CIDEC - Citizens' Dialogue for European Consensus by Gradjanske inicijative Gradjanske inicijative

This project is financed by the EU through the European Integration Fund, a programme managed by the EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia and implemented by Press Now.

Citizens' Association for Democracy and Civic Education

CIDEC - Citizens' Dialogue for European Consensus

Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions

This programme has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Civic Initiatives and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union

This project is financed by the EU through the European Integration Fund, a programme managed by the EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia and implemented by Press Now.

Citizens' Association for Democracy and Civic Education

CIDEC - Citizens' Dialogue for European Consensus

Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions

Belgrade, July 2009

Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................5 On the project: CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus ..........................................................................7 Realization of Events .............................................................................. 11 Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions .................................................13 International Conference, 3 March 2009, Belgrade, International Press Centre TANJUG ................................................................... 15 Report on the Event ............................................................................................ 17 List of Participants in the Conference ............................................................38 Public Discussion in Kruševac, 26 March 2009 .................................................43 Report on the Event ............................................................................................45 List of Participants at the Public Discussion ................................................. 93 Public Discussion in Niš, 20 May 2009 ...............................................................97 Report on the Event ............................................................................................99 List of Participants at the Public Discussion ............................................... 118

Recommendations ................................................................................121 Good Practice Example ........................................................................ 131

Introduction This is the third and last in the series of three publications prepared in the scope of the project CIDEC – Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus, implemented by Civic Initiatives in cooperation with the European Integration Fund managed by the European Commission Delegation to Serbia, and technically implemented by Press Now. This project has been envisaged as a set of related activities, among which is preparation of these publications that accompany a series of public events – international conferences and local public discussions, on topics important for including citizens into the process of European integrations. Each publication contains a detailed review of the cycle of three events held under the same name. The ﬁrst publication refers to the topic “Building Partnerships between NGOs and Public Administration in the EU Integration Process”, treated at the First International Conference, held in Belgrade on 9 October 2008, as well as at public discussions in Bujanovac on 31 October 2008, and in Novi Sad on 5 November 2008. The second publication reports on events addressing “Institutional Forms and Mechanisms of Citizens’ Participation in the EU Integration Process”, analyzed at the 2nd International Conference in Belgrade, on 28 November 2008, and at public discussions in Novi Pazar on 12 December 2008, and in Zrenjanin on 3 February 2009. The third publication presents events that have started at the 3rd International Conference in Belgrade “Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions” on 3 March 2009, and follow-up public discussions in Kruševac, on 26 March 2009, and in Niš on 20 May 2009. Each publication contains a detailed review of presentations of experts from abroad and from Serbia, the ﬂow of events, lists of participants, comments, discussion and evaluation. We especially point to documents at the end of each 5

publication, the author of which is the Assistant Professor Tanja Miščević PhD. They summarize ﬁndings of each cycle of events and at the same time contain conclusions and recommendations for diﬀerent actors in the EU integration process.

On the project: CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus This project aims to initiate public discussions between participants from civil society and State oﬃcials on European integration of Serbia, and thereby contribute to the political and social consensus on integration of Serbia into EU. In order to have a successful dialogue, civil society organizations and active citizens’ associations must be enabled to be frontmen and implementers of this process. It may be achieved by using the experience of other EU candidate and member countries, which have recently gone through diﬀerent phases of EU integration. The project envisages the following aims and outcomes: a) General project aim: To contribute to establishment of consensus on EU integration in Ser-

bia. b) Special aim: To increase citizens’ support to EU integration by creating conditions

for their participation in public discussions. c) Expected outcomes: Raised awareness and level of knowledge on opportunities for coope-

ration between nongovernmental organizations, public administration and media in the EU integration process Initiation of public dialogue, exchange of information and good prac-

tice principles related to the EU integration process

Empowered nongovernmental organizations for setting up partner

relations with the Government in the course of the EU accession process Better informed citizens, and more included in public discussions on

