International cooperation in the field of environmental protection and rational use of Arctic bioresources: history of development and current realities.

Rednikova Tatiana Vladimirovna PhD in Law Senior Scientific Associate; Department of Environmental, Land an Agrarian Law; Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences 119019, Russia, Moscow, Znamenka str., 10 trednikova@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Throughout the entire historical period of its existence, the Russian state has paid great attention to the study and development of the Arctic region. Given the large extent of its Arctic coast, as well as the large expanse of its land territory belonging to the Arctic zone, multilateral international cooperation in the Arctic cannot fully cover the entire range of regional problems without the participation of our country, much less develop the most effective ways to solve them. It should be noted that there is a constant clash of economic and political interests of various states in the region. The leading role in the settlement of various types of conflicts arising for this reason belongs to international law, which is in the process of constant development, taking into account the changing realities of the modern world ^{[1, 8-9]}.

Since the region has enormous reserves of both mineral and living resources, the price of establishing jurisdiction over its various areas is extremely high. The Arctic is invariably a zone of increased attention and conflict of geopolitical interests of both Arctic and non-Arctic states ^{[2, 128]}.

However, the Arctic was also one of the few areas in which Russia, the United States, and other Arctic and non-Arctic countries worked productively for several decades after the end of the Cold War to address critical climate and environmental issues, which became a prime example of technical and scientific cooperation between Russia and the West.

Interstate relations, which are constantly deteriorating against the background of the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and our country's frozen international cooperation with the countries of the Western coalition, unfortunately, hinder the effective resolution of global problems in the Arctic region.

Arctic residents, indigenous peoples, scientists, civil society representatives, and NGOs also began to worry about environmental protection after encountering air and water pollution, which mostly occurred in lower latitudes. During the Cold War, the political struggle between the United States and the USSR created an atmosphere in which the environment was another field of ideological competition between the respective socio-political systems, when positive environmental achievements were emphasized to demonstrate the advantages of one socio-political system over the other. Active cooperation between indigenous organizations, local governments, environmental NGOs, and the scientific community has become a key trend that has led to a paradigm shift from military tension to political stability in the Arctic. During the Cold War, several important international environmental agreements were concluded. For example, the Nixon-Brezhnev Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection of 1972, in which the Arctic and subarctic ecological systems were named priority areas for the "exchange of scientists... exchange of scientific and technical information ... [and] joint development and implementation of programs." Another example is the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears.

An important component in the conservation of marine biological resources in the Arctic is the international cooperation of states to form a unified policy in this area. A number of international agreements, both global and regional, are in force in the region. Let's focus on some of them, concluded in recent decades.

Currently, there is no commercial fishing in the open sea of the central part of the Arctic Ocean, which is approximately equal in area to the Mediterranean Sea. However, the processes of global warming on the planet and the ongoing processes of melting Arctic ice are leading to the availability of an increasing number of Arctic territories, which contributes to increasing the economic and investment attractiveness of the region. The melting of glaciers is provoking an increase in economic activity, which may lead to the implementation of new types of commercial fishing activities in the Arctic in the medium term.

As an illustration of successful international cooperation between the Arctic States, the signing of the Arctic Ocean Conference in May 2008 can also be cited. The Ilulissat Declaration (Ilulissat, Greenland). The purpose of the document, adopted by the five Arctic countries, was to recognize the responsibility of coastal States for preserving the fragile polar nature and identify joint regional efforts to counter the potentially adverse effects of climate change, including melting Arctic ice.

Another agreement in the field of protection of living biological resources of the Arctic is the "Agreement on the Prevention of Unregulated Fishing on the High Seas in the central Arctic Ocean" concluded in 2018 following two years of negotiations between the parties, which became another step towards preserving the living resources of the Arctic ^{[3, 119]}. The Agreement applies a cautious and scientifically sound approach to fishing, prohibiting unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean for a period of 16 years from the date of its entry into force (until 2037) with automatic extension in the absence of objections from the parties. The moratorium imposed by him covers an area of 2.8 million square kilometers. In accordance with the provisions of the agreement, decisions on substantive issues are taken by a majority vote. The Joint Research and Monitoring Program provides for the exchange of information received by the parties every two years. The mechanism created by the Agreement should prevent the intensification of commercial fishing until more accurate scientific data on the possible volumes of fishing without damage to ecosystems are obtained.

The agreement also provides for the implementation of a joint scientific program for detailed study in order to improve understanding of the state and structure of Arctic marine ecosystems, the potential impact that climate change may have on them, as well as forecasting potential fishing opportunities in the future.

