SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The importance of selecting the development of the Arctic seems to be relevant since rapid and irreversible changes are taking place there. Climate change and globalization are their prominent examples. A complex of factors has both positive and negative impacts on the use of natural resources and the positioning of states located not only within the Arctic but also outside it. The questions arise: what is the significance of these changes for geography, politics, and the management system? How should the comprehension of these processes be built? The relevance of the topic is enhanced by the fact that Russia has the most significant Arctic sector among the states with access to the Arctic Ocean. Therefore, our country has a leading role in working out strategies for the development of the Arctic. The comprehensive approach (considering the economic and political-geographical positions) is central in the article to analyze the directions of development of the Arctic territories. The method reveals the possibilities of sustainable development, which will provide Russia with strategic benefits within the Arctic and globally. The article discusses scenarios for the development of the Arctic, including the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, in the long-term perspective (until 2035). Substantiation of the long-term prospects for the development of the Arctic, despite Russian and foreign research, seems to be unrealistic due to lack of knowledge about the nature and consequences of climatic changes currently observed in this region and affecting global environmental management. The authors concluded that the priority directions of the Arctic development should be the ones based on positive and innovative trends.


Introduction
Currently, in the Arctic, we observe transformations, the full understanding of which is not formed. They are influenced by two interrelated factors: climate change and globalization, fol- The Arctic is one of the regions of the world considered the most vulnerable (along with the island states, Africa and the African and Asian rivers deltas) by the experts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as [2, p. 197]. The Arctic is the center of numerous and not sufficiently studied processes and feedbacks operating in the climate system with the participation of air masses, sea ice, specific stratification Arctic Ocean, cryosphere and terrestrial biota. In the 20th-21st centuries, temperature trends in the Arctic have changed repeatedly, and imperfections of instrumental weather observations did not allow to conclude the directions of climate change for a long time. The increase in air temperature in recent decades, other than natural causes, can be attributed to anthropogenic activities that take place outside the Arctic (Figure 1). The consequences of climate change concern challenging to calculate in the ultra-long term (50-100 years) risks of management of the northern territories [4,Leksin V  Some questions arose: how significant are the changes in the Arctic? How should they be understood by geography, ecology, politics, and governance? Should we prepare for the "war for resources" -the concept used by some authors of popular scientific articles on the Arctic issues to frighten their audience? Is there a possibility of mutually beneficial cooperation to solve problems or even challenges in the Arctic region? What will contribute to making the Arctic an example for those seeking a constructive approach to natural and social and environmental change in other regions? Answers to the questions raised will allow us to come closer to understanding the ways of sustainable socio-economic development of the Arctic zone, where the priority will be human well-being, economic progress, and environmental safety based on advanced research with international participation [10, Dodin D.A., pp. [16][17].
At the beginning of the 21st century, several foreign countries and their corporations worked out strategies for the development of the Arctic areas. Strategies adopted in Denmark 3 , Canada 4 , Iceland 5 , Norway 6 , USA [11], Finland 7 , Sweden 8 , China 9 , India 10 . Countries that have developed strategies differ in size, location, historical development, and state structure (federal and unitary ones). In the Arctic areas of foreign countries specific economic systems have formed: American, Canadian, European (island and continental), and Russian. Strategies differ, but still, share several features. The continued decades of interest in the Arctic is dictated by the increasing activity of Russia in the Arctic (especially after the 2007 expedition to the North Pole). It is due to the growing demand for raw materials and fuel and. At the same time, we see the depletion of mineral resources in the old mining sites, caused by the desire to control intercontinental transport routes -Northern sea route (NSR) and Northwest Passage (NWP), to develop tourism in the North and the Arctic, to preserve indigenous peoples, to form scientific consortia and to study.
European countries that have developed Arctic strategies proceed from the fact that the problems of vast and non-standard natural and socio-economic conditions of the Arctic are impossible to solve without involving the most significant countries -world leaders. They are the leading emitters of greenhouse gases (China and India), as well as the countries importing hydrocarbons, considered technological leaders of the world economy (Japan and the Republic of Korea).