EU integration Concrete activities planned in the scope of the one-year project: 1. Three one-day thematic international conferences – One of the key planned activities during the project duration are three one-day international thematic conferences. The conferences are focused on experiences of EU candidate and member countries in different phases of their integration process. In direct discussion with organizations from Serbia will be analyzed possibilities for application of methods and activities that were evidently successful in their cases. Lessons learned from presented models of informing and inclusion of citizens into integration flows will help Serbian nongovernmental organizations and associations to avoid mistakes and to do their job efficiently and successfully. International conferences were planned to be held in Belgrade, for some 35 participants, including both representatives of the civil sector and representatives of the state administration, media (journalists and editors-in-chief), European institutions and foreign embassies, international experts from Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia (member countries) and Croatia (candidate country), as well as representatives of the European Integration Office of the Republic of Serbia. 2. Six public discussions – Two discussions were planned to be organized after each conference, a total of six public discussions. Discussions were envisaged as an additional clarification of the conference contents. They will be organized in regional centers all over Serbia (Zrenjanin, Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac, Novi Pazar and Bujanovac). Each discussion will be attended by 50 participants, including representatives of local civil society organizations, local authorities 8

and media. The events will be facilitated by two domestic experts. 3. TV production and broadcasting – each event will be taped, edited and offered to nationally and locally covered TV stations. The programme duration will be up to 30 minutes each. We expect the Association of Local Electronic Media to broadcast this programme for symbolic price. 4. Publications – Based on documents and materials from conferences and discussions, conclusions and recommendations will be put together in three thematic publications. They will be printed in circulation of 500 each, and will also be available on our website. 5. Spreading information on activities and outcomes through media – Information will be communicated to the public in the course of the complete duration of the project. The Project Coordinator from Civic Initiatives will be responsible for the overall information spreading strategy, while the PR Manager will be in charge of daily activities related to cooperation with media. Besides conference materials and three publications, this project brings a number of other materials as well. It includes monthly reports on activities, final report with internal evaluation, press releases, NETWORK magazine. All of the materials will be available to public on Civic Initiatives website as well, while a special link will connect it to the website of the European Integration Office. For more information please visit the Civic Initiatives website www.gradjanske.org

Realization of Events

In the period October 2008 – April 2009 three international conferences were held in Belgrade, and five round tables – public discussions in Bujanovac, Novi Sad, Novi Pazar, Zrenjanin and Kruševac. The final event was planned for May 2009. Guests at conferences were experts from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia. They presented experiences from their countries, of both governmental and nongovernmental sectors, in the domain of mechanisms of cooperation, citizens’ participation, process monitoring, dialogue establishment and discussions on different topics. Representatives of the EU Integration Office, as well as the Ministry of Finance, presented efforts made by their institutions in the EU integration process. Conferences were attended by more than 180 participants (instead of the planned 105) from the governmental and nongovernmental sectors, representatives of media, local self-governments, trade unions, local institutions. Discussions all over Serbia were used for presenting experiences and recommendations set forth during international conferences, as well as for presenting activities of domestic institutions and nongovernmental organizations in this process. Interest for these events surpassed all our expectations – instead of planned 250 participants, at 5 out of 6 events were present over 400 participants from all sectors of the society, including representatives of local community centres. Here is a detailed review of the third series of events, which started at the International Conference in Belgrade, on 3 March 2009, and finished at round tables/public discussions in Kruševac and Niš.

Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions

International Conference, 3 March 2009, Belgrade, International Press Centre TANJUG

PROGRAMME 9:00–9:30 9:30–9:45 9:45–10:00 10:00–10:20 10:20–10:35 10:35–10:55 10:55–11:30 11:30–12:00 12:00–12:30

12:30–14:00 14:00

Registration Opening: Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives Duško Radaković, State Secretary, Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government Milica Delević, Director of the European Integration Oﬃce of the Government of Serbia Pierre Dybman, Head of Operations, European Commission Delegation to the Republic of Serbia Maja Bobić, European Movement in Serbia Coﬀee break Tina Michieli, CNVOS – Centre for Information, Cooperation and Development of NGOs, Ljubljana, Slovenia Pavol Demeš, Director, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, Bratislava, Slovakia Discussion/Questions and Answers Lunch

