Sustainable Development Strategies of North American Countries, China and India as a Factor of Security of the Arctic Region

IntroductionThe Arctic, as an object of modern attention, is an attractive and promising territory for a large number of countries ^[1].

The importance of the Arctic space increases over time. Among the reasons for increasing interest in the Arctic are its enormous resource potential; the transport importance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) for cargo transportation and the development of subsurface use in the Arctic zone; incomplete demarcation of the international northern sea spaces and the Arctic shelf; melting of ice and the likelihood of the release of part of the Arctic water space from ice for sea cargo transportation, etc. ^[2].

The Arctic has turned from an unpromising "appendage" of the Nordic countries into one of the world's main points of attraction, with which not only the Arctic and near–Arctic countries, but also countries geographically remote from the Northern Hemisphere - the countries of East, Southeast and South Asia associate their future ^[3].

Accordingly, Arctic strategies are currently being actively developed and implemented by both Arctic and near-Arctic countries, as well as Asian countries.

The main strategic guideline in the development of the Arctic remains the provision and maintenance of national security. Mechanisms for implementing their own strategies and programs in the Arctic region for a number of countries have similar priorities with overlapping interests ^[1].

Given the high importance of the Arctic for the long-term socio-economic development of Russia, a constant analysis of foreign Arctic strategies is relevant to use the newly emerging conditions for improving national security, preventing the negative consequences of the implementation of strategies of some countries and finding opportunities to use the best foreign practices in Russia.

To solve the latter tasks, it is necessary to analyze the policies and strategies of the countries active in the Arctic agenda. In the article ^[4], the authors analyzed the Arctic strategies of European states. The purpose of the work is to analyze the Arctic strategies of the United States, Canada, China, and India for compliance of their national interests with the regional (Arctic) and search for opportunities to use their best practices to ensure sustainable development in Russia.

Analysis of the US state Arctic Policy In the USA, the state policy towards the Arctic is traditionally developed and carried out taking into account the country's position as an organic part of a specific cross-border regional space, ultimately determined by its economic, geographical and natural-geological features.

  The special attitude towards it on the part of the state is also due to the fact that the American part of this space has large border territories and environments (including water and air). They are concentrated mainly in the northernmost state of the country, Alaska, and the territories adjacent to the north (not belonging to Russia) in the Chukchi Sea (hereinafter all of them are designated by the general term, Alaska).

In recent decades, the effects of these factors have been increasingly complemented by the effects of ongoing climate change. The warming of the climate and the melting of permafrost open access to many previously hidden natural resources of the region, allow to increase the scale of their exploitation; contribute to a more complete development and/or organization of new sea and other transportation channels, increase cargo flows, transport development. 

At the same time, such changes threaten to disrupt and/or completely undermine the fragile ecosystems that have developed in the Arctic, the established ways of life and working conditions not only of the subjects of the national Arctic territories, but also of their other stakeholders.

This forces the government to adjust and develop the previously established directions of Arctic policy, to focus more and more on ensuring stability in the region and cross-border cooperation within the framework of ensuring national security ^[5-6].

It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the current National Strategy for the Arctic (hereinafter, the Strategy), the accents characteristic of the border territories and which have become traditional on ensuring national security complement the guidelines for a responsible approach to managing the complex development of the region: protecting its ecology, preserving many natural resources, caring for the cultural values of the local population, their scientific study and effective use of the obtained results ^[7].

This applies primarily to such a component of the Strategy as energy security. Today, its provision is linked to improving awareness of the state of oil and gas-bearing areas and other mineral-rich Arctic territories, timely prevention, identification and/or elimination of adverse consequences of economic and/or other activities on land, in the air and water.

The Strategy calls the development of international cooperation an effective means of achieving this. Previously, its importance was associated with the remoteness of many Arctic objects, increased risks and costs for their study and/or use. Today, these grounds reinforce the increase in the number of persons interested in the economic development of the region, both national and foreign, the need to develop and establish effective norms of their interaction in the aspects of sustainability, documenting such institutions, monitoring their compliance, etc.

