2.2 Programme portfolio

Figure 2.1 Geographic distribution of projects (survey data), in percent (n=132). Several federal districts may be included in one project.

Other part of Russia

StPb/Leningrad

Karelia

Arkhangelsk

Murmansk

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Although a variety of organisations have been included in projects funded by the Barents Secretariat, the majority represent public organisations at the municipal or regional level. Many different types of institutions are involved in the collaboration projects, as is shown in Table 2.5. However, the most typical organisations involved are municipal or regional public institutions. This is particularly the case for Russia, where 65% of the respondents represented such an organisation. Other differences between the countries include involvement of business and private institutions being more common in Norway than in Russia. NGOs involved from the Norwegian side as a rule are national/international, while from the Russian side they tend to be locally based. Taking into account the regional focus in the collaboration, this is hardly surprising. More than half of the rather large ‘other’-category is represented by educational institutions, research institutes and universities.

Table 2.5 What kind of organisation do/did you represent in the collaboration project?

n % Municipal / regional public organisation / institution 74 55 Local non-governmental organisation (NGO) 14 10 National / international non-governmental organisation (NGO) 13 10 Business organisation 10 8 Other private institution / foundation 5 4 Other 18 13 Total 64 100

Certain areas are given priority among projects funded by the Barents Secretariat according to the programme documents. They are as follows2 :

1. Industrial and commercial development 2. Competence/education (all levels) 3. Environment 4. Welfare/culture 5. Indigenous peoples

It is therefore interesting to analyse to what extent the different topics are reflected in the portfolio of projects. One way of doing it is to go through and analyse all project titles, applications and reports. Projects are not, however, necessarily confined to one of the priorities, and may include elements of several of these priorities, which is often ignored in project documents. Thus, by asking respondents about their definition, we are likely to get a more accurate picture, even if not all projects are represented. Our survey data reveal that competence and education (at all levels) stands out as the area where the largest number of projects concentrates. In fact, more than 70% of the projects include such

2 An additional area that has been included at a later stage is ‘democracy’, but in the English verision of the project guideline, there are still supposed to be five and not six priority areas. The survey contains a question on the degree to which elements of democracy developments are included in the projects and will be discussed below.

elements at least to some extent, and close to half the projects to a large extent. Other areas are, however, also widespread. More than half the projects include elements of welfare or culture, more than one third commercial elements and a similar proportion include environmental aspects. Indeed, close to one quarter of the projects have elements that are of relevance to indigenous peoples at least to some extent.

Figure 2.2 Distribution of the extent to which the three priorities of the programme are included in projects. Percentage responding ‘to some extent’ or ‘to a large extent’. (n=136)

Competence/education

Welfare/culture

Industrial and commercial development

Environment

Indigenous peoples

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 To a large extent To some extent

The projects in the programme normally have at least one Russian and one Norwegian partner. Just over one third (37%) of the projects have one Russian and one Norwegian partner only. More than half the projects include more than one Norwegian partner (58%), and more than one Russian partner (56%). A large proportion of the projects (44%) had two or more partners in both Russia and Norway. Surprisingly few projects included partners from other countries: only 28 percent of the respondents reported such international partners in their project. The projects differ substantially in terms of the number of months they have been planned to last for. The shortest time period was less than one month, the longest more than 12 years. The mean