Abstract
The Arctic is one of the key regions in relation to global climate change, experiencing radical transformations in environmental governance as well as challenges in terms of its ecological protection. The region is witnessing a number of irreversible climatic shifts, such as melting permafrost, rising sea levels, contamination of the Global Ocean, and changes in the lives of indigenous people. The Arctic is a global hot spot in climate change where international cooperation (scientific, environmental, diplomatic, etc.) should be a priority to overcome existing ecological challenges. This article provides detailed analysis of these issues from cross-disciplinary perspectives, bringing insights from economics, history, anthropology, international relations, and political science from the perspective of literature on environmental regionalism. The article analyzes a selection of heterogeneous actors, many of whom have contradictory rules, norms, and priorities. Analysis of the Arctic through the lens of regional environmental governance aspires to contribute to understanding of the complexity of existing challenges and their potential solutions. This article offers an analysis of the major findings in this topical collection. It contributes to the development of cross-disciplinary approach to the studies of the Artic and outlines a research agenda.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The Arctic is one of the key regions in relation to global climate change, experiencing radical transformations in environmental governance as well as challenges in terms of its ecological protection.Footnote 1 The region is witnessing a number of irreversible climatical shifts, such as melting permafrost, rising sea levels, contamination of the Global Ocean, and changes in biodiversity and in the lives of indigenous people (see Lavelle 2022; Orttung ed. 2017; Hanaček and Martinez-Alier 2022; Martínez-Alier with Hanaček 2023). The Arctic is a home to several EU states (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland), the US, Canada, and Russia (the later with the largest landmass in the Arctic). Martínez-Alier with Hanaček point out that the “environment of the Arctic is changing because of climate change (ice melting, methane released from the tundra) and, related to this, increasing controversial investments in oil and gas extraction, copper, nickel, iron ore and coal mining, aquaculture and hydroelectricity, and even wind energy” (2023, p. 132). Not only the Arctic is attractive for exploitation of natural resources but also for potential commercial routes (Liu 2017). These economic, military, security, and commercial benefits distract some of the actors (e.g., businesses, some policy-makers) away from sustainable development in the Arctic.Footnote 2
Arguably, the Arctic is a global hot spot in climate change where international cooperation (scientific, environmental, diplomatic, etc.) should be a priority to overcome existing ecological challenges. The topic collection (TC) targets the existing challenges and ongoing changes in the Arctic from cross-disciplinary perspectives, bringing insights from economics, history, anthropology, international relations, political science, and philosophy, buttressed by deep knowledge of area-studies on the part of contributors.
The “environmental governance” approach seems to be the most suitable for analysis of the complexities, co-existence, and contradictions of institutions, policies, actors, and socio-economic, security, biological, and ecological processes in the Arctic. A focus on governance encompasses analysis of the values, principles, laws, norms, practices, and policies on the management of environmental challenges. The Arctic contains a selection of heterogeneous actors, many of whom have contradictory rules, norms, and priorities. The actors involved in regional governance include cross-border geographic regions, international organizations (e.g., well-known actors like the EU, EBRD, NATO, and the Arctic Council (AC), but also less studied ones such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)), business and NGOs, indigenous people, epistemic groups, and local communities.
Analysis of the Arctic through the lens of environmental governance aspires to bring about new insights into the complexity of existing challenges and their potential solutions. To this end, the current article proceeds as follows. The next section delves into the concept of “regional environmental governance” (REG) and “Arctic Environmental Governance” (AEG). It then places the eight articles in this TC in the context of the scientific debate on the Arctic and highlights their individual contributions to the debate. It concludes with an overview of the major challenges and a research agenda.
2 Regional environmental governance and the Arctic
A number of studies have highlighted the importance of historical and institutional legacies, scientific knowledge, alignments, and coalitions, as well as the engagement of non-state actors in climate governance (Allan et al. 2023; Held and Roger 2018). Regional governance is understood here as a process involving multiple actors across multiple levels– global, national, subnational, regional, and local (Börzel 2016; p. 53). With a focus on heterogeneous actors and processes, the studies of regional governance are interdisciplinary in nature. Governance is analyzed in terms of economics, political science, history, sociology, legal studies, and anthropology. The governance approach is well suited to understanding environmental challenges and their solutions, which involve all types of actors and actions, from institutional governmental ones (national, international, or global) to local population and public behavior (environmental movements, protests, mobilization around environmental conflicts, etc.). With the increasing use of social media, this informal non-institutional component in environmental governance is becoming more substantial and influential, interacting with and/or contradicting formal institutions (Ambrosio et al. 2022; Hendriks et al. 2016; Hodges and Stocking 2016). Moreover, formal institutions (even those aimed at environmental protection) are slow to change and there is always some time-lag between the emergence of a challenge and the implementation of policies aimed at solving it (Underland 2010). In contrast, informal social networks are dynamic and efficient in mobilizing society should it be needed (especially in the context of environmental conflicts and prevention of environmental damages). Thus, studies on environmental governance started investigating the power of social media and its potential effects in terms of the efficiency of governance, among other issues (Hall et al. 2022; Hendriks et al. 2016; Hodges and Stocking 2016).
The political regimes of nation-states are closely connected to environmental governance (see Mavisakalyan et al. 2023 in this TC; Nazarov and Obydenkova 2022). Traditionally, democracies are known for vivid and dynamic civil society, transparency of information, freedom of information, and independent mass media and social media, among other factors. Democracy allows people to be well informed about environmental issues, leading to an active public attitude toward environmental protection (e.g., protests, movements, valuable electoral choices). Therefore, it is not surprising there is growing attentions to the analysis policy discourse, news, social and mass media in the studies on environmental governance (Gehrke 2014; Dubuisson 2022; Kochtcheeva 2022; Mišić and Obydenkova 2022; Korppoo 2022). Therefore, it is not a coincidence that regional environmental governance (REG) has been widely studied since the 1980s and 1990s, the decades described as “the golden years of regional environmental governance” (Haas 2016; p. 438) and the period of Post-Communist democratization.