Naturally, in this regard, the active support of the United States for the course to ensure the foundations for the sustainable development of the Arctic region within the framework of the international regional organizations created by its member countries - the Arctic Council and others. During the periods of the US leadership, this organization put on the agenda the issues of analysis and evaluation of the results of the impact of climate change on the state of the region, the safety of water spaces, prevention and overcoming the consequences of their oil pollution, conservation of biodiversity, sustainable development of tourism and telemedicine in it, improvement of economic conditions, including through the development of innovative technologies, telecommunications infrastructure and others . The conclusion in 2017 is called an important result of such efforts . Agreements between Russia and the United States on the development of international scientific cooperation in the Arctic, the country's participation in the implementation of the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Preparedness and Response to Oil Pollution in the Arctic, the Agreement on Cooperation in Aviation and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, etc.

Simultaneously with the acceleration of cross-border ties, the country was searching for suitable management and administrative tools to ensure the sustainable development of national Arctic territories. The serious difficulties accompanying this process are evidenced by numerous political and economic discussions on the development, adoption and implementation of the provisions of documents ensuring the implementation of the Strategy and its development. Typical examples of this were the debates over the Strategy Implementation Plan, which defines specific measures for its implementation and the ministries responsible for their implementation (2014); the Decree on strengthening the coordination of national efforts in relation to the Arctic, according to which a special coordination committee on Arctic issues was created in the country (2015); the Framework Program for the Implementation of the Strategy (2016), which provided for updating and improving the previously planned measures, as well as expanding the range of their actions, including scientific research and related activities on Arctic issues; discussions on the definition and separation of competencies of the federal and state authorities of Alaska in connection with the Clean Water Act; on the strategy for sustainable development of a number of areas of Alaska, developed by and implemented by the US Department of Agriculture and a number of other documents of a political and administrative nature ^[8].

They were complemented by sharp disputes about administrative measures for the economic development of the subsoil of the region, its infrastructure, ecology and safe development. So, for example, despite the Trump administration's stated priority attention to the infrastructural development of the region, in fact, it was limited to only one project - the construction of a deep-water port, the effectiveness of which in the absence of icebreaking transport turned out to be low. A little later, the struggle over licensing the expanded use of the resources of the national oil Reserve – Alaska, sanctioned by the Trump government during the change of the Obama administration's installations and stopped by the Biden government in accordance with the approaches made public in 2021, was widely publicized. Against this background, the measures of the authorities of the only "Arctic state" of the USA, Alaska, were not sufficient to solve the problems of sustainable development.

The state of the ecology of the region remained ambiguous. Against the background of increased economic activity, air pollution also gradually increased. With the relatively low dynamics of the latter as a whole (Figure 1), the indicators for most types of pollution consistently did not meet the accepted standards.

Figure 1 - Dynamics of indices of socio-economic changes and air pollution in Alaska.

Source: ECOS Results Project ^[9].

Note: Common pollutants include CO, NOx, SO2, as well as special substances and special organic components

The situation with water supply also remained unfavorable. The share of systems providing it that meet sanitary standards fell from 81% in 2011 to 74% in 2015. Then it increased slightly (to 79%), remaining, however, below the level of a decade ago. At the same time, the volume of wastewater discharges increased from 86% in 2011 to 93% by 2020. These data show that the traditional tools for correcting the situation with wastewater with the help of investments of special state funds ^[10-11] were not sufficient.

Even worse was the situation with the general state of stability of the American Arctic, assessed in accordance with the requirements of the UN. Alaska's indicators calculated according to a special methodology for achieving UN goals decreased by almost 3 percentage points (Figure 2) and turned out to be one of the worst in the country.

Figure 2 - Changes in the consolidated indicator of achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals by some US states.

Source: 2021 US State Sustainable Development Report ^[12].