Factors influencing the choice of scenarios
The search for answers to the challenges of Arctic development is complicated by a high degree of uncertainty occurring in this region, due to the lack of our knowledge about their nature and consequences. Russian and foreign Arctic strategies have a time limit -the year 2020. In this regard, it is advisable to analyze several ready-made scenarios describing the directions of the Arc- 2. The world economy and the demand for hydrocarbon resources. On the one hand, the growing need of different countries (esp. Asian) for fuel, and the desire of corporations to increase the profitability of its transportation (e.g., when using NSR) make the Arctic attractive for supporters of developments from the geopolitical standpoint. The desire to control the hydrocarbon production in the Arctic and fuel delivery dictated the development of the US Arctic strategy [11]. On the other hand, raw material orientation creates dependence on world energy prices. We will add that a part of the unique deposits of Alaska and Western Siberia has passed the peak of production, and another part of the reserves belongs to the category of potential, i.e., their role may grow up later.

Technology status and its possession by a limited number of countries.
In the medium term, this factor will not allow to organize and develop cost-effective and environmentally safe production of oil and natural gas in the Arctic. The high cost of production and processing, technological unpreparedness of sites, low quality of seismic exploration (in Russia), need to adjust geological models and ecological restrictions have become major for BP, Shell, and Gazprom when deciding to suspend mining near Greenland, Alaska, and the Kara Sea. It should be remembered that some of the promising oil and gas fields are in disputed areas.

Scenarios of the Arctic development
Formulating scenarios of the Arctic development, it is advisable to refer to the article by Young O.R. "Future of the Arctic: the role of ideas" [14], where the prospects of the Arctic development were considered in an uncertain period from two positions: geopolitical and socio -environmental systems.
Young O. R. wrote that most authors of popular scientific books described the changes considering the Arctic from a geopolitical perspective. It was suggested that we were witnessing a new phase of the "big game" for resources, another round of the Arctic "gold rush", which would entail an increased clash of interests of different countries, but primarily the USA and Russia [18, Borgerson S., p. 21; 19, Howard R., p. 57].
The roots of the "power division of the Arctic" ideas contribute to the media, forming the public consciousness, which introduces visual images of such changes, e.g., the reduction of area and capacity of sea ice, and attempts to declare ownership of previously unowned territories.  A peculiar situation persists around Svalbard. In 1920, in Paris, 40 States signed a treaty under which Norway was granted sovereignty over the archipelago but with the right of access for all interested states. The Soviet Union carried out scientific research on Svalbard (now there is a Russian scientific center there). In several villages, the extraction of hard coal for the needs of NSR was organized. Ensuring the Russian presence on the archipelago is one of Russia's political priori-ties in the Arctic 12 . In 1976, Norway has established a conservation zone around the archipelago, detaining fishing vessels in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the archipelago, which is contrary to the Treaty 1920.
Considering the future of the Arctic from the standpoint of the world power division, some authors predict a catastrophe that will lead to "... brutal bloody clashes between the great powers, desperately fighting each other for the right to possess the declining world reserves of natural re- Nowhere on Earth is the anthropogenic factor manifested as vividly but in the Arctic: climate change and globalization are anthropogenic and mutually influence each other. Climate warming, according to the Arctic Council and Roshydromet, is mainly due to human activity.
Moreover, outside the Arctic, in countries those emit greenhouse gases, warming leads to the expansion of economic activity. Such states shift to previously inaccessible areas, e.g., the Arctic.