Report on the Event The Third and ﬁnal International Conference by the name of “Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions” took place at the International Press Centre TANJUG in Belgrade, on 3 March 2009. The Conference was attended by more than 70 representatives of domestic and international institutions, civil society and media. The Conference was opened by Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives, who expressed the pleasure because representatives of the Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government, and the European Integration Oﬃce, with which the civil sector has an exceptionally successful cooperation, responded to the invitation to deliver their speeches, as well as the representative of EMinS and guests from Slovenia and Slovakia. Experiences of Slovenia and Slovakia in communication with EU institutions, both in the course of accession process and now as member countries, are a valuable recommendation for establishment of a dialogue between civil society in Serbia and EU institutions. The State Secretary for State Administration and Local Self-Government, Duško Radaković, especially emphasized that the work of the Ministry is public and that citizens have the opportunity of free insight into its work. The most important segment of the work of this Ministry is legal regulation (adoption of electoral laws – the Law on Voters Rolls, Law on the State Electoral Commission, Law on Councilmen). The State Secretary referred to the Law on Associations, the adoption of which has been waiting for nine years now, and he pointed out that adoption of this Law that will soon enter the Parliamentary procedure, is one of the priorities of the Ministry. Other segments of work of the Ministry are work with local self-governments and cooperation with the nongovernmental sector, which should soon become institutionalized by opening a Governmental 17

Office for Cooperation with Civil Society. Milica Delević, Director of the European Integration Office emphasized the importance of citizens’ dialogue for establishment of the European Integration Process consensus. Considering the changed internal and external circumstances of EU, she believes that citizens’ dialogue should be paid much more attention. Given that more than 60 percent of citizens of Serbia think that Serbia should take the path of European Integration, one may say that they experience the European Union as a synonym of prosperity and more stable life. However, over the European Integration Process from the very beginning have been dominating high political topics, which caused many divisions regarding EU Integration of Serbia. The EU Integration Office represented in January 2009 the research conducted in December 2008, which demonstrates a fall of support to EU Integration by 6%. Nevertheless, according to the level of support, Serbia is the third country in the region. The research has shown that citizens of Serbia clearly decide for accession to the European Union when benefits they will get from EU are closer to them. When these benefits are more far away, they do not oppose EU Integration, they simply say that they actually do not know where all of it leads them. Under such circumstances the best policy is to continue informing citizens. “It is important that citizens understand why this process is important and the phases it goes through, which conditions should be met on that pathway, and not only what benefits they will have eventually”, says Ms Delević. The most important message for citizens is that commitment for European Integration essentially follows from conviction that “what we do in the EI Process is something that defends and improves our interests as citizens, and that in the European Integration Process implementation of all laws passed during the process of harmonization of domestic legislation with the European one, leads exactly to realization of interests of citizens of Serbia, and not EU interests”. Also, it is necessary to explain to citizens the conformity of what is necessary to be done in the Integration Process with things that the Government of Serbia should in any case do in order to protect their interests. 18

The European Integration Office, from the very beginning, has been committed to the idea of communication and the process of establishing partnerships with a large number of nongovernmental organizations, i.e. with the entire civil sector. Currently, the Office has partnerships with 88 nongovernmental organizations. Those relations imply concrete cooperation in the processes of education, participation in projects, organization of public meetings, conferences. To a great extent, the Office relies on the civil sector when implementing the Communication Strategy, which is important for the purpose to make citizens understand the Integration Process and feel, in a way, engaged in it. The purpose of the Communication Strategy, adopted by the Office in 2004, is to explain to citizens the meaning of the Stabilization and Association Process, liabilities that we assume out of it, and to try to encourage citizens to meet 19