These data indicate that, despite the efforts made by the American state to effectively manage the sustainable development of the Arctic, the measures it takes to support it are important for the trans-border region as a whole, but are not sufficient to solve the problems of national Arctic territories.

In addition, it should be noted that the American Arctic strategy puts exclusively national interests at the forefront, neglecting or, to some extent, jeopardizing the security of the development of the Arctic as an international region.

Analysis of the State Arctic policy of Canada Sustainable development issues have long been on the agenda of the Government of Canada.

Back in the 90s of the last century, laws on alternative fuels (1995), environmental protection (1999), etc. began to operate in the country. The adoption of the Federal Law on Sustainable Development in 2008 made it possible to form a kind of common platform for these acts and outline new directions for the country's environmental development. The Federal Strategy for Sustainable Development contained in it was of considerable interest not only in terms of content, from the point of view of an integrated approach to ensuring the interests of future generations of the country and the whole world, as formulated in the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, but also from the point of view of managing this process.

The document set ambitious goals and objectives for strategic development, provided for planning and control over the development, improvement and implementation of the strategy, mobilization of almost the entire state apparatus around it. To achieve the goals, it provided for the development of special strategies of federal agencies, regular reporting on them, their improvement and development to the national Parliament. All this pointed to the recognition of the importance of state support for the sustainable development of the whole country, including its Arctic space.

There, however, the practical implementation of the accepted guidelines was hampered by its diverse and unequal interpretations.

For example, geographically defined Arctic Lands as territories north of the 60th parallel were often combined with more southern areas located along the Hudson and in the north of Quebec and Labrador - the Canadian North because of the large uninhabited territories characteristic of both (40% of the country's lands, on the Arctic part of which less than 1% of the total national population ^[13]), low economic development (the main sectors in the region are commercial mining of diamonds, gold, silver, lead and zinc; tourism, public administration, social services and healthcare), ethnic specifics (out of 4 million people living in the Arctic territories, 0.5 million are indigenous ^[14]) and a number of other features. 

To date, the development of the region is seriously limited by the lack of necessary infrastructure in it, the high costs of developing newly created industries, economic, environmental and other risks.  In these conditions, the activity of the state is of particular importance. According to analysts, not only its socio-economic development is connected with it in the North, but also its place in the processes of the entire national development as a whole ^[15].

Meanwhile, for a long period, the position of the authorities in relation to these territories remained not quite clear and consistent, accompanied by divergent approaches to various aspects of sustainable development. Thus, statements of support for the development of oil and gas fields (Norman Wells field, etc.) were combined with the freezing of licensing for the development of oil and gas fields on land and water, a reduction in funding for a number of research programs in the field of clean and renewable energy; withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, indicating a decrease in interest in the environment, with the signing of the Paris Agreement about climate change.

The warming observed at present is an important factor in clarifying and adjusting the policy of the authorities towards the North. The possibilities of its development are becoming more definite, opening up favorable prospects for the creation of new transport routes, the development of shipping, fishing, and extractive industries.

At the same time, fragile Arctic ecosystems are under threat, which forces us to look for ways to preserve the environment. In 2015, the authorities of one of the northern territories, Yukon, adopted a law on the assessment of its ecological and socio-economic condition. To clarify this, the following year the federal authorities adopted the relevant bill, and a year later, after special consultations with local authorities, they began to change previously adopted acts. At about the same time, the authorities of another Territory, the Northwest, updated the previous and actually adopted a new law on the management of resources of one of their Arctic regions; the authorities of the third, Nunavut, issued a Law on the planning and evaluation of projects that, in fact, concerned the development of the Arctic. Other legislative and administrative acts of the same orientation were adopted at the local and federal levels.

