The Problem of Environmental Sustainability and Its Social and Economic Impacts in the Arctic Region of the Russian Federation

Introduction

Environmental sustainability and climate resilience are now central to the future trajectory of Arctic Russia, yet policy implementation remains inconsistent and ohen subordinated to economic and military imperatives. While Russia’s Arctic Strategy to 2035 pledges to promote ecological preservation, the actual alloca- tion of resources reflects a stark imbalance, with environmental protection efforts receiving significantly less investment compared to energy extraction and defense infrastructure. Projects such as Yamal LNG and the development of the NSR are emblematic of Moscow’s prioritization of economic returns over environmental stewardship. Simultaneously, legacy issues—such as industrial pollution fr om Sovi- et-era infrastructure and the inadequate remediation of contaminated sites—con- tinue to pose substantial threats to Arctic ecosystems. Although initiatives like the "Clean Country" program have sought to address these legacies, they remain lim- ited in scale and underfunded relative to the magnitude of ecological degradation. This essay critically examines the intersections of environmental degrada- tion, infrastructure fragility, governance challenges, and the Social and Economic

impacts of Environmental sustainability in Arctic Russia, highlighting the need for a paradigmatic shih toward sustainability, climate resilience, and inclusive policy frameworks in shaping the region’s future.

The Arctic: A unique region

The Arctic region faces complex challenges related to environmental sustain- ability, social well-being, and economic development. These issues are profoundly interconnected and influenced by climate change, resource extraction, geopoliti- cal interests, and indigenous rights. The Arctic is undergoing rapid environmental changes due to climate change, resource extraction, and human activities. These challenges threaten the region’s delicate ecosystems, indigenous communities, and global climate stability. Environmental sustainability challenges are climate change, ice melt, permafrost thawing, greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidifica- tion, marine ecosystem disruption, pollution, contaminants, resource exploitation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, ecosystem disruption, increased shipping, and industrial activity.
Regarding climate change and ice melt, the Arctic is warming almost four times faster than the global average. Melting sea ice reduces the Earth’s albedo effect, leading to further warming.
Rising sea levels from ice sheet melting in Greenland threaten coastal com- munities worldwide. Loss of habitat for ice-dependent species like polar bears, walruses, and seals. Due to permafrost thawing and greenhouse gas emissions, including methane and CO₂ release, permafrost stores vast amounts of carbon; its thawing releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Roads, pipelines, and build- ings in Arctic communities collapse due to thawing ground. Ancient bacteria and viruses may emerge from thawing permafrost, posing public health risks.
The Arctic Ocean absorbs CO₂, increasing ocean acidification and threaten- ing shellfish, plankton, and fish populations. Declining fish stocks affect global sea- food supply and indigenous communities reliant on fishing. Warmer waters disrupt marine food chains, affecting Arctic species and commercial fisheries. Oil spills from drilling, transportation, and ship traffic pose catastrophic risks in fragile Arc- tic ecosystems. Heavy metals and microplastics accumulate in Arctic waters and enter the food chain. Air pollution from distant industrial regions deposits black carbon (soot), accelerating ice melt. Oil and gas extraction damages landscapes and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Mining for rare minerals and metals leads to habitat destruction and water contamination. Increased deforestation in the boreal zone reduces carbon sequestration capacity.
In terms of biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption, Polar bears, Arctic foxes, and reindeer populations decline due to habitat changes. Migratory patterns of birds and marine species shih due to temperature and ice cover changes. Inva- sive species from warmer regions disrupt Arctic ecosystems. Melting ice opens