Among the triggers of REG, public demand is a key variable for governmental response to environmental disasters (Haas 2016; p. 438). Public demand can only result from public awareness and the latter can appear as a consequence of access to information and transparency, that is, as an outcome of inclusiveness in global social networks and international institutions. Public demand emerges only under the conditions of freedom of mass media and freedom of public access to information (e.g., about environmental pollution). Collective action, civil society, epistemic communities, NGOs, public awareness, and public demand for governmental action have been crucial drivers in REG in general and in the Arctic in particular. All of these factors are missing in a non-democratic polity. Manipulated mass media and digital control prevent the wider public at national (and international) level from learning about unfolding environmental catastrophes such as, for example, oil spills into the rivers and seas, forest fires, deforestation, or air pollution. Those events are usually only visible for local communities (Demchuk et al. 2022). In a non-democratic context, there is a lack of accountability of local, regional, and national politicians to the people (supported by electoral fraud, corruption, and clientelism, among other factors). Thus, governance and political regimes are closely interlinked in their implications for sustainable development.
The next section will look into the actors most relevant to the AEG context, and will consider some of the theoretical and empirical challenges concerning heterogenous political contexts and regimes.
3 Actors of the AEG: contributions and debate
Environmental regional governance encompasses studies of nation-states and their respective formal regional international organizations (RIOs), in addition to formal and informal actors and processes (NGOs, environmental movements, social groups, international and national institutions, etc.). The large specter of environmental challenges and heterogeneity of actors (from RIOs to indigenous people and epistemic communities) in the Arctic requires this encompassing approach accommodated only within the governance focus. Eight articles in this TC focus on different aspects and actors involved in the AEG: RIOs, Arctic states, non-Arctic states, subnational regions, cross-border regions, epistemic communities, and indigenous people. Table 1 below summarizes the actors, values, and challenges discussed in this TC.
Contributions to this TC analyze various AEG actors and the challenges they face (e.g., indigenous groups, civil society, the cross-border natural park (Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park) composed of regions in Finland, Norway, and Russia, etc.), regional organizations (e.g., the AC and the EAEU), nation-states (with a focus on the role of non-Arctic state involved in AEG), and subnational, municipal, and local regions (those located in the Arctic states, such as Norway, Russia, or Finland). The following pages provide an overview of the main insights of these studies according to three types of actor: RIOs, nation-states, and indigenous people.
3.1 Regional international organizations (RIOs)
Some of the most significant players in the AEG are RIOs composed of Arctic states (that is, states with landmass in the Arctic). However, some member-states and observer-states in these regional organizations might be non-Arctic states (e.g., Kazakhstan in the EAEU, China as observer in the AC, non-Arctic member-states of the EU). Hence, the role of actors in the Arctic is, by design, inclusive geographically as some regional organizations include non-Arctic actors (albeit actors capable of influencing the AEG to some extent through the organization). These organizations can contribute to pushing the environmental agenda in the Arctic, can balance and limit the pursuit of economic benefits in the region, as well as provide additional international forums and accountability on the part of the Arctic states vis-a-vis non-Arctic ones. For example, the EAEU includes only one Arctic state– Russia– but some of the non-Arctic member-states (e.g., Kazakhstan) are heavily affected by climate change and global warming (Dubuisson 2022; Poberezhskaya and Bychkova 2022).). Kazakhstan, along with other member-states, is interested in pushing the environmental agenda within the EAEU and contributing to the future of the Arctic.
Among various RIOs acting in the Arctic, the AC stands out as one of the most influential ones. Contributions to this TC look into the AC at the edge of geopolitical shifts in 2022 (Filimonova et al. 2023; Mavisakalyan et al. 2023; Stepanov et al. 2023). However, the main focus of existing studies has traditionally been on the AC’s member-states (Borozna 2024; Kochtcheeva 2022; Stepanov and Makarov 2022). This TC takes a step forward in re-considering other actors connected to the AC, such as observers like China and NGOs (Filimonova et al. 2023; Wang 2023). Compared to studies of the member-states of the AC, the role of observers, their motivations, intentions, and impacts remained less addressed. To compensate for this gap, one of the articles focuses specifically on the logic of acceptance and rejection of applications for the status of observer-states in the AC (Filimonova et al. 2023). It considers the case of China, as one of the newest observers in the AC, and the case of acceptance of NGOs as observers in the AC. The role of NGOs is highly important in environmental governance and in the Arctic. It is indicative that the number of NGOs accepted as observers to the AC increased from six in 1998 to 26 in 2019 (see Filimonova et al. 2023). On the other hand, the acceptance of China as a new observer to the AC also became the subject of debates. Filimonova with colleagues (2023) argue that acceptance of new observers in the AC depends on a number of factors, such as national capabilities, environmental concerns, the level of development of science and technology, search for a certain international status, and ongoing international environmental processes, in additional to other factors discussed in previous studies (e.g., geopolitical and economic interests).
Apart from the AC, which is the major regional international organization, there are a number of other regional organizations encompassing both Arctic and non-Arctic states. Given Russia is an Arctic state (with the largest landmass in the Arctic), all RIOs where Russia is a member-state or even a founder (leading state) have implications for the Arctic and play a role in AEG. Among such RIOs are the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Eurasian Development Bank (EDB), Eurasian Bank (EB), CIS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These actors have been described as representing authoritarian regionalism (also referred to as non-democratic regional organizations (NDROs).Footnote 3 Studies of the sustainable development agenda of NDROs are nascent as this topic has only recently received academic attention (e.g., Hartwell 2022; 2023; Agostinis and Urdinez 2022).Footnote 4
Indeed, the role of all these international actors has not yet received sufficient attention in the studies of the Arctic. But they are important. These organizations are interconnected with other regional or non-regional international organizations and institutions (e.g., with the EU, EBRD, AC, UN, World Bank, or even NATO).Footnote 5 Depending on the geopolitical situation (that is, before 2022), the geographic overlap and interconnectivity of these organizations used to pave a way to improving inclusiveness in governance and diffusion of values of sustainable development as well as democratic diffusion (Mansfield and Pevehouse 2006; Lankina 2016b, Simmons et al. 2006; Lavelle 2022).