Based on scientific research conducted under the agreement, it is planned to create a long-term strategy for the protection of healthy marine ecosystems in order to create an international legal framework for regulating fishing in the specified area. Among other purposes, the document declares the need to ensure the interests of indigenous peoples. In the future, the Parties to the Agreement may decide to start negotiations on the establishment of one or more regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements.

The peculiarity of this agreement is the practical implementation of the precautionary principle, which is widespread in environmental policy in many countries, which consists in trying to predict the possible negative impact of future economic activity in the region, as well as the need to develop measures to minimize it. As an example of such a negative impact of industrial fishing on the environment, one can cite the catch of millions of tons of saithorn in the Bering Strait area in the 1980s, which led to a sharp decline in its population by the 1990s, the number of which has not been restored to this day.

Interstate and international cooperation in the field of climate research and the search for ways to effectively adapt to global warming, the protection of living resources, other environmental issues in the region, and ensuring the traditional way of life of indigenous peoples is still extremely relevant and cannot take place without collective concerted efforts, primarily by Arctic states, as well as non-Arctic states expressing extreme concern for There is an interest in carrying out scientific and commercial activities in the region, since the current climate situation in the Arctic potentially poses a threat to a fairly wide range of states.

In this sense, it is time to rethink the experience of the Cold War period in the field of international cooperation in environmental protection. It should be noted that great attention should be paid here to the preservation of the traditional way of life of the indigenous peoples of the region.

However, today the cooperation of non-state actors, including in the field of scientific research, is carried out in much more difficult political conditions. The restrictions imposed in Western countries on scientific cooperation with Russian counterparties are actually destroying the ties that have been created for decades between scientists from leading scientific and educational centers, which greatly reduces the effectiveness of so-called soft diplomacy. Many joint research projects, which were funded through grants and foreign investments, have practically been curtailed. In turn, in the context of the intensified confrontation of ideologies, the Russian Federation began to pay much more attention to the content of research programs, especially in the field of humanities, in order to create obstacles, including at the legislative level, to the penetration of historically unreliable, politically biased information that could lead to an unjustified distortion of the worldview of the country's citizens, especially their younger generation..

At the same time, cooperation in the field of nature conservation, natural sciences, and comparative study of the traditional way of life of indigenous peoples can thus become a direction free from ideological and sanctions pressure, in which cooperation could be carried out, as during the Cold War, in conditions of high political tension.

Cooperation in the Arctic with seven other Arctic States has traditionally been carried out within the framework of the Arctic Council, whose successful activities up to a certain point were partly due to the fact that security issues clearly went beyond its mandate. In the field of environmental protection, the Arctic Council, which is a common platform for the Arctic countries to carry out international cooperation and coordinate joint efforts to solve regional problems, has achieved significant success. Currently, he is recognized by the international community as the leading and responsible organizer of law and order in the Arctic Ocean and represents the interests of not only the Arctic, but also non-Arctic states ^{[4, p. 29]}. As part of his activities, he worked on three programs aimed at protecting the unique natural environment of the region: the Arctic Flora and Fauna Conservation Program (CAFF); the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP); and the Arctic Pollution Action Program (ACAP). The Arctic Council also had three working groups: the Working Group on Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR); the Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME); and the Working Group on Sustainable Development in the Arctic (SDWG) ^{[5, p. 41]}. The importance of joint activities of countries within the framework of these programs and working groups is to develop common recommendations on measures, including legal ones, that should be taken by all Arctic countries to ensure a unified approach to environmental protection, which is necessary to increase its effectiveness. Today, approaches to the implementation of internationally agreed protection measures in national legislation may vary. For example, in the United States, indigenous peoples have the right to sell their quotas for the extraction of an internationally protected and threatened species such as the polar bear to third parties, while in the Russian Federation this action is prohibited ^{[6, p. 42]}.

Unfortunately, since March 2022, cooperation with the Russian Federation in the Arctic Council has been frozen for political reasons. It seems that the restoration of scientific ties in this field can serve as a source of restoring trust between currently unfriendly countries. As noted by A.L. Kolesnikov, possible points of contact may be: "ensuring sustainable development, indigenous issues, adaptation to climate change, study and protection of the environment, conservation of biodiversity, public health, emergency preparedness, Arctic security." In his opinion, the result of this work may be the rejection by European states of unfriendly actions towards Russia and a further transition to a policy of good neighborliness ^{[7, p. 6]}.