new shipping routes (e.g., the Northern Sea Route), increasing emissions and oil spill risks. Noise pollution from ships disrupts marine mammal communication and migration. Growing tourism increases waste, pollution, and ecological disturbance. Stronger climate policies to lim it emissions and reduce Arctic warming. Renewable energy development to replace Arctic fossil fuel extraction. Marine-protected areas fr om safeguarding ecosystems and restricting harmful activities. International cooperation through agreements like the Arctic Council and the Paris Agreement. Sustainable indigenous-led conservation initiatives to balance development and environmental protection.
The Arctic is home to diverse indigenous communities and small populations that rely on the region’s natural environment for survival. However, environmental changes caused by climate change, resource extraction, and industrial activities are disrupting traditional ways of life, health, and economic stability. Here are the key social impacts of environmental challenges in the Arctic: threats to Indigenous Communities, Cultural Loss, Food Insecurity, Water Insecurity, Rising Diseases, Economic Challenges, Infrastructure Risks, Social Inequality, and the Impact of Increased Industrial and Military Presence. The Arctic is home to indigenous groups such as the Inuit, Sámi, Nenets, Chukchi, and Yupik, who have lived in har- mony with nature for thousands of years. Climate change disrupts their traditional hunting, fishing, and herding practices, leading to a loss of livelihoods. Rising tem- peratures force migration as coastal erosion and permafrost thaw make villages uninhabitable. Language and cultural traditions are at risk as younger generations move to urban areas for economic survival.

Environmental Sustainability problems

Thawing ice and changing temperatures reduce fish, seals, whales, and rein- deer populations, impacting indigenous diets. Contaminated water sources from oil spills, mining, and thawing permafrost affect drinking water supplies. Increased food import costs make survival difficult as traditional subsistence practices decline. Rising temperatures lead to new disease risks as bacteria and viruses trapped in permafrost for thousands of years resurface. Increased exposure to pollutants and heavy metals from industrial activities affects Arctic populations’ health. Food shortages and displacement lead to mental health crises, including anxiety and depression. More frequent natural disasters (flooding, coastal erosion, and wildfires) cause injuries and stress-related illnesses.
Many Arctic communities depend on fishing, hunting, and herding, but cli- mate change disrupts these economic activities. As industrial activities (e.g., oil drilling and mining) expand, traditional jobs are replaced with temporary, low-wage labour opportunities. Increased living costs due to disrupted supply chains make Arctic survival more expensive. Some governments promote extractive indus- tries for economic gain, but these ohen fail to benefit local communities directly.

Permafrost thawing leads to the collapse of homes, roads, and pipelines. Coastal communities face forced relocation due to rising sea levels and coastal erosion. The high cost of constructing climate-resilient housing makes adaptation diffi- cult. Many indigenous communities are excluded from decision-making in Arc- tic development policies. Forced displacement leads to loss of identity and social cohesion as communities struggle to maintain their traditions. Non-indigenous workers and industries move in, creating economic disparity and sometimes mar- ginalising indigenous populations.
Growing Arctic interest from nations such as Russia, the U.S., Canada, and China increases militarisation and geopolitical tensions. However, “Gor- bachev’s strategic vision received a positive response from Western coun- terparts, leading to the establishment of the first multilateral environmental cooperation framework in the Arctic—the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), which was signed by the eight Arctic states in 1991. Initiated by the Government of Finland, the AEPS laid the foundation for a series of collaborative efforts aimed at safeguarding the Arctic environment, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of regional environmental governance.” Indigenous lands are sometimes taken over for military or resource extraction purposes. Pollution from industrial projects (e.g., mining, oil drilling) worsens local living conditions. Strengthening Indigenous rights & governance to ensure self-determination in Arctic policies. Investing in climate-resilient infrastruc- ture to protect Arctic housing, roads, and water systems. Sustainable economic development focused on renewable energy, ecotourism, and Arctic-friendly industries—international cooperation to reduce resource exploitation and sup- port indigenous-led conservation.
Resource extraction, climate change, and global geopolitics shape the Arctic's economy. While economic activities such as oil drilling, fishing, and tourism bring revenue, they also pose risks to the environment and indigenous communities. Cli- mate change further disrupts traditional livelihoods, making economic stability in the Arctic increasingly uncertain. The Arctic is rich in oil, gas, and minerals, making it a key focus for energy companies and governments. Melting ice makes accessing untapped resources easier, but extraction can damage fragile ecosystems. Mining operations bring jobs but also cause pollution, habitat destruction, and land con- flicts with indigenous groups. Some Arctic nations rely on fossil fuel industries, making economic diversification difficult.