In sum, the AC is definitely not the only RIO acting in the Arctic and influencing the environmental governance in this region. Yet these RIOs and their implications for the Arctic have barely been addressed in the studies of the Arctic. This TC fills this gap and expands the focus from Arctic states to the role of non-Arctic states (e.g., China) and to the role of under-studied regional international organizations (e.g., the EAEU) in the Arctic. Thus, in this TC, Hartwell analyzes the limitations and opportunities of the EAEU’s role in the Arctic’s environmental governance. The study also discusses the development of environmental values and policies within the EDB, underscoring the ongoing internal disputes within the Russia-led RIO. Overall, regional organizations (where Russia is a member-state) may well limit and monitor Russia’s priorities for economic and geopolitical benefits in the Arctic and beyond. Any RIO, and the EAEU in particular, may advance environmental goals within the organization and, thus, modify or balance the economic pursuits of one member-state.Footnote 6
3.2 Nation-states
The second group of actors in AEG is composed of nation-states. In this TC, Mavisakalyan et al. (2023) examine the role of the political regimes of the states (including Arctic states) in the implementation of environmental policies in the context of the Arctic region. Through the analysis of quantitative data available through the multi-dimensional index of environmental regulations in the OECD, the authors evaluate the level of democracy in the stringency of environmental policies employed by national-states in their analysis. They re-consider the nexus of democracy and environmental policy-making in and beyond the Arctic. Their overall finding implies that states with higher levels of freedom (that is, with higher levels of democracy) are associated with better environmental policies and protection compared to non-democracies. These findings support the insights of existing literature on the role of political regimes in environmental politics and sustainable development (Salahodjaev and Isaeva 2022; Poberezhskaya and Bychkova 2022).
Some studies in this TC take the Arctic states as case-studies. They delve into various dimensions of environmental governance in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia at national but also at subnational and transnational levels (e.g., Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park located across three Arctic states, or the case of Norrbotton– a region in northern Sweden). For example, Stepanov, Makarov, and Makarova (2023) examine climate change in the Russian Arctic. The article places emphasis on the economic importance of the region for the development of Russia. It employs a country-specific approach (exclusive approach) and calls for balancing environmental and economic goals in the region. The study focuses on dealing with the consequences of climate change. It calls attention to the importance for Russia of exploitation of new opportunities emerging in the aftermath of melting permafrost, the management of risks, and minimizing uncertainty, also in line with other studies on climate change policies in Russia beyond the Arctic (e.g., Stepanov and Makarov 2022). The study covers such important priorities as green growth, economic diversification, and the development of renewable energy, while accounting for indigenous people, local knowledge, and regional diversity.
The article points to exclusive role of the Arctic for Russia. It emphasizes economic importance of the region and Russia´s economic dependence on natural resources in the Arctic. The study mentions indigenous people a few times but does not specify the ways indigenous people must be integrated in policy-making in the Arctic. Mentioning indigenous people signals some acknowledgment of their existence and importance. The discourse of indigenous people and its importance in the Arctic was one of the key goals of the AC, which has been somewhat successful in promoting the values and norms of governance and an inclusive approach to governance (that is, taking into account the interests and priorities of all actors involved including the indigenous people (Lavelle 2022; Borozna 2024; Vladimirova 2024). Unfortunately, this perspective seems to have been fading away. Once Russia ‘broke free’ from membership in the AC, it has not been subject to the institutional mechanisms of accountability to the international community and institutions in regard to its actions in the Arctic, or to the institutional limits that were previously in place. Currently, indigenous people in Russia are more vulnerable than ever before (Vladimirova 2023, 2024; Martínez-Alier with Hanaček (2023).
Russia’s role in the AC was given significant attention in the literature even before the radical geopolitical shifts in 2022 triggered by the invasion into Ukraine. Since February 2022, the AC’s activities and functioning have been frozen. The AC used to limit institutionally (at least to some extent) Russia’s Arctic agenda, balancing its priorities of economic benefits (exploitation of natural resources) by imposing some values, norms, and policies against climate change. This trend used to spread well beyond exclusively Arctic governance confronting so-called “climate skepticism” of Russian political elite (e.g., Ashe and Poberezhskaya 2022). Such issues as the rights of the indigenous population have now lost meaning for Russian policy-makers at both subnational and national level.Footnote 7 Post-2022 studies on the changing role of Russia in the Arctic and Eurasia are still catching up with the analysis of radical geopolitical, military, and economic changes and their implications for sustainability (Schram Stokke 2024; Borozna 2024; Doose et al. 2023; Obydenkova 2022c, d; in this TC see Stepanov et al. 2023; Vladimirova 2023; Doose et al. 2023).
Studies on Russia and other Arctic states are abundant compared to literature dedicated to the role of non-Arctic states, such as China. We know relatively little about China’s involvement in the Arctic. This TC presents insights from Chinese perspectives on the Arctic, analyzing China’s goals, aspirations, and strategies in the region for the period 1990–2020 (Wang 2023). In contrast to the study on Russia’s role in the Arctic as exclusive, the study on China emphasizes the importance of an inclusive approach to AEG, referring to it as collaborative governance. It also points out the importance of not politicizing China’s involvement. The article argues for the positive impact of Chinese policies on the environment through, for example, the Yellow River Station established in 2003 by the Polar Research Institute of China in Norway. The Station focuses on a number of scientific studies of permafrost, research on the atmosphere, and monitoring of glaciers, among other scientific tasks.Footnote 8
Wang (2023) highlights the importance of global environmental values, which, by definition, imply an inclusive approach and joint international collaboration in search of solutions to challenges posed by climate change (addressing both its causes and consequences). The central argument is that the Arctic is a crucial place for global climate change and, thus, affects not only exclusively Arctic states but the planet as a whole. Thus, climate-related challenges emerging in the Arctic require global international efforts and joint international scientific collaboration. Wang (2023) points to the positive impact of China’s involvement in the Arctic on increasing its environmental policy stringency.