However, in a socio-ecological system, the anthropogenic factor has a comparable, and sometimes more significant effect than the natural one. Therefore, attempts to understand what is happening in the Arctic should focus primarily on human activity, and the development of change management measures should consider their impact on nature and human activities in the future. Success in the development of the Arctic can be achieved by modernizing the management system. It means turning it into a set of problem-oriented blocks (a part of a multidimensional geographical location, geopolitical status, natural resource potential, socio-economic development, transport and logistics, socio-cultural, and environmental potentials), which could function separately, but, at the same time, be interconnected to solve various tasks and adapt to changes in the Arctic. Effective, safe and conflict-free interaction of the subjects of socio-economic development in the territories of the Arctic zone can be achieved within the framework of the Arctic partnerships at the international, regional, and local levels. Their content is well known [21,A. Pilyasov,p. 15].
Foreign experience in the development of the Far North demonstrates the benefits of partnerships between the federal and regional authorities, between the governments of the Arctic and corporations, between civil and military structures, between government and indigenous peoples, be- in the Russian Arctic, cooperation between the Russian Arctic territories to use each other's development potential. The inter-subject investment projects "Ural Industrial -Ural Polar" and "Belkomur" will begin.
The innovative scenario proceeds from the cooperation of the circumpolar countries in the development of the Arctic shelf and therefore at a much faster rate than in the inertial scenario.
Pilyasov A.N. calls such a phenomenon "the Arctic Mediterranean," considers the Arctic region "... just as the Mediterranean was ... a center of international cooperation during antiquity" [21, p. 13]. Russia will continue to work on the delimitation of maritime spaces and ensuring the mutually beneficial presence of Russia on Spitsbergen, which meets Russia's policy in the Arctic until 2020 and for the future. 14 The inertial scenario reflects the prolongation of current trends in critical sectors of the Arctic economy. It is based on conservative estimates of the growth of key indicators. It is assumed that the growth rates of the gross regional product of the Arctic territories, the real income of the population, the growth of labor productivity will be lower than the average for Russia.
Structural shifts and the growth of private investment will occur slowly. The resource orientation of the Russian Arctic in the system of the geographical division of labor will remain. The conjuncture of world prices for natural resources will be favorable but unstable. The outflow of the population will continue, and the quality of life will decline. Due to the delay, megaprojects have little effect on the economical parameters of the territories' development. There will be a drop in the volume of cargo transportation along the NSR, fishing, and the research fleet will remain in crisis.
Contrasts between the dynamic western and depressive eastern sectors of the Arctic will intensify.
Concerning international cooperation in the Arctic, the inertial scenario reflects the conflict of interests of the circumpolar countries and the intensification of the struggle between them for natural resources, incl. an increase in pressure on the Russian Federation in Spitsbergen 15 .
Using the author's approach to the development of scenarios for the development of the Arctic until 2035, the prospects for its future are optimistic, pessimistic, and intermediate. The object of the study -socio-economic and political factors, since the development of the Arctic is possible with the participation of the Arctica and non-Arctic states in the sustainable use of the natural resource and its transport capabilities.
Signs of an optimistic scenario for the development of the Arctic:  progressive (despite cyclical) development of the global economy; the demand for natural resources of the Arctic and transport routes of the Arctic Ocean (primarily the NSR, although it remains low compared to the Suez Canal). All this and international partici-pation help to continue the geological exploration of hydrocarbons in new areas of the Arctic;  rallying the international community around the values of the Arctic region (territorial integrity, respect for the norms of international law, sustainable socioeconomic growth, the well-being of the population, high quality of the environment, production of new knowledge and joint scientific research -these postulates are in every Arctic strategy of Europe and North America);  development of "public diplomacy" -cooperation between municipalities in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region and the transfer of knowledge and experience;  increasing the role of the Arctic Council, which takes binding decisions for other countries, invites new states interested in the use of resources and sustainable development of the Arctic region to its work;  the United States ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and, as a result, prepare an application for an increase in the EEZ; growing activities of American corporations in the Arctic;  the mutual understanding between the Russian Federation and the principal countries of the region -the United States, Canada, and Norway -in subsoil use and transport routes; it will reduce the political and military tension in the area;  Russia's initiatives to find new partners for the environmentally safe and economically profitable development of natural resources in the Arctic among non-Arctic states, primarily Asian and Latin American ones through public-private partnerships.
