significant contribution to the expansion and revitalization of the organization.  First of all, work continued on the institutional strengthening of the Arctic Council. The most important achievement in this period was the establishment of the permanent Secretariat of the AU in Troms?, Norway. At the same time, representatives of the States agreed on the rules of work of the secretariat and all the issues necessary to ensure its functioning, and also pledged to consider new approaches to more actively involving permanent members to participate in them. An important achievement of this period was also the agreement on the creation of the Arctic Economic Council, a completely new body within the AU. An important change was the expansion of the composition of observers in the organization. In 2013, 6 states acquired this status. In general, the interaction of the Arctic states during this period developed constructively^[18].

The second period of the US presidency (2015-2017) took place in a complicated socio-political situation. All the countries of the Arctic region imposed sanctions against Russia, which, in turn, responded to them with its counter-sanctions^[19].The accumulated contradictions led to the suspension of cooperation in some areas in the AU.

However, despite the difficulties, the countries still managed to make progress in a number of areas: progress was noticeable in the development of multilateral cooperation of coastguards, consultations were held on reducing fishing in the Arctic Ocean, which in June 2015 ended with the signing of an agreement banning fishing in international Arctic waters^[20].

During the same period, 4 intergovernmental organizations were accepted into the AU: the International Council for Marine Research (ICES), the OSPAR Commission, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Council of Western Nordic Countries, as well as a non—governmental organization - the International Organization for the Protection of the Oceans^[21].

Finland's presidency (2017-2019) fell during a period of continued deterioration of the international situation. In these difficult circumstances, Finland, during its presidency, developed mechanisms to promote sustainable development in the Arctic. Thus, work continued on the development of communication networks to provide broadband Internet access in the Arctic region. Such an active discussion of this issue is primarily due to the fact that all currently existing communication systems are not adequately suited for normal operation in the Arctic, since they do not provide radio visibility at high latitudes.

Among the significant achievements during its presidency, Finland has faced some setbacks. For the first time in the entire existence of the organization, a joint declaration was not adopted, which confirms the achievements of the outgoing chairman and makes recommendations for the next one. The declaration was blocked by the United States because of the mention in its text of the need for mutual cooperation. It was this event that made it clear that there really are significant differences between the countries of the Council. For the same reason, the Strategic Plan for Cooperation in the Arctic until 2025, which was supposed to be the first long-term planning document in the history of the AU, was not agreed^[22].

Iceland's presidency (2019 – 2021) fell during a difficult period of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this regard, the work of the Council in many areas was stopped. A significant part of the events were held in an online format, and many did not take place at all. Nevertheless, during its presidency, the island state still managed to implement a number of worthy and significant projects for the development of the Arctic region. Thus, progress has been made in the field of solid waste management and combating climate change.

In May 2021, Russia took over the chairmanship of the Council. On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during his trip to Reykjavik, outlined the Russian position regarding the upcoming Russian presidency in the period 2021-2023.^[23] The Russian Federation chose as the main direction of its policy the formation of a stable system of mutually beneficial international cooperation in order to solve the pressing problems of the region.

The main documents developed by Russia during this period were: the plan of the main activities in connection with the chairmanship of the Russian Federation in the Arctic Council in 2021-2023^[24] and the concept of Russia's chairmanship in the Arctic Council in 2021-2023^[25], which laid down the main directions of the upcoming chairmanship of the Russian Federation in the organization.

As its priority areas and goals , Russia has identified: strengthening diverse cooperation between all Member States, as well as AU observer countries, and comprehensive development of the region through joint work. In addition, Russia raised the issue of the need to start a multilateral dialogue between the Arctic states through the general staffs and the armed forces. This suggests that Russia is trying to bring the issue up for discussion, which has not been deliberately discussed since the formation of the organization in order to preserve positive relations and prevent any contradictions between the participating countries. However, Russia noted that constructive dialogue in this direction should only improve mutual understanding between the countries and contribute to the development of the region. Thus, Russia has shown that it strives to turn the Arctic into an innovative region by attracting investments from domestic and foreign companies.

However, the analysis shows that there is a real risk of failures in the implementation of the program of the Russian presidency^[26]. Such significant events in world politics as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, growing political tensions, ongoing sanctions pressure and, as a result, the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West, have a negative impact on the activities of the entire Arctic Council. Accusations from the West against Russia in the militarization of the Arctic are not excluded. All these factors combined as a result may violate the rules of work of the organization.

In addition, an important complicating factor of cooperation between the participating countries may also be the situation on the territory of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022, as a result of which it is quite difficult to predict what the outcome of Russia's presidency will be and whether the goals set in the current conditions will be achieved.