3.3 Indigenous people and transborder regions
A few contributions to this TC address the nexus of indigenous people and regions from various perspectives: national (e.g., a subnational region within one state, Sweden) and cross-national (a region across three states), as well as normative approaches (Garbis et al. 2023; Vladimirova 2023; Wood-Donnelly 2023). Subnational regions and indigenous people are important actors in Arctic governance. Yet, depending on the political regime of a state, the status, impact, and the role of indigenous peoples on governance changes. Within democracies, indigenous peoples appeal to international institutions. For example, Martínez-Alier with Hanaček (2023, p. 132) states that “Pastoralists and other Indigenous peoples try to use international legislation (such as the International Labour Organization Convention 169, ratified by only some states) to protect their livelihoods”. However, in the case of non-democracies and in the context of political isolation of a state, international legislation has little meaning, if any.
In this TC, a few contributions investigate indigenous people and the challenges they face in the Arctic. Garbis, McCarthy, and Orttung (2023) examine the region of Norrbotten in Sweden. The article investigates links, coalitions, and conflicts among all actors involved in regional governance in Norrbotten, including government, industries, and indigenous people (Sámis).
Sámis are spread across the borders of four countries– Finland, Russia (Kola Peninsula), Sweden, and Norway. The article focuses on the case of Sweden exclusively and provides insights into the role of indigenous people in this specific (democratic) state, which is convenient to contrast with indigenous people located in Russia (as detailed in the next contribution by Vladimirova). Garbis, McCarthy, and Orttung (2023) focus on the challenges of the “green transition” (the pursuit of a low-carbon society) in Sweden, where the Norrbotten region plays a significant role due to its natural resources. According to an OECD report, Norrbotten’s economic development depends on the mining that constitutes around 90% of the iron production of Europe (OECD 2021).Footnote 9 The region witnessed a conflict between the development of extractive industries and indigenous people’s preferences for the land use, focused on reindeer herding, fishing, and sheep herding. These activities and lifestyle of Sámis are inevitably affected by mining and extractive industries, and addressed as the main focus by contributors to this TC. Importantly, the needs and rights of Sámis have long been a main focus of scholars, scientists, and policy-makers in Sweden (unlike in case of indigenous people in Russia, where their local needs and conflicts are invisible, and do not reach a wider public– be that national or international– due to simple ignorance of the matter on the part of regional and national policy-makers). In contrast, in Sweden, where there is freedom of access to information, circulation of information, transparency, and independent mass media, the public is well aware of the possible challenges facing indigenous people, whose rights are constantly discussed at all levels. Conrad (2000) indicates that Sámis are recognized as an international political force, with developed networks of cooperation with other groups of indigenous people across borders, acting as a full-fledged social and political actor contributing to environmental governance in the democratic part of the Arctic. Garbis, McCarthy, and Orttung (2023) continue calling attention to the importance of the rights and traditions of Sámis during the pursuit of the green economy in northern Sweden. The article underscores the need for better integration of the preferences and knowledge of Sámis into decision-making, and for adjusting governmental and industrial policies toward an inclusive model of environmental governance in Sweden. The place of indigenous people and their rights in Sweden are in sharp contrast to the situation in Russia. One of the contributions to this TC contributes to this topic by contrasting indigenous people in Russia with groups in Finland and Norway, through the analysis of the transborder Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park (Vladimirova 2023).
Transnational regions and the indigenous people who live in them (encompassing subnational land across the borders of different states) represent a more complicated case-study. Vladimirova presents valuable insights into the phenomenon of indigenous communities living in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park– a transborder region encompassing Finland, Russia, and Norway. The study analyzes institutional cooperation within the Park and untangles the challenges faced by indigenous people living there, such as reindeer trespassing across state borders, as well as land use and nature conservation across the three states sharing the Park after 2022. Specifically, the study underscores the importance of an inclusive model in the management of the Park, where the interests and traditions of indigenous people are acknowledged at national level in Finland and Norway. It contrasts these cases with the undermining of the rights and interests of indigenous people in the areas of the Park owned by Russia (Pasvik Zapovednik). How are these different approaches within the Park to indigenous people explained? Vladimirova foregrounds, among other issues, the role of so-called historical legacies.
Historical legacies can be interpreted from a wide range of perspectives. In studies of Russia, historical legacies are usually associated with both public behavior and the perception of people by those in power (Beissinger and Kotkin eds. 2014; Libman and Obydenkova 2024; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2017) but also there are parallels with agricultural history of the Soviet Union that are found in modern Russia.Footnote 10 For example, post-Soviet states undermine human rights, ignore public opinion (especially in small local communities), and consider their population as irrelevant at best. As a result of this perspective, corruption thrives at all levels of power, there is a disregard for public option (e.g., faking electoral results), control over mass media, pro-state propaganda, and massive disinformation (Beissinger and Kotkin eds. 2014; Gel′man and Obydenkova 2024). These aspects developed throughout the period of the Soviet Union and survive in the 2020s. For example, some studies revealed facts about the development of the nuclear chain in the Russian Arctic during the period of the Soviet Union, and disrespect to the rights of indigenous people (Hanaček and Martinez-Alier 2022; Martínez-Alier with Hanaček 2023).
Studies on historical legacies connecting Tsarist Russia to Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia, as well as studies on the legacies of Communism in the 21st century, have traced the survival of certain social patterns of behavior, attitudes, and perceptions (Lankina et al. 2016a; Beissinger and Kotkin eds. 2014, Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2017; Libman and Obydenkova 2023). The attitude of political and business elites to people can be viewed (at least partially) through historical legacies. The phenomenon of serfdom in Russia came to its end only in the second half of the 19th century (Hellie 1982; Stanziani 2010; Moon 1999). However, data from the 2023 Global Slavery Index indicates that almost 2 million people in modern Russia are informally slaves or serfs (see Walk Free Foundation 2023). Indigenous people are traditionally among the groups most discriminated against in Russia.