For their effective implementation, it was necessary to coordinate these actions among themselves. The achievement of this was envisaged in the policy framework for the Arctic and northern regions of Canada, adopted in 2019 by the federal Government together with authorities at various levels and designed for the period up to 2030. with a budget of 700 million US dollars ^[16]. The program provided for the definition of short-, medium- and long-term benchmarks for sustainable development, coordination of investment and other efforts of all its stakeholders for this purpose. The program was divided into 8 areas related to the sustainable development of the economy; improvement of ecosystems; improvement of the international regime in relation to the Arctic, taking into account new challenges and opportunities; ensuring the health of the inhabitants of the region; strengthening its infrastructure; ensuring informed and balanced management decision-making; as well as ensuring the safety and protection of the Canadian Arctic and northern territories.

The program is managed by the Department for Relations with Ethnic Groups and Development of the North, which coordinates the activities of the 33 federal agencies participating in it. Among them, transport and international relations are particularly distinguished, which complement the head office and form a working group that ensures the organization of the program and its overall management. Its important feature was the recognition of the possibilities for further development of the Program, taking into account the interests and initiatives from the field, as well as interaction with different levels of government.

The program also recognized the important role of international institutions in its implementation. Among them, first of all, is the Arctic Council, initiated by Canada in 1996 and within the framework of which a number of agreements were concluded and implemented (for example, on the prevention of unregulated fishing and Arctic waters, etc.)

An important component of managing such development is work planning, reporting and evaluation of the department's performance, including in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, current national strategies, the work of departments of the department and other departmental structures in solving the tasks. A special place in this mechanism is occupied by a system for evaluating actions to achieve them, which provides not just for the department/its departments or other structures to achieve the value of a particular indicator, but an assessment of the conditions in which they are achieved, the effectiveness of the decision-making process carried out at the same time, mutual links between the actions of different departments, as well as ensuring transparency and publicity. the results obtained and measures for further improvement of the applied evaluation system.

The above suggests that the measures taken will effectively improve the situation of the Arctic and northern territories of Canada in terms of the UN goals and the Canadian Framework Program for the sustainable development of its specified territories. The lack of open access to the consolidated data of the authorized department via the Russian Internet does not allow for a more accurate assessment of the effectiveness of its efforts and all state support for sustainable development of the Arctic/northern territories of the country.

The Canadian Arctic strategy, unlike the American one, is neutral, closer to positive, in relation to the issues of ensuring the security of the entire Arctic region.

Analysis of China and India's position on supporting the sustainable development of the ArcticChina's attention to the Arctic has been increasing over the past decades.

The country is stepping up its participation in various areas of the regional agenda, including ensuring sustainable development.

To this end, China is strengthening ties with the Arctic states and their organizations, actively participates in scientific research of the region, its economic development, and supports various environmental initiatives. Today, the country has two ice floats for this (including a fairly large one) and is building a third. The intentions to further develop its presence in the Arctic are clearly confirmed by the plans announced by the country's leadership to use the NSR as part of its cross-border Silk Road project, the so-called "Polar Silk Road". They are complemented and reinforced by the activation of Chinese business in the region, engaged in energy, transport and mining projects in Russia, in zinc and copper mining industries in Canada and in other projects.

The diversity of China's interests in the region has led to the development and implementation of a special Arctic policy in relation to it. In the document of the same name (2018), China declared its intention to participate in the protection of the environment of the region, including in connection with climate change; rational and legally justified use of Arctic resources; development of navigation and development of newly emerging waterways; cooperation in the management of the Arctic space on the principles of international cooperation, ensuring peace and stability there ^[17].

He confirmed his position with the adoption of the 14th five-year plan for 2021-2025. Special attention is paid to the prospects for the implementation of scientific research and commercial activities in the region, cooperation for this with foreign partners ^[18]. By implementing this course, the Chinese Government declares the main goal of its presence in the region to realize the opportunities to ensure sustainable development there - ecological balance, economic and social progress, continuity of generations.

India is also showing serious interest in the Arctic. Somewhat later than China, it also stated its position on this region at the political level ^[19-20]. As the main vector of the government's course, ensuring its sustainable development was included in the title of the document adopted in 2022, "India's Arctic Policy: Partnership for Sustainable Development" (2022) ^[21].