In the context of the pause in the work of the Arctic Council, cooperation between non-state actors may now become the most important form of cooperation. Science and civil diplomacy are still important. Researchers, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, and civil society can influence States to resume intergovernmental cooperation. It seems advisable to start thinking in this direction and planning cooperation in the Arctic after the end of military conflicts, when the West and Russia may be able to restore cooperation at the interstate level. Despite the opinion expressed by the Director of the Department of Political Planning of the Russian Foreign Ministry, A. Drobinin, that today the period of constructive cooperation between Russia and Western countries has ended forever (See: URL: https://tass.ru/politika/15379859 ?ysclid=m8nd21p8x5788950631 (accessed: 03/20/2025)), hopefully, the Arctic cooperation sphere will eventually not be affected by any events taking place in other regions of the planet. I would like to fully agree with the opinion of N. Korchunov, the Russian Ambassador to the AU, that project activities within the framework of the Arctic Council should be resumed in the future with the participation of all parties included in it (See: URL: https://aif.ru/politics/world/rf_gotova_vozobnovit_dialog_so_stranami_v_ramkah_arkticheskogo_soveta (date of access: 03/20/2025)).

Both in the Russian Federation and abroad, scientists have drawn attention to the gaps in scientific data necessary for a comprehensive study of various processes that arise due to the termination of Russian scientists' access to joint research. In this situation, it is necessary to clearly understand that the circumpolar Arctic region is unified and indivisible from the point of view of the environment, and therefore the processes taking place in it should be studied in aggregate throughout its territory. In this regard, Russia remains open to cooperation, including with non-Arctic states.

It should be noted that the current shift from west to east in all spheres of public life has had an impact on the international cooperation of the Russian Federation in the Arctic region. The economically and scientifically leading countries of the global east and south, which had previously expressed their extreme interest in Arctic cooperation, are becoming more actively involved in cooperation with the Russian Federation in the Arctic both on a bilateral basis and within the framework of organizations such as the SCO and BRICS, and Middle Eastern and other global countries are increasingly involved in this process. the south.

Russia is increasingly attracting Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern companies to cooperate in the Arctic, in particular to invest in projects previously involving Western firms. For example, after Western companies left the Russian market due to the imposition of various sanctions, Novatek turned to the Emirati company Green Energy Solution for important technologies for the construction of natural gas liquefaction projects, and a Turkish company was involved in the construction of a floating power plant.

Today, the People's Republic of China is a strategic partner of the Russian Federation in various fields. Especially in the last decade, cooperation with this state in the Arctic has been significantly intensified. After the events of 2022, China opposed the exclusion of the Russian Federation from cooperation within the Arctic Council due to geopolitical competition and confrontation. It is planned that the so–called Polar Silk Road will operate within the framework of the Northern Sea Route as a structural part of the One Belt, One Road project (an initiative of the PRC to create a global transport and investment infrastructure), which fits into the tasks of developing the sea routes of the New Silk Road. However, to date, specific forms of integration of Russian and Chinese Arctic projects have not been legally defined, including the inclusion of the NSR in this initiative. China is ready to invest in the development of the NSR infrastructure with a view to the possibility of using it in the future as part of its own cargo transportation projects ^{[8, p. 191]}.

Today, Western countries are also increasingly concerned about the turn of Russian Arctic policy to the east. In some of them, work is beginning to find gaps in the current "freeze in relations" and identify areas in which scientific cooperation with Russia is still possible. Traditionally, important importance is attached to such non-governmental actors as scientific and public organizations.

International scientific conferences that bring together researchers regardless of nationality to exchange views based on shared concern about the dramatic changes taking place in the Arctic should themselves be examples of scientific and civic diplomacy. However, today, there is significant opposition from Western governments to both the participation of Russian scientists in events held abroad and foreign scientists in events held in the Russian Federation. Such obstacles include visa restrictions for Russians, the closure of Russian consular offices abroad, and direct recommendations from the leadership of scientific and educational organizations not to carry out such cooperation.

Cultural and scientific exchange within the framework of the unique circumpolar international organizations of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic region, whose activities transcend national borders, can serve as one of the directions for restoring cooperation focused on the specific needs of people of interstate cooperation in the Arctic. The development of the Arctic region is impossible without the participation ^{[9, p. 66]} and consideration of the interests of indigenous peoples living in this territory for many centuries and possessing traditional knowledge and culture, including in the field of nature management. One of the features of the areas inhabited by the indigenous peoples of the Arctic is their remoteness and inaccessibility ^{[10, p. 263]}, which leaves a certain imprint on their way of life and culture. As noted by G.I. Gribanova and V.I. Yudin, the indigenous peoples of the circumpolar regions today demonstrate a high level of cooperation and solidarity through the functioning of various organizations and network structures representing their interests within the world community ^{[11, p. 116]}.