These different perspectives on legacies, indigenous people in the Arctic, their role and rights across borders, highlight the importance of values, norms, and scientific diplomacy in REG– the topics analyzed by Corine Wood-Donnelly (2023) (in some way, rounding up the main ideas and challenges described in most of the other contributions). This last study in the TC looks at the nexus between environmental protection and resources management, emphasizing the augmenting role of the recognition of indigenous people in democracies. Universally accepted norms and rules of international cooperation that all actors develop (states, indigenous people, regions, industries) benefit environmental governance. The study also analyzes the impact of scientific diplomacy on the Arctic’s environmental governance and the importance of co-production of knowledge on the region that unites the insights from indigenous people, nation-states, the AC, and transnational scientific communities. The article identifies limitations in addressing such challenges as pollution, challenges to biodiversity, and ozone depletion in the Arctic. It highlights the importance of the science-based diplomacy associated with international cooperation in general and with the AC in particular, as well as inclusiveness in decision-making and the involvement of all the actors in search of solutions to climate change.
4 Conclusion
Contributions to this TC offer various insights into the modern challenges facing Arctic environmental governance. The articles cover a number of overlapping issues, such as the importance of inclusiveness in environmental governance, the role of historical experience in international environmental cooperation, modern political challenges, and post-2022 transformations in the Arctic, as well as their tentative solutions. Findings of the articles in this TC contribute to further development of at least three aspects in climate governance literature: historical legacies, indigenous people, and international diffusion.
4.1 Historical legacies in climate governance
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered a number of geopolitical, social, and economic shifts in the world, but especially in Eurasia and the Arctic. This new geopolitical reality could be called “Cold War 2”. Emerging post-2022 studies on the AEG are still catching up on these radical changes and their consequences for climate change in the region and globally. Scholars point to historical experience in international scientific climate collaboration over the Cold War period (Doose et al. 2023; Beuerle 2023; Viktor et al. 1998; Vladimirova 2024; Obydenkova 2024; Borozna 2024). Doose, Poberezhskaya, and Beuerle, for example, state that, even during the 20th century Cold War, “amidst high political tensions and economic restrictions when climatologists had to adapt, they were still able to contribute to climate knowledge and international dialogue” (2023, p.47).
The historical legacies of Communism have been analyzed in multiple ways but mainly in terms of their implications for domestic policies, institutions, and society (e.g., as affecting corruption, control of mass media, propaganda, modern art, and even cinematography; see Beissinger and Kotkin eds. 2014; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2017; Gel´man and Obydenkova 2024). Yet these historical legacies are still to be re-conceptualized in the field of international politics and global governance of climate change. Some historical lessons on international environmental cooperation can be found in the 20th century, the period of the divided world (Oldfield 2018; Doose 2022).Footnote 11 A number of studies examine how international scientific and environmental collaboration was developing over this uneasy period of the Cold War (Doose 2022; Viktor et al. 1998; Vladimirova 2024). Doose, Poberezhskaya, and Beuerle point out that “it is important to continue engaging with Russia for the success of global efforts in climate mitigation and adaptation” (2023, p. 47). In line with these studies, there is growing attention being paid to international environmental scientific collaboration in a newly divided world in the 21st century (e.g., Vladimirova 2023; 2024; Borozna 2024; Wang and Ma 2024; Doose 2022).
4.2 Indigenous people and international institutions
While speaking of the importance of “inclusiveness”, studies also examine the protection of lifestyles and, most recently, the survival of indigenous people in the Arctic (especially those in the Russian Arctic) (Hanaček et al. 2022). The life and wellbeing of indigenous people depends on reindeer husbandry, the state of herds, and their access to pasture– all factors challenged by dependence on the extractive industries in recent decades (a century if we count the period under Communism). Even prior to 2022, non-democratic states were the site of socio-environmental conflicts involving indigenous people in the Arctic, with conflict settlement in favor of governmental and entrepreneurial actors at the cost of local populations (Hanaček et al. 2022). The situation of indigenous people in the Arctic was complicated further by the new geopolitical situation in the post-2022 world (Vladimirova 2024). Some studies have detailed the cross-border networks of indigenous people (e.g., the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), the Saami Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), and the Aleut International Association (AIA); see Martínez-Alier with Hanaček 2023). The ICC, RAIPON, and the AIA are three of six permanent participants in the AC, where indigenous people can appeal to international legislations and search for support outside of their own respective states. With Russia’s membership in the AC paused, it is safe to assume that indigenous communities in the Russian Arctic are more vulnerable than ever before.Footnote 12 With radically diminishing freedom of speech and information, most of the independent mass media, international organizations, climate-focused and environmental NGOs have either left Russia or been registered as “foreign agents” or “undesirable organizations” (Davydova 2024; Tysiachniouk 2024a, b; Franceschelli 2024). In contrast, the needs of indigenous people located in such states as, for example, the US, Canada, and Finland have been taken into consideration in some ways and the changes triggered by 2022 are on the agenda of national and regional governments as well as organizations (Rodrigues 2024; Tysiachniouk et al. 2024a, b).
4.3 International diffusion in climate governance
International institutions are among the most efficient leverage points of global climate governance. Studies have highlighted participation in international organization as favorable for diffusion of values (e.g., values such as democracy, human rights, sustainable development, and the protection of ecology and biodiversity).Footnote 13 Long-run irreversible changes to the climate are taking place in the Arctic region, including melting permafrost, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of the Arctic and the Global Ocean. Exploitation of natural resources, military drills, and testing of weapons in the region have increased significantly since Russia no longer participates in the AC.Footnote 14 Membership of international organizations and forums (e.g., the AC and Climate Clubs) used to place institutional limits on member-states as well as serving as a tool for the diffusion of environmental values and principles of sustainability.