India 's Arctic policy assumed the implementation of the following directions:

- economic and human development;

- environmental protection;

- scientific research;

- transport and connectivity;

- management and international cooperation;

- formation and development of national abilities.

The relevance of these vectors for India is due to the important consequences for it of the processes taking place in the Arctic:

- climate warming affecting the monsoons of the peninsula, followed by national agriculture and the well-being of almost 60% of the country's population;

- the impact of climate change on snowmelt in the Himalayas, which provides a significant part of the country with water resources, especially drinking water;

- rising water levels in the ocean due to the melting of Arctic ice and flooding of numerous islands belonging to India;

- promising development of new energy sources important for India;

- realization of opportunities to use the commercial and strategic advantages of the NSR, etc.

The search and implementation of effective solutions on Arctic issues is supposed to be carried out on the principles of active cooperation with other countries and their stakeholders. Russia is becoming an important partner for the development of such relations. Representatives of the two states have repeatedly pointed out good prospects for cooperation in the fields of science (climate, ecology, etc.), economics (transport and communications, energy and marine resources development), management (sustainable development, biodiversity maintenance) and a number of others, including at the highest level ^[22].

Such interaction is also favored by the institutional conditions created for this in India. A number of ministries, departments and research institutes are involved in its implementation, including those dealing with environmental and climate protection, the development of science and technology, communications and energy (oil and natural gas production, renewable sources), port infrastructure and water transport, industry, agriculture, etc. To effectively coordinate their activities, a special interdepartmental group for the implementation of Arctic policy was created, which included representatives of science, business and other stakeholder groups.

Interest in such cooperation is also shown in Russia. It is demonstrated by many groups of stakeholders (institutional and not), which in modern conditions allows us to expect a new round of effective development of mutual relations and their significant contribution to ensuring the sustainable development of the region.

Thus, the Arctic policies of China and India are focused not only on improving national security and fulfilling national interests, but also on promoting the security of the entire Arctic region.

ConclusionThe authors' analysis of the Arctic policies of the United States, Canada, China and India indicates the difference in the motives and nature of the country's activities in matters of ensuring security and increasing the level of economic development of the Arctic as an international region.

The US policy is distinguished by its focus exclusively on its own national interests and security. In contrast to the American, Canadian Arctic policy is characterized by a neutral, closer to positive, position in relation to ensuring the security of the Arctic. The policy of China and India is based on greater alignment of national security with the security of the entire Arctic region.

The models of the policy of supporting the sustainable development of the Arctic of the countries of the North American continent demonstrate ambiguous effectiveness of their implementation.

In the USA, this course was formed on the basis of the national security strategy and the geostrategic interests of the country. He continues to be distinguished by the heterogeneity of the efforts undertaken and their inconsistency with each other. The result is a deterioration in the state of the national Arctic spaces, as well as an aggravation of the backlog of the state to which they belong in terms of achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This does not give grounds for using American practices in Russia.

In Canada, the problem of integrating the efforts of different agencies in the development, implementation and improvement of the Arctic sustainable development policy finds promising solutions, is reinforced by specific mechanisms. Quantitative information on them, however, is not presented in a complete, systematic form. This makes it difficult to directly analyze the prospects for using and/or adapting these mechanisms to domestic realities. At the same time, the urgency of questions about ways to effectively coordinate the actions of different departments regarding the sustainable development of the Arctic makes it advisable to conduct special studies of this and, with a positive result, to develop and test appropriate tools by Russian organizations authorized to work with the information and analytical management system for the socio-economic development of the Arctic.

Great prospects for supporting the sustainable development of the Arctic contain the emerging and developing models of the state Arctic policy of China and India. Their priority attention to these issues is combined with interest in economic, political and other areas of development based on cooperation with the Arctic countries, primarily with Russia. For her, this opens up great prospects for the development and development of new forms of support for the sustainable development of the Arctic, prospects for their adaptation and use in other spheres and regions.