Opportunities in the Arctic Russia

Melting ice has opened up new shipping routes, such as the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. These routes shorten global trade dis- tances, benefiting industries but increasing environmental risks—more shipping leads to oil spills, noise pollution, and disruptions to marine life. Arctic ports

and infrastructure require significant investments to handle increased trade. Fishing, hunting, and reindeer herding—vital for indigenous communities—are threatened by climate change and overfishing. Warmer temperatures reduce fish stocks and change animal migration patterns, affecting Arctic economies. Indigenous groups ohen struggle to compete with large corporations in resource industries.
Tourism in the Arctic is increasing, bringing economic opportunities to remote communities. However, large cruise ships and mass tourism contribute to pollution and environmental degradation. Some areas struggle to manage waste and water usage and preserve cultural heritage in the face of rapid tourism expan- sion. Due to supply chain challenges, Arctic cities face higher costs for goods and services—permafrost thawing damages roads, buildings, and pipelines, requiring expensive repairs. Governments must invest heavily in climate-resilient infra- structure, straining public budgets. Countries such as Russia, the U.S., Canada, and China compete for Arctic control, increasing military presence. Unclear regulations on Arctic resources create economic uncertainty for industries and governments. Indigenous groups ohen face legal battles over land rights and eco- nomic benefits.
The Arctic has excellent potential for renewable energy, such as wind, hydro, and geothermal power. Shihing to sustainable industries could reduce depen- dence on fossil fuels while creating jobs. Investment in green infrastructure and ecotourism could balance economic growth and environmental protection. Diversifying the Arctic economy by investing in renewables, technology, and sus- tainable tourism. Strengthening indigenous economic participation in industries like fishing, ecotourism, and conservation. Developing strict regulations on Arc- tic shipping and resource extraction to minimise environmental damage. Inter- national cooperation to ensure responsible economic development and protect Arctic ecosystems.
The Arctic faces significant environmental, social, and economic challenges due to climate change, resource extraction, and geopolitical tensions. Address- ing these issues requires a balanced approach that promotes sustainability, pro- tects indigenous rights, and supports economic stability. Below are key solutions and strategies to address these challenges: environmental sustainability solutions, social solutions for Indigenous communities and local populations and economic sustainability strategies Implement strict regulations to lim it fossil fuel extraction and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Expand renewable energy projects (wind, solar, and hydro) to reduce Arctic dependence on oil and gas. Strengthen inter- national climate agreements (Paris Agreement, Arctic Council) to enforce climate policies. Establish marine protected areas (MPAs) to safeguard Arctic marine life from overfishing and industrial activities. Ban or strictly regulate oil drilling and mining in ecologically sensitive areas. Promote sustainable fishing practices to prevent overfishing and ecosystem collapse.

Challenges Ahead

Thawing permafrost is projected to endanger approximately 70% of Arctic infrastructure by 2050, posing significant risks to critical assets such as oil and gas pipelines, urban settlements, and fragile ecosystems. A prominent illustration of these vulnerabilities is the 2020 Norilsk diesel spill, which resulted from the struc- tural failure of industrial infrastructure due to permafrost degradation, highlight- ing the severe environmental and economic repercussions of insufficient adaptive measures. Furthermore, the release of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost may exacerbate global warming trends, thereby jeopardising the attainment of international climate targets.
Invest in research on permafrost monitoring and carbon capture technologies. Reduce black carbon emissions (from shipping, industry, and wildfires) to slow ice melt. Enforce strict regulations on industrial waste and oil spills to prevent Arc- tic pollution. Grant indigenous communities legal control over land and resources. Ensure Indigenous representation in policy-making and climate negotiations. Support community-led conservation programs that align with traditional knowl- edge and sustainable practices. Expand funding for Arctic healthcare facilities to address emerging health risks. Support local food production through hydroponic greenhouses and sustainable hunting and fishing initiatives. Reduce reliance on imported food by investing in Arctic agriculture adapted to extreme conditions. Develop climate-proof housing resistant to permafrost thaw and coastal erosion. Build sustainable transportation networks to connect remote Arctic communities. Use renewable energy microgrids to reduce dependence on expensive fossil fuel imports.
Shih investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy projects (wind, hydro, geothermal). Promote sustainable tourism (ecotourism, cultural tourism) instead of mass tourism. Develop technology and research hubs in Arctic cities to foster inno- vation and job creation. Implement stricter environmental standards for Arctic oil, gas, and mining industries. Establish fair revenue-sharing policies to ensure Indig- enous communities benefit from economic activities. Expand fishing quotas and marine conservation laws to prevent overexploitation. Enforce strict regulations on Arctic shipping to minimize emissions and oil spill risks. Develop green shipping technologies (electric or hybrid icebreakers) to reduce pollution. Enhance the role of the Arctic Council in regulating economic and environmental policies. Create legally binding agreements between Arctic nations to protect fragile ecosystems. Establish joint research and climate monitoring programs across Arctic countries. Promote diplomatic solutions for Arctic disputes to prevent militarization and con- flict. Encourage international trade agreements that prioritize sustainable develop- ment. Develop cross-border conservation initiatives to protect Arctic biodiversity. The Arctic is experiencing rapid and unprecedented changes due to climate change, industrial activities, and geopolitical interests. These transformations