However, despite the post-2022 strictures on Russia’s membership in so-called clubs of democracies (such as the AC), new modes of international climate governance are being established. Most recent studies call attention to “a non-Western climate bloc that would define its own, “sovereign” climate priorities” between Russia and the Global South, especially including India, China, and Central Asia (Davydova 2024; p. 12). It remains to be seen if these new international initiatives on climate governance are rhetorical and symbolic or have real policy implications. Given the increasing role of China in Russia’s economy and politics, the climate stance of China may also play a role in maintaining climate issues on the agenda of the current Russian government. China demonstrates its stance on sustainable development via membership or via observer-status in multiple international organizations or forums, investing in renewable energy in Central Asia and actively participating in the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), Climate Vulnerable Forum, and the AC, among others (Agostinis and Urdinez 2022; Tosun and Shyrokykh 2022; Tosun and Mišić 2022; Davydova 2024; Wang 2023; Wang and Ma 2024). Tosun and Shyrokykh (2022), for example, demonstrate the efficiency of China’s involvement and its leadership in the CEM, as compared to the passive role of Russia in the same organization. They conclude that “China makes a better strategic use of the CEM in terms of gathering information and developing networks with other member-states as well as private actors in order to implement measures for overcoming the challenges of clean energy transition” (2022, p. 847). Thus, there is some recent evidence pointing to possible diffusion and support for environmentalism and the climate agenda through ongoing growing engagement with China and the Global South. As a very recent trend, this has to remain on the agenda for future studies of climate governance.
Notes
The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from grant PID2021-126200NB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF ”A way of making Europe”; and from Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D [CEX2019-000915-S], Barcelona School of Economics; and by the research grant “Social and Political Conflict (SoPoC)” funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Grant number 2021-SGR-00416). All opinions expressed here and all possible errors in this article are sole responsibility of the author.
On the economic, military, security, and environmental aspects of the Arctic governance, see Politics and Governance (Vol. 12, 2024) and the overview by Obydenkova (2024). On how natural resources relate to climate policies, see, for example, Makarov (2022) and Martus and Fortescue (2022). On climate change in Russia, see the TC in Climatic Changehttps://springerlink.fh-diploma.de/collections/ahbeghbihb and particularly the overview of this TC by Doose et al. 2023).
Russia is a founder and a leader in all these RIOs, except for the SCO, which was founded and led by China. This phenomenon was labelled “authoritarian regionalism” by Libman and Obydenkova (2013, 2018a, b). On the role banks in sustainable development in transitional economies, see, for example, Djalilov and Hartwell (2022).
For example, special issue on Global Governance and Interaction between International Institutions summarized in Libman and Obydenkova (2021).
For example, Kazakhstan is suffering the effects of climate change (see Dubuisson 2022) and may push an environmental agenda in the Russia-led EAEU and China-led SCO. On the other hand, China also advances investment into alternative energy through the SCO, but also invests in resource exploitation (e.g., Agostinis and Urdinez 2022).
About China´s involvement in the Arctic, also see Wang and Ma (2024).
OECD (2021) Mining Regions and Cities Case of Västerbotten and Norrbotten, Sweden, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/802087e2-en. Accessed on March 11, 2024. Available at:
For example, Kirilenko and Dronin (2022) analyze trends in agricultural management in the Soviet Union of the 1960s and modern Russia grain production.
For example, Oldfield (2018) delves into the long-run climate change studies ongoing during the USSR during the period 1953–1991 and their contribution to global knowledge on climate change, while other studies focused on importance of climate change research in the late period of the Cold War in the USSR (Doose 2022).
On diffusion of democracy through RIOs, see Mansfield and Pevehouse 2006; Lankina 2016b, Simmons et al. 2006 and on diffusion of sustainable development, see Brizga et al. (2022).Buzogány and Cotta 2022. Thought, it is important also to acknowledge that recent studies investigated the role of membership in some RIOs in the diffusion of the opposite values of autocracy and regime consolidation (Ambrosio 2008).
References
Agostinis G, Urdinez F (2022) The Nexus between authoritarian and environmental regionalism: an analysis of China’s driving role in the Shanghai cooperation organization. Probl Post-Communism, 69(4/5). https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1974887
Allan JI, Roger CB, Hale TN, Bernstein S, Tiberghien Y, Balme R (2023) Making the Paris Agreement: historical processes and the drivers of Institutional Design. Polit Stud 71(3):914–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211049294
Ambrosio T (2008) Catching the ‘Shanghai Spirit’: how the Shanghai Cooperation Organization promotes authoritarian norms in Central Asia. Europe-Asia Stud 60:1321–1344
Ambrosio T, Hall A, Obydenkova A (2022) Sustainable development agendas of regional international organizations: the EBRD and the EDB. Probl Post-Communism 69(4/5):304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1979412
Ashe T, Poberezhskaya M (2022) Russian climate scepticism: an understudied case. Climatic Change 172, 41 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03390-3
Beissinger MR, Kotkin S (eds) (2014) Historical legacies of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Beuerle B (2023) From continuity to change: Soviet and Russian government attitudes on climate change (1989–2009). Climatic Change 176, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03488-2
Borozna A (2024) Russia’s Security Perceptions and Arctic Governance, Politics and Governance, Vol 12: Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7313
Börzel TA (2016) Theorising Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance. In: Börzel T, Risse T (eds) The Oxford Handbook of comparative regionalism. Oxford University Press, pp 41–63
Brizga J, Jurušs M, Šmite-Roķe B (2022) Impact of the environmental taxes on reduction of emission from transport in Latvia. Post Commun Econ 34(5):666–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1965358
Buzogány A, Cotta B (2022) Post-accession backsliding and European Union environmental policies. Post Commun Econ 34(5):647–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1965361
Conrad J, Ann (2000) Sami reindeer-herders today: Image or reality? Scandinavian Review. Archived from the original on 18 December 2008. Retrieved 25 September 2008– via BNET. Accessed on March 11, 2024. And Availbale at: https://web.archive.org/web/20081218111552/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3760/is_200001/ai_n8885279
Davydova A (2024) T he Climate Agenda in Russia since the Beginning of the War in Ukraine: Political Priorities, Expert and Civil Society Actions. Russian Analytical Digest (RAD) Issue: 311, pp. 12–15. https://css.ethz.ch/en/publications/rad/details.html?id=/n/o/3/1/no_311_russian_environmentalism_during_t