Thus, the Russian Federation found itself in a very difficult situation, which requires caution and accuracy in relation to the decisions taken. At the same time, a number of decisive measures are also required that would not contradict the interests of other actors in the Arctic, but would help strengthen the position of the Russian Federation in the region. At the time of writing, the chairmanship of the Russian Federation has not yet been completed, therefore, the authors do not undertake to judge the results of the activities of the Russian Federation within the framework of the chairmanship of the Arctic Council ahead of time.

To calculate the level of influence of the participating countries on the actual activities within the framework of the Arctic Council, the authors of the work carried out a comparative analysis using the official documentation of the organization.

Table No. 1

Number of projects led by countries in the AU working groups in the period from 2000 to 2018.

Source: Compiled by the authors according to data from the official website of the AU^[27]

Table No. 2

Number of projects led and implemented by countries in the AU working groups in the period from 2000 to 2018.

Source: Compiled by the authors according to data from the official website of the AU^[28]

Table No. 3

Number of projects led by countries and in action or frozen in the AU working groups in the period from 2000 to 2018.

Source: Compiled by the authors according to data from the official website of the AU^[29]

Based on the data obtained in Tables No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, it can be concluded that the USA, Canada and Norway are the most active in the AU. The Russian Federation, in turn, is also not deprived of opportunities for effective participation in the work of the AU, however, in terms of involvement in the activities of the working groups, it is inferior to the leaders of the above-mentioned countries, as well as Finland.

This situation is explained by the fact that the country's participation in a particular project means serious financial investments. The Russian Federation, in turn, during the 2000s could not afford large financial costs due to the unstable economic situation in the country and participated only in those projects that brought the greatest benefit to it. Nevertheless, this situation has begun to change since 2009, when numerous projects were initiated by the Russian Federation and in recent years, Russia has been increasingly involved in the activities of all AU working groups. Thus, since 2011, the Russian Federation has been the main donor of the Arctic Council Project Support Institute, as it seeks to obtain the status of the main political player in the Arctic region and is interested in its development in the international arena^[30].

According to Tables No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, the Russian Federation shows exceptional activity only in the Working Group on the Elimination of Arctic Pollution (hereinafter ACAP). This is explained by the fact that most of the projects implemented by AQAP are carried out on the territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. In addition, the direction of environmental protection has been and remains one of the most important directions of the Arctic policy of the Russian Federation according to the strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of Russia and ensuring national security until 2035^[31].

This is due to the fact that pollution contributes to climate change and environmental degradation, which will definitely have a negative impact on Russian citizens living in the Arctic territories, as well as on Russian cities and infrastructure. In this regard, in order to reduce environmental risks and prevent environmental pollution, Russia is interested in participating and investing in the projects of this working group.

Thus, the Russian Federation has proved that it is capable of making a tremendous contribution to the activities and development of the AU. Currently, Russia is increasingly participating in the activities of the AU, which is facilitated by the 2019-2021 chairmanship led by the Russian Federation and all new initiatives proposed to it.

Conclusion. Over the entire period of its activity, the Arctic Council has implemented about 80 projects, has shown itself to be an important and necessary attribute in regulating the activities of countries in the Arctic. Formally, it is possible to trace the existence of the legal foundations of an intergovernmental international organization. Thus, the organization has a permanent Secretariat of the Arctic Council, which is endowed with organizational and technical powers. In addition, countries make regular contributions to the functioning of the Council.

However, despite the fact that today the Arctic Council is taking an increasingly active part in the process of regulating the Arctic, promoting regional cooperation, it still retains its status as a high-level forum with limited institutional capacity, being a relatively poorly structured organization of the founding States. Thus, the formal nature of the permanent secretariat does not really correspond to the otherwise poorly structured political forum that the AU is. The absence of both a legal framework and law enforcement practice imposes restrictions on the effectiveness of the current system of multilateral cooperation in the region. Thus, despite the successes achieved, the activities of the AU at the moment are not a guarantee that the organization will continue to be effective.

For the normal operation of the AU, it is necessary to make a number of adjustments to the structure and procedures of the council in order to maximize its productivity in the coming years. The AU needs, first of all, to expand the scope of the council's activities and attract more subjects to participate in it. These steps would make it possible to attract the attention of the international community and the public to the region, increase the flow of investments and finally accelerate the process of institutionalization of the region.

The role of Russia in the activities of the AU at the time of writing is strong and, thanks to the efforts of the government of the Russian Federation, is increasing every year^[32]. It can also be stated that since 2009, the Russian Federation has been taking an increasing number of actions to increase the role and capabilities of Russia in the AU. At the same time, the activities of the Russian Federation are carried out to the greatest extent in the ACAP working group responsible for the elimination of pollution, however, Russia also actively participates in other groups. Thus, it can be stated that Russia is strengthening its positions and potential every year by actively participating in the meetings of the Council, and contributes to the balanced promotion of sustainable development of the region as a whole.