Russia’s COVID Blinders: Arctic Policy Changes or Lack Thereof

Novatek’s Yamal LNG facility in Sabetta, northern Russia. Photo: Novatek

With the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the world has found itself in a global health emergency, which has caused a dramatic loss of human life worldwide and brought normal life around the world to a halt for the better part of a year. The Arctic Institute’s COVID-19 Series offers an interesting compilation of best practices, challenges and diverse approaches to the pandemic applied by various Arctic states, regions, and communities. We hope that this series will contribute to our understanding of how the region has coped with this unprecedented crisis as well as provide food for thought about possibilities and potential of development of regional cooperation.

The Arctic Institute COVID19 Series 2020-2021

• COVID-19 in the Arctic: The Arctic Institute’s Winter Series 2020-2021
• COVID-19 and Arctic Search and Rescue, our Duty to Act
• Vulnerable Communities: How has the COVID-19 Pandemic affected Indigenous People in the Russian Arctic?
• Brazilians in the Arctic: A Global Experience with Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic
• COVID-19’s Impact on the Administration of Justice in Canada’s Arctic
• Isolation and Resilience of Arctic Oil Exploration during COVID-19: Business as usual or Structural Shift?
• COVID-19: How the Virus has frozen Arctic Research
• Rethinking Governance in Time of Pandemics in the Arctic
• Russia’s COVID Blinders: Arctic Policy Changes or Lack Thereof
• Geography of Economic Recovery Strategies in Nordic Countries
• Fly-in Fly-Out Workers in the Arctic: The Need for More Workforce Transparency in the Arctic
• Measures Taken by the Canadian Coast Guard to Respond to the Pandemic in the Canadian Arctic
• COVID-19 in the Arctic: Final Remarks

With the rise of the coronavirus crisis, many countries and companies have adapted both their domestic and international policies concerning the ability to travel and work. Nowhere is this more interesting as in the Arctic. Since March 2020, international and regional scientific research in the Arctic globally has been slowly grinding to a halt. This stop of most non-essential research and travel to the region is due to a general wish to avoid spreading the virus to vulnerable Indigenous communities and other localities, which often lack robust medical facilities. However, Russia has had a different response. Russian laborers continue to work on the construction of LNG platforms (specifically at the Kola Yard project in the Murmansk region) – many working even after contracting the virus – and Russian developers are even being incentivized to invest in the region by the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East and the Arctic. 

This lack of federal policy change is striking given Russia’s many vulnerable communities in the Arctic. However, it may be due to the decentralization of policymaking in the country. With a lack of clear instructions from Moscow, regional and municipal governing bodies have responded in varying manners, creating a patchwork-like effect of policies throughout Russia.

Arctic measures against the pandemic

The general consensus among researchers and scientists is that the dangers of the pandemic far outweigh the necessity of getting data on, for example, ice distribution, changing fish stocks, water temperatures and marine mammal migration for this year. Even though there may be detrimental impacts on this research being delayed, the United States National Science Foundation, for example, chose to cancel around 90 percent of the 150 projects funded by the agency. 

The real danger, scientists argue, lies with an uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 in rural Arctic communities. However, the danger also lies in the close quarters of ships and research communities where the virus can spread quickly. In March, for example, a team member of the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) became infected. All twenty members of the aircraft team meant to support a research team who have been intentionally frozen in Arctic sea ice since last October had to be quarantined – creating a gap in its climate data set. The response of the United States to COVID-19 similarly appears to be managed on a state-by-state basis rather than with broad sweeping federal mandates. In Alaska, for example, masks are not mandated in public, but local businesses can require customers to wear masks and all visitors to State of Alaska facilities are required to wear a mask. This is in opposition to the approach of Canada and the European Nordic countries. The Canadian government restricted all vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic, but specifically banned all Canadian cruise ships from any kind of stop in its Arctic territories. The Canadian government has also committed $129.9 million in funding to its territories in support during the pandemic along with other national mandates. The European Nordic governments similarly took national measures to curb the virus – closing schools and public areas, implementing testing regimes, closing their borders, establishing mandatory quarantine periods, and other strict national mandates.

Russia does not appear to be implementing new COVID-19 policies in the Arctic

The above-mentioned cancellations and difficult choices do not seem to be as prevalent in Russia. Instead, industry is moving ahead, and the Russian government continues to see the Arctic as a core priority for the country. In March, for example, Moscow excluded the mineral extraction tax (MET) for the first 12 years in the Arctic, reducing it a further 5pc for Arctic offshore oil projects for the first 15 years of a project in order to encourage economic development in the region. Furthermore, many Russian energy companies are operating at a high rate of productivity. Rosneft recently announced the discovery of a new oil and gas field, called Novoogennoye, while Gazprom Neft began developing a section of its Novoportovskoye field and several new projects in the Arctic. Enel Russia, a power company, continues to actively construct a wind plant near Murmansk.

It might be convincing to argue that industry and projects should still be in the works if there was no evidence of a significant COVID-19 outbreak. However, that is not the case. Belokamenka, which hosts a construction site for gas firm Novatek’s LNG platforms in October became a hotspot in the crisis. In May 2020, over 2,000 COVID-19 infections had been recorded. In Norilsk, former mayor Rina Akhmetchin resigned in July 2020 after claiming that while the regional health ministry stated there were only 293 cases, there were actually 832 if not more. The Krasnoyarsk region has reported over 11,000 cases. Notably, however, this heavy focus on hydrocarbon development in the Russian Arctic may be a result of its economic dependence on natural resources. In 2019, the Russian government estimated that sixty percent of its GDP came from oil, gas, and other natural resources. With such a high percentage of its GDP being dependent on natural resources, is it really a surprise that a focus on hydrocarbon development comes at the expense of workers in the Arctic? Given Russia’s dependence on exporting these resources, placing a premium on constructing more outputs such as oil and gas fields makes a lot of sense.

What is the rationale? 

What makes Moscow’s lack of interest regarding COVID-19 in the Arctic even more remarkable is the federal government’s statements and delivery of medical assistance to other countries. In March 2020, the State Duma passed legislation allowing Prime Minister Mishustin to declare a state of emergency. Further, Russia has sent assistance to Italy, Serbia and the United States. However, the main bulk of the work in combating COVID-19 has been carried out at the regional and municipal levels. This is due to Moscow’s relative lateness in establishing a national policy. 

Regional and municipal governing bodies have different priorities and therefore different policy responses to COVID-19. While in some places, leaders have placed a priority on establishing lockdowns and initiating testing when possible, others have not – creating a patchwork-like effect of different policies throughout the country. In the Arctic, Russian economic dependence on developing hydrocarbons means that the continued construction of oil and gas fields is more important to policymakers than implementing COVID-19 measures. With a lack of national policy, this variation in COVID-19 regulations throughout the country will continue. It remains to be seen whether any national policy will be implemented or whether Russian laborers in the Arctic will have to fend for themselves and choose their risks carefully.

Gabriella Gricius is PhD Student at Colorado State University focusing on Arctic politics, Russian studies, and critical security theory. She is also a Graduate Fellow with the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network.