Human security and women’s security reality in Northwest Russia - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 242

in the Russian system. The local crisis centres in Northwest Russia operated
differently from what the Norwegian counterparts expected, as personal net-
works, contacts in police and health departments, etc., were key nodes in their
work. Such relationships are used to find solutions on an ad hoc basis for the
victims and, in this work, trust is the key to the functioning of the assistance
system, more than rules. Additional differences are relevant if one compares
the Norwegian and Russian experiences. According to the Norwegian crisis
centre representatives, their engagement with victims is with a long-term
perspective. They engage victims' experiences and assist in immediate recov-
ery as well as in long-term aftercare. In contrast, the emphasis in the Russian
context is recognized to be at the acute phase. The aim is to calm the situa-
tion, and a short-term perspective defines their approach. Russian actors have
far less opportunity to engage the social context in which victims live in
Russia (in comparison to Norwegian crisis centre actors), and are unable to
address the issues of housing and finances, as these issues are less accessible
for Russian crisis centres because of the lack of transparent rules. This is why
Russian crisis centre representatives in their accounts emphasized their con-
tact with the victims and how they are empathetic and open-minded in these
interactions - those are the resources they have in abundance.
An idea of being a mediator between people and power was also reflected
among the non-state crisis centres in Northwest Russia: 'We are kind
of the information provider or guide between the people and the power'
(Informant 8/2006).
This description as a guide also defines the crisis centres as local security
producers. As interlocutors between people and power, crisis centre repre-
sentatives draw upon their understanding of the victims and their situations,
as well as their experience with local stakeholders. In their role as a guide,
therefore, crisis centre representatives use their social capital. The knowledge
they have established on the basis of their experiences both with victims and
with stakeholders is the key resource in their security production. Material
capital constrains their activities, and also their interaction with their net-
works. Since social capital is their main resource for assisting the victims in
finding a new way of organizing their lives, non-state crisis centres are vul-
nerable as security producers because they work on a case-to-case basis. They
individually adjust their security practices to the needs of the victims but also
need to strategize in regard to how their personal connections can be used
to acquire help from stakeholders in individual cases. But their work might
also remain concentrated on the victims and personal therapy. Although this
implies instability within their practices, over time the crisis centres gain
routine. In regard to victims, crisis centres are a cornerstone. Whether short
term or long term, the crisis centres are there for therapeutic work. The crisis
centres gathered knowledge on the basis of the stories they heard from victims
and became experienced in working with victims. This experience is a key
resource for crisis centres. They are aware of the suffering and the struggles