Demchuk AL, Mišić M, Obydenkova A, Jale Tosun (2022) Environmental conflict management: a comparative cross-cultural perspective of China and Russia. Post Commun Econ 34(7):871–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1943915
Djalilov H, Hartwell C (2022) Do social and environmental capabilities improve bank stability? Evidence from transition countries. Post Commun Econ 34(5):624–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1965359
Doose K (2022) Modelling the future: climate change research in Russia during the late Cold War and beyond, 1970s–2000. Climatic Change 171, 6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03315-0
Doose K, Poberezhskaya M, Beuerle B (2023) Introduction from the editors. Climatic Change 176, 47 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03520-5
Dubuisson EM (2022) Whose world? Discourses of Protection for Land, Environment, and Natural resources in Kazakhstan. Probl Post-Communism 69(4–5):410–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2020.1788398
Filimonova N, Obydenkova A, Rodrigues Vieira VG (2023) Geopolitical and economic interests in environmental governance: explaining observer state status in the Arctic Council. Climatic Change 176, 50 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03490-8
Franceschelli MC (2024) From Environmentalism to Ethnonationalism: Center-Periphery Relations in Pre-War and Wartime Russia. Russian Analytical Digest (RAD) Issue: 311, pp. 7–12. https://css.ethz.ch/en/publications/rad/details.html?id=/n/o/3/1/no_311_russian_environmentalism_during_t
Garbis Z, McCarthy E, Orttung RW et al (2023) Governing the green economy in the Arctic. Clim Change 176:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03506-3
Gehrke C (2014) Governing Arctic Seals: A Longitudinal Analysis of News and Policy Discourse, Politics and Governance, Vol 12: Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7304
Gel′man V, Obydenkova A (2024) The invention of legacy: Strategic uses of a good Soviet Union. in Elite Policy Preferences and Filmmaking in Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 1 March; 57(1):130–153. https://doi.org/10.1525/cpcs.2023.1984663
Haas P (2016) Regional environmental governance. In T. Börzel & T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism (pp. 430–456). OUP
Hall SGF, Lenz T, Obydenkova A (2022) Environmental commitments and rhetoric over the pandemic crisis: social media and legitimation of the AIIB, the EAEU, and the EU. Post Commun Econ 34(5):577–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1954824
Hanaček K, Joan Martinez-Alier (2022) Nuclear supply chain and environmental justice struggles in Soviet and post-soviet countries. Post Commun Econ 34(7):966–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1943917
Hanaček K, Kröger M, Scheidel A, Rojas F, Joan Martinez-Alier (2022) On thin ice– the Arctic commodity extraction frontier and environmental conflicts. Ecol Econ 191(107247). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107247
Hartwell CA (2022) Part of the problem? The Eurasian Economic Union and environmental challenges in the former Soviet Union. Problems of Post-Communism, 69(4/5)https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1960173
Hartwell CA (2023) In our (frozen) backyard: the Eurasian Union and regional environmental governance in the Arctic. Climatic Change 176, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03491-7
Held D, Roger C (2018) Three models of Global Climate Governance: from Kyoto to Paris and Beyond. Glob Policy 9:527–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12617
Hellie R (1982) Slavery in Russia, 1450–1725. University Of Chicago Press. p. 85. ISBN 9780226326474
Hendriks CM, Duus S, Ercan SA (2016) Performing politics on social media: the dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environ Politics 25(6):1102–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1196967
Hodges HE, Stocking G (2016) A pipeline of tweets: environmental movements’ use of Twitter in response to the Keystone XL pipeline. Environ Politics 25(2):223–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1105177
Kirilenko A, Dronin N (2022) Recent grain production boom in Russia in historical context. Climatic Change 171, 22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03332-z
Kochtcheeva LV (2022) Foreign policy, national interests, and environmental positioning: Russia’s post-Paris climate change actions, discourse, and engagement. Probl Post-Communism 69(4/5). https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1968912
Korppoo A (2022) Russian discourses on benefits and threats from international climate diplomacy. Climatic Change 170, 25 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03299-3
Lankina T, Libman A, Obydenkova A (2016a) Appropriation and Subversion: Precommunist Literacy, Communist Party Saturation, and Postcommunist Democratic Outcomes. World Politics. 2016;68(2):229–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887115000428
Lankina T, Libman A, Obydenkova A (2016b) Authoritarian and democratic diffusion in post-communist regions. Comp Polit Stud 49(12):1599–1629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016628270
Lavelle KC (2022) Regime, climate, and region in transition: Russian participation in the Arctic Council. Problems of Post-Communism. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1994422
Libman A, Obydenkova A (eds) (2024) Introduction to the Special Issue on Eurasian Continuities: Historical Legacies in the Post-Communist World—Ideologies, Practices, or Social Constructions? Communist and Post-Communist Studies 1 March 2024; 57 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/cpcs.2024.1820016
Libman A, Obydenkova A (2013) Informal governance and participation in non-democratic international organizations. Rev Int Organ 8:221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-012-9160-y
Libman A, Obydenkova A (2018a) Regional international organizations as a strategy of autocracy: the Eurasian Economic Union and Russian foreign policy. Int Affairs 94(5):1037–1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy147
Libman A, Obydenkova A (2018b) Understanding authoritarian regionalism. J Democracy 29:151–165
Libman A, Obydenkova A (2021) Global Governance and Interaction between International Institutions: the challenge of the Eurasian International Organizations. Post Commun Econ 33(2–3):147–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1793585
Libman A, Obydenkova A (2023) The role of historical legacies in the process of decentralisation in Russia: compliant activism in the context of the crises of the 2020s. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–21. Online first. Forthcoming in print. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2279045
Liu N, Liu (2017) May 20, China’s New Silk Road and the Arctic Could the Belt and Road extend to the Arctic region? In Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/chinas-new-silk-road-and-the-arctic/
Makarov I (2022) Does resource abundance require special approaches to climate policies? The case of Russia. Climatic Change 170, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03280-0
Mansfield ED, Pevehouse JC (2006) Democratization Int Organ Int Organ 60:137–167
Martínez-Alier J, with, Ksenija, Hanaček (2023) 7: The Arctic, a growing commodity extraction frontier, Chapter´s pp. 132–152 in Joan Martínez-Alier (ed.) Land, Water, Air and Freedom. The Making of World Movements for Environmental Justice Publisher Edward Elgar Publishing, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035312771