Often, representatives of the same indigenous people of the Arctic live on the territory of two or more neighboring countries. In this case, according to V.R. Avkhadeev, "this circumstance creates an obligation for states to implement in the domestic legal system international obligations in the field of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples" ^{[12, p. 3]}. It should be noted that the interaction of representatives of one people through national public organizations, on the one hand, allows for more effective protection of their interests and rights, and on the other hand, to influence the development of international cooperation in a number of areas: environmental protection, traditional environmental management, preservation of language and cultural traditions, etc. But the geopolitical situation also leaves its mark on such interaction. In 2022, the Russian branch of the Sami Council stated that "now, more than ever, the Sami people in Russia need international support to continue cooperation between the Sami of the four countries." (See URL: https://kolasapmi.com/2022/03/01/2022-25 / (date of access: 31.10.2024)). However, Russian non-governmental organizations of indigenous peoples, such as the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (AKMN), the Kola Sami District Association, and others, supported the state policy of the Russian Federation regarding the conflict in Ukraine. As a result, the Sami Council suspended cooperation with its Russian member organizations in April 2022 (See URL: https://spbdnevnik.ru/news/2022-07-04/raskol-v-bolshoy-arktike-skandinavskie-saamy-priostanovili-otnosheniya-s-rossiyskimi-natsionalnymi-organizatsiyami (date of access: 31.10.2024)).

In the context of international tension, economic cooperation between Western countries and the Russian Federation, which has been going on for years, is ending. Thus, the denunciation of the Agreement between the Governments of the USSR and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the field of fisheries (Moscow, May 25, 1956) (Federal Law No. 40-FZ of March 11, 2024 "On Denunciation of the Agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Fisheries"), which gave British fishermen the right to engage in fishing in the territorial waters of the USSR, and later Russia, was a consequence of the decision of the United Kingdom to terminate the most-favored-nation regime in trade with Russia, adopted on March 15, 2022.

In search of opportunities for international cooperation at a time of political tension, one can turn to the Bering Strait, a region of historically successful cooperation supported by the Russian State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry, and a long–standing shared cultural heritage between Alaska and Chukotka. Russia and the United States maintain cooperation in the field of maritime security in the Bering Strait. This cooperation covers areas such as search and rescue, oil spill response, law enforcement and fisheries management. However, the joint Coast Guard exercises have been suspended (See: URL: https://pro-arctic.ru/12/04/2022/news/45543 ?ysclid=m8nflqjfp9952195400 (accessed: 31.10.2024)).

Similarly, Norway has suspended cooperation with Russia in the field of nuclear safety, but maintains communication channels, emergency preparedness and information exchange. This shows that there are several important areas of cooperation that can be maintained. At the same time, Russia and Norway continue to cooperate in fishing, despite the sanctions imposed by Western countries against the Russian Federation. According to the statement of the Russian Ambassador to Norway, mutually beneficial cooperation between specialists and scientists of both countries in the field of fisheries has been carried out for more than 50 years and has experienced different times during this period. Its preservation in the current political conditions and the sanctions regimes imposed on the Russian Federation "proves to the entire world community that only coordinated and scientifically sound measures for regulating marine resources in the Northeast Atlantic by coastal states make it possible to conduct rational and sustainable fishing (See: URL: https://ria.ru/20231029/norvegiya-1905919242.html (date of request: 31.10.2024)).

It should be noted that initially the national strategies of the circumpolar countries were based on the desire to cooperate as closely as possible with international partners in all areas in order to achieve the common goal of creating a peaceful, economically successful and sustainable future for the Arctic ^{[13, pp. 59-65; 14, pp. 195-202]}. Sustainable development and effective development of the Arctic region of the Russian Federation plays an extremely important role in ensuring the national interests of the Russian Federation ^{[15, p. 912]}. However, as V.P. Samarina and T.P. Skufina rightly point out, "the modern Arctic policy of the circumpolar countries excludes scientific and any other cooperation with Russia on environmental protection, ecosystem conservation, detailed and detailed study of natural, anthropogenic, socio-economic processes in the Arctic, expansion of monitoring and documentation of changes, including among other things, climate change significantly increases the risks of sustainable development of the Arctic territories" ^{[16, p. 22]}.

Summing up, it is necessary to note once again that the nature of our planet in all its diversity is the basis of human existence. Humans, along with other living organisms, form the Earth's biosphere and cannot exist in conditions where their environment is polluted and unsuitable for living beings. Humans are responsible for preserving existing ecosystems in all their diversity, with particular attention being paid to protecting the particularly fragile and vulnerable nature of the polar regions. The inevitable intensification of economic activity in high latitudes should not lead to a global environmental catastrophe. As in the years of the cold war, it is scientific and humanitarian cooperation that can become the basis for the so-called reconciliation of the parties and the overall improvement of interstate relations in the region in order to achieve the goals of its sustainable development.