An illustration of the pessimistic scenario will be, in contrast to the previous one, the deterioration of bilateral and multilateral relations between states in the Arctic. Signs of such a scenario:  the tense nature of interstate cooperation due to territorial disputes (incl. the "Spitzbergen issue"); the willingness of countries to protect their interests outside the national Arctic areas; promotion of the idea of free borders in the Arctic; seeking a UN ban on exploration and extraction of minerals in the Arctic; defending the right to free navigation in the Arctic Ocean;  the growth of the military presence; involvement of the foreign Arctic states via NATO.
Militarization does not meet the interests of Russia in the Arctic region;  The Arctic Council like a discussion club; its role in solving the problems of the Arctic is declining;  cyclical moderate growth of the world economy replaced by stagnation; the demand for the Arctic oil and natural gas decreases against the development of shale energy; production at developed fields in the Arctic is falling; geological exploration rates are declining; transportation along the NSR remains uncompetitive; North-West passage is increasingly free of ice during the period of navigation;  against international isolation, Russia is searching for new partners in the development of hydrocarbon deposits among Asian companies; anxiety of environmental organizations associated with the exacerbation of the ecological situation in the Arctic due to poor readiness of fields for development; the activity of ecological organizations near mining sites and transportation routes for natural resources is interpreted as environmental terrorism.
In the case of the moderate scenario, the development of the Arctic will balance between optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. Territorial disagreements and the desire to control shipping routes will remain, but these processes will not be sharp with the expressed desire of states to find a solution based on international law. The state of bilateral relations with the participation of the Russian Federation and Western states remains tense. Sanctions pressure from European and North American states will continue; Asian countries will be key partners in the Arctic projects. Assuming that, the risk of losing control of shipping routes in the Indian Ocean and representation in the scientific community in Svalbard, will make India promoting its interests in the Arctic carefully with a steady interest in the region. The development of the world economy stimulates economic activity in the Arctic, which contributes to maintaining attention to the region from international environmental organizations. North American oil and gas companies, combining the technology and financial resources, will actively pursue their interests in the exploration and extraction of mineral resources on land and the shelf of the Arctic Ocean.
For the moderate scenario, implicit and random factors should be considered. By implicit factors, we understand the unpredictable aspects of development, i.e., they depend on events that do not directly affect the Arctic. E.g., the successes of the oil shale revolution and, in the longterm perspective, of hydrogen energy, albeit for a short time, can change the attitude towards the Arctic resources, which will have different directions for the development of the region. Signs of negative consequences include conserving Arctic projects for the development of natural resources and their export to foreign markets, a decline in the standard of living of the local population and, as a result, the desertion of the Arctic spaces. The positive significance lies in the conservation of resources for future generations, the reduction of anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems, and the preservation of a favorable environment. Neither positive nor negative aspects can currently be accepted unambiguously due to the lack of our knowledge of such processes.
Among the random factors that can influence the choice of scenarios are the natural disasters, technological accidents, acute and protracted financial crises, an arms race, information wars, terrorist attacks, the discovery of new deposits, unexpected technological innovations, increasing market volatility, or an increase in the rate of climate change.

Conclusion
At the beginning of the 21st century, the attention of governments and the scientific community in many countries of the world is in the Arctic region. It is due to the unique and not adequately studied natural resources, socio-economic, transport and logistics, environmental, tourist, and socio-cultural potential. All these points cause global geopolitical (incl. military-strategic) sig- The priority should be the sustainable development of the Arctic: the preservation of its environment, the use of natural resources without threats to the future generations. Such a socially and ecologically responsible approach, implemented through an innovative scenario and a scenario of socio-ecological systems, seems to us more realistic than the theses on "war for resources", "crisis of management", "re-division of the world", underlying geopolitical scenario.