Martus E, Fortescue S (2022) Russian coal in a changing climate: risks and opportunities for industry and government. Climatic Change 173, 26 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03420-0
Mavisakalyan A, Otrachshenko V, Popova O (2023) Does democracy protect the environment? The role of the Arctic Council. Climatic Change 176, 49 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03511-6
Mišić M, Anastassia Obydenkova (2022) Environmental conflict, renewable energy, or both? Public opinion on small hydropower plants in Serbia. Post Commun Econ 34(5):684–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1943928
Moon D (1999) The Russian Peasantry 1600–1930: the World the peasants made. Longman, London
Nazarov Z, Obydenkova A (2022) Environmental challenges and political regime transition: the role of historical legacies and the European Union in Eurasia. Probl Post-Communism 69(4/5):396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1995437
Obydenkova A (2022a) Environmental regionalism and international organizations: implications for Post-communism. Probl Post-Communism 69(4/5):293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2022.2044353
Obydenkova A (2022b) Global environmental politics and international organizations: the eurasian and European experience. Post Commun Econ 34(5):565–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2022.2028477
Obydenkova A (2022c) Sustainable development and actors of regional environmental governance: Eurasia at the crossroads. Probl Post-Communism 69(4/5):436–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2022.2109116
Obydenkova A (2022d) Strategies and challenges of sustainable development in Eurasia. Post Commun Econ 34(7):835–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2022.2028478
Obydenkova A (2024) Arctic Regional Governance: actors and transformations. Politics Gov Vol 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7714
OECD (2021), Mining Regions and Cities Case of Västerbotten and Norrbotten, Sweden, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/802087e2-en
Oldfield JD (2018) Imagining climates past, present and future: soviet contributions to the science of anthropogenic climate change, 1953–1991. J Hist Geogr 60:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2017.12.004
Orttung RW (ed) (2017) Sustaining Russia’s Arctic cities: Resource politics, Migration and Climate Change. Berghahn Books, New York
Poberezhskaya M, Bychkova A (2022) Kazakhstan’s climate change policy: reflecting national strength, green economy aspirations and international agenda. Post Commun Econ 34(7):894–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1943916
Pop-Eleches G, Tucker JA (2017) Communism’s Shadow: historical legacies and Contemporary Political attitudes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Rodrigues Céline (2024) Human Security of Inuit and Sámi in the 21st Century: The Canadian and Finnish Cases. Politics and Governance. Vol 12: Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7254
Salahodjaev R, Isaeva A (2022) Post-soviet states and CO2 emissions: the role of foreign direct investment. Post Commun Econ 34(7):944–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1965360
Schram Stokke O (2024) Climate Change and Institutional Resilience in Arctic Environmental Governance, Politics and GovernanceIssue: Vol 12 (2024): Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7369
Simmons BA, Dobbin F, Garrett G (2006) Introduction: Int Diffus Liberalism Int Organ 60:781–810
Stanziani A (2010) Revisiting Russian serfdom: Bonded peasants and Market Dynamics, 1600s–1800s. Int Labor Working-Class History (2010) 78#1 pp: 12–27
Stepanov I, Makarov I, Makarova E et al (2023) Climate change and challenges to sustainable development in the Russian Arctic. Clim Change 176:39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03512-5
The 2023 Global Slavery Index (2023) Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2023/05/17114737/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf
Tosun J, Karina Shyrokykh (2022) Leadership in high-level forums on energy governance: China and Russia compared. Post Commun Econ 34(7):847–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1964742
Tosun J, Mišić M (2022) Post-communist countries’ participation in global forums on Climate Action. Probl Post-Communism 69(4–5):380–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1994423
Tysiachniouk M (2024a) Environmental NGOs in Russia Navigate Repression, Climate Change, and Ethnonationalism Amid the Ukraine Crisis: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Russian Analytical Digest (RAD) Issue: 311, pp. 2–3
Tysiachniouk M (2024b) Resilient Green Warriors: How Russian Environmental NGOs Battle Repression and Adapt Amid the Ukraine Crisis. Russian Analytical Digest (RAD) Issue: 311, pp. 3–7. https://css.ethz.ch/en/publications/rad/details.html?id=/n/o/3/1/no_311_russian_environmentalism_during_t
Underland A (2010) Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Glob Environ Change 20(3):386–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.005
Victor DG, Raustiala K, Skolnikoff EB (eds) (1998) The implementation and effectiveness of International Environmental commitments: theory and practice (Global Environmental Accord: strategies for sustainability and Institutional Innovation). M.I.T., Boston
Vladimirova V (2023) Regional environmental governance of protected natural territories in the European North: Russia, Finland, and Norway, and the case of Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park. Climatic Change 176, 85 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03559-4
Vladimirova V (2024) Continuous Militarization as a Mode of Governance of Indigenous People in the Russian Arctic. Politics and Governance. Issue: Vol 12: Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7505
Walk Free Foundation (2023) The Global Slavery Index 2023. Link: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2023/05/17114737/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf
Wang Y (2023) A blessing or a curse? China’s Arctic involvement and its environmental policy to prevent further climatic change and pollution. Climatic Change 176, 117 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03600-6
Wang Y, Ma Y (2024) Costly Signaling and China’s Strategic Engagement in Arctic Regional Governance, Politics and Governance, vol 12. Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7222
Wood-Donnelly C (2023) Evaluating normative capacity through Arctic environmental governance. Clim Change 176:127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03603-3
Funding
Financial support for this research was provided by grant PID2021-126200NB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF ”A way of making Europe”; by Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D [CEX2019-000915-S], Barcelona School of Economics; and by the research grant “Social and Political Conflict (SoPoC)” funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Grant number 2021-SGR-00416).
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
I do not have any competing interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Obydenkova, A. Arctic environmental governance: challenges of sustainable development. Climatic Change 177, 105 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03762-x
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03762-x