3.15 Lessons learnt

NOK in their favour. They are victims of a conflict between local business interests in Finnmark.

Although the project met its objectives of transferring meat processing skills to young people, there is a danger that the unfortunate non-payment of due salaries will be what the young people associate with Norwegian – Russian project co-operation. Continuation of the project activities. The project holder considers initiating another project. Discussion. If the project had been fully implemented, it could have contributed to the development of a stronger transborder business network in the field of reindeer husbandry. Although the project was conceived a primarily being to the benefit of Neiden Rein, among other because it aimed at creating a Russian market, there could have been positive effects on the Russian side too. Among others the project would have created a market for Russian reindeer meat to be sold to Norway, and the competence transfer could have made Russian reindeer industry more competitive. It is, however, not clear whether the project’s insistence on only working with Saamis involved in the reindeer branch, excluding Russians and Komis, is a correct strategy in the Russian context. It should also be taken as a lesson that project holders must be rock solid. The fact that Russian Saamis trained through the project left Norway with salaries outstanding is harmful to the trust and good relationship that the Barents Secretariat’s grant programme seeks to boost.

Ideally, all the individual projects are inputs to the overall objective of the Barents Secretariat’s grant programme , which is to create cross-regional trust and welfare. In the early years of the Barents co-operation cross-regional interaction in itself was highly valuable. Later, the project co-operation has become more focused on attaining particular goals set by the project holders. Although, as this chapter has shown, projects tend to be successful in reaching their own goals, there may be reason to discuss whether they contribute efficiently enough to the overall aims of the Barents cooperation. In particular, there is reason to watch out for the

possibility that unintended adverse effects result from the projects. In particular, this may be the case for projects in the field of business development, making use of the asymmetry between the Norwegian and the Russian side regarding wage levels and welfare benefits. The two business projects and one of the projects on indigenous peoples presented above may be criticised on the grounds that the Norwegian project holders simply make use of the gap, even at the cost of the Russian side. Of course, this criticism may be countered by pointing at the mutual gains. Given the overall, cross- border confidence-building objectives of the Barents co-operation, mutual gains should be made an explicit prerequisite for a project to get funding. When the Barents Secretariat outsources programme administration to other institutions, as has been the case with the Barents Plus programme, it is particularly important that the Secretariat keeps a close eye on the programme implementation and makes sure that changes in the programme surroundings, such as the introduction of new competing programmes, are reflected in the programme set-up. The projects aiming at implementing projects and bringing about change in smaller settlements and scarcely populated areas on the Russian side are particularly liable to producing unintended negative effects. In particular, this is a danger while working with vulnerable indigenous peoples. The two projects on indigenous peoples presented above, are both based on insight in local affairs in the areas they operate, but the ways they have been carried out could have been more sensitive to the local context.

As this chapter illustrates, co-financing is common-place in the Barents co-operation. The particular niche of the Barents cooperation among all the other “donors” is, however, somewhat unclear to project holders. An updating of the overall objectives and a clarification of the programme theory would help applications and reporting easier, and first of all probably lead to even more expedient projects. This chapter’s review of 14 projects shows that there could have been a stronger commitment on the part of the Russian project participants.