have profound environmental, social, and economic effects, raising concerns about the region’s long-term sustainability.The growing frequency of floods, wildfires, and extreme temperature fluctuations is placing mounting pressure on Russia’s disaster management and emergency response systems. The 2024 floods in the Orenburg region were a critical indicator of institutional vulner- ability and systemic inadequacies, with observers emphasizing the recurring shortcomings in adapting to escalating climate-related hazards.Industrial pol- lution, deteriorating Soviet-era infrastructure, and the expansion of fossil fuel ventures—such as the Yamal LNG project—pose substantial threats to Arctic bio- diversity. Although these environmental risks are recognized in Russia’s official Arctic Strategy, the policy framework continues to prioritize economic devel- opment objectives over the implementation of robust environmental protection measures.
The Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the global average, leading to accelerated glacier and sea ice loss. Permafrost thaw releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, exacerbating climate change. Increased coastal erosion and rising sea levels are threatening Arctic ecosystems and communities. Arctic wildlife (e.g., polar bears, walruses, caribou, and Arctic foxes) struggles to adapt to habitat loss. Warmer temperatures are changing migration patterns and causing food shortages for many species. The ocean acidification caused by CO₂ absorption affects marine life, including fish stocks crucial for local economies. Oil and gas drilling, mining, and shipping increase pollution levels in fragile Arctic environments. Black car- bon emissions from shipping and industry are darkening ice surfaces, speeding up melting. Plastic waste and chemical pollutants from distant regions accumulate in Arctic waters and food chains.
Traditional ways of life, such as subsistence hunting and fishing, are becom- ing harder due to melting ice and changing ecosystems. Indigenous groups are facing land encroachment from industries and geopolitical conflicts. Health issues, including increased respiratory diseases and food insecurity, are rising due to environmental changes. Arctic settlements built on permafrost risk collapsing due to thawing ground. Extreme weather events like storms and flooding make daily life more hazardous. Remote Arctic villages lack reliable energy sources, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure. Younger generations migrate to urban centres, leading to cultural loss and depopulation. Traditional knowledge systems are at risk as globalisation and climate change reshape Arctic societies. Increased contact with outsiders (tourists, industrial workers, scientists) alters local social structures.
The opening of Arctic sea routes (e.g., the Northern Sea Route) attracts global trade and shipping companies. Oil, gas, and mineral exploration are increasing due to melting ice exposing new resource-rich areas. Fishing industries are expanding, but unsustainable practices threaten long-term viability. Many Arctic communi- ties rely heavily on government subsidies due to limited local industries. Foreign

corporations dominate resource extraction, with little revenue returning to local populations. The cost of living in the Arctic is rising as transportation and supply chains become more unstable. Growing investments in renewable energy (wind, hydro, geothermal) offer hope for a sustainable economy. Ecotourism and scientific research could create jobs that align with environmental conservation. Technolog- ical advancements in cold climate infrastructure and sustainable agriculture could improve living conditions.
Arctic nations (e.g., Russia, Canada, USA, Norway, Denmark) have compet- ing claims over resources and shipping routes. Geopolitical tensions are increas- ing militarisation in the Arctic, raising security concerns. The Arctic Council lacks enforcement power, making regulating environmental and economic policies dif- ficult. Existing environmental laws do not fully cover Arctic-specific challenges. The lack of binding international agreements allows corporations to exploit Arc- tic resources with little accountability. Indigenous representation in policymak- ing remains limited despite communities being most affected.”Asian observer states—including India, China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—are increas- ingly exposed to the cascading vulnerabilities arising from climate change in the Arctic region. The current suspension of activities within the Arctic Council's Working Groups is likely to exert a substantial impact on both ongoing initiatives and prospective collaborative projects involving these nations, thereby affecting their strategic and scientific engagement in Arctic governance and environmental research.”
“The Arctic region remains significantly underdeveloped regarding space- based infrastructure, which is essential for ensuring reliable telecommunications, connectivity, navigation services, search and rescue operations, climate modelling, environmental monitoring, surveillance, and other related technological and oper- ational domains.”Moscow’s Arctic Strategy to 2035 outlines ambitious objectives to enhance hydrocarbon extraction and establish the Northern Sea Route as a key global maritime corridor while simultaneously committing to the preservation of Arctic ecosystems. However, in practice, allocations for environmental protection measures remain disproportionately low compared to the substantial investments directed toward military expansion and energy infrastructure development. The release of Soviet-dumped nuclear waste has a social and economic impact on Rus- sia in the northern region. However, ice melting will lead to more grazing places in the southern region of Russia. Initiatives such as the "Clean Country" program seek to address the legacy of Soviet-era environmental degradation in the Arctic, includ- ing efforts to remove hazardous waste in areas like Franz Josef Land. Nevertheless, such interventions remain limited in scale and insufficiently funded, mainly when measured against the magnitude and complexity of the region’s broader ecological challenges.
Although geographically distant, India and Russia are linked through the inter- connected geophysical landscapes of the Himalayas—ohen referred to as the "Third

Pole"—and the Arctic region. Building upon their longstanding bilateral relation- ship and institutional frameworks for cooperation, the Arctic presents emerging avenues for collaboration. These include joint ventures in oil and gas exploration, enhanced connectivity through maritime shipping lanes and fibre optic infrastruc- ture, and expanding cooperation in tourism, healthcare, and maritime navigation. While the ongoing impacts of climate change remain a pivotal concern in shaping future policies, the Arctic region simultaneously offers a platform for India and Rus- sia to strengthen mutual interests and diversify their strategic engagement. India’s invitation for Russia to join the ‘Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure’ and “International Solar Alliance” has the potential to safeguard Russia’s interest in the Arctic region.

Way forward

It is imperative to establish a comprehensive policy and legal framework governing the disposal of radioactive waste in the Arctic region to mitigate long- term environmental and public health risks. Additionally, the priorities and rights of Indigenous communities must be central to governance strategies, given their role as primary stewards and first responders to environmental crises in the region. Ensuring effective coordination and collaboration among various stakeholders— including governments, local communities, industry actors, and international institutions—is essential for inclusive and sustainable Arctic governance. Further- more, investment in sustainable and specialized technologies should be prioritized to facilitate the responsible exploration and extraction of the region’s untapped energy and mineral resources, thereby balancing economic development with eco- logical preservation.

Conclusion

Environmental sustainability is poised to play a critical role in shaping the future trajectory of Arctic Russia. However, conflicting policy priorities and grow- ing geopolitical isolation present formidable barriers to effective environmental governance. Although there has been a notable rise in climate adaptation dis- course and strategic planning, implementing concrete measures remains inade- quate, particularly amid intensifying ecological crises. In the absence of decisive progress toward emission reductions, strengthened environmental regulation, and enhanced international cooperation, the coming decade will be a pivotal test of Moscow’s ability to reconcile its economic and strategic interests with the impera- tive of ecological sustainability.