some personal obligations and change some habits through an active and constructive relation. With reference therewith, Ms Delević highlights that, considering the change of circumstances, it is necessary to change both the message and Communication Strategy. Pierre Dybman, Head of Operations of the European Commission Delegation to the Republic of Serbia, pointed out the commitment of the Delegation to political and operational-project aspect of EU Integration of Serbia. At the EC initiative, once a year are organized meetings in Brussels and Belgrade with representatives of NGOs from the entire region, where one of the key topics is discussion on results of projects financed from IPA funds, and comments on the multi-annual strategic document MIPD (Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document). The European Commission mainly approves action grants to civil society organizations on competitive basis; however, there are other types of grants, too, for projects lasting a year or two. Now that there are two different lines – human rights and civil society – EC is trying to cover different priorities of civil society, so that as many as possible needs could be met. This year, EC will focus on professional associations; the next year, culture, too, will be opened as a new topic. Also, EC deals with technical support on both local and regional levels. In early spring will be conducted evaluation related to implementation of an extensive contract of technical support, which covers all countries of the Western Balkans; there will also be a contracted company with headquarters in Belgrade, which will be in charge of rendering technical support to CSOs, for the purpose of better organization and more successful planning of activities. There are also funds for media because this is a crucial aspect of communication, for it makes possible for a wide circle of people to learn of some successfully carried out activity, which provides both awards and funds. In the neighbourhood cooperation programmes the Commission plays the role of an observer, and it has only partial control. Through technical support, 20

the Ministry of Finance is financing the project by the name of CFCU (Central Finance and Contracting Unit), in the scope of which has been opened an office in each of the five border regions, which will assist in project implementation and conduct monitoring of activities, for the purpose of improvement of everyday life of people who mainly share the same cultural, ethnic and other origins. Through its established projects, EC links some of civil society’s areas of interest, such as: protection of environment, protection of consumers, struggle against corruption. Dybman pointed out that the role of civil society in Serbia will increase with initiation of EU accession negotiations, because success in meeting liabilities also depends on the civil society assessment. He emphasized that the role of NGOs in the period of crisis becomes even more important because at that time also grow problems of the State to cover the budget and continue its activities

for the purpose to meet its indebtedness. It is then that NGOs must step in and render assistance. It is not always the case that parts of the society, which are to the greatest extent pro-Europe oriented, acquire the biggest benefits of EU accession, warned Dybman. Actually, it is farmers who get the most visible and most tangible benefits. It is a paradox but at the same time it is in a way good, too, because on the occasion of next elections they will show a higher level of understanding and will completely change the political belief in the country, while civil society will feel more long-term consequences of EU accession. The Secretary General of the European Movement in Serbia, Maja Bobić, repeated that in the EI Process it is necessary to empower civil society. It is also necessary to find a way to apply the concept of citizens’ dialogue existing in EU in non-member states, in which previously must be established the dialogue between civil society and local and national institutions. She pointed out that communication between EU institutions with NGOs from member states was highly criticized because it is considered that lack of communication resulted in failure of adoption of EU Constitution and the Irish no to the Lisbon Treaty. The level of openness of EU institutions and their readiness to communicate with civil society organizations (CSOs) differ to a great extent. The consultation process with them is not harmonized, which is an additional problem in communication. Since 1990s the 22

European Commission has been trying to improve the dialogue with citizens and with civil society representatives, by defining in its basic documents the main principles of citizens’ dialogue at the European level and standards for consultations. The European Parliament is rather open for both formal and less formal consultations and communication with citizens, while the EU Council, allegedly, is a much more distant institution, communication with which depends on development of civil society in member states. It is interesting that the Lisbon Treaty gives high importance to civil dialogue and defines it as one of general priorities. The European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs has adopted the report on European Communication Policy. In it is specially analyzed civil society development in the context of the Lisbon Treaty, and specified that the Council should be much more open and that better coordination is needed between institutions in the region, that the use of new technologies should be improved and financing of these consultations provided for. However, Western Balkan countries, Serbia included, do not use sufficiently opportunities for communication although there are specific processes and procedures for participation in institutions, such as Economic and Social Council and Committee of the Regions. The latest mechanism for improvement of communication with EU institutions is the EU Platform of European Debate between the European Parliament and civil society of Europe. All these mechanisms refer to EU member states, while Serbia is a country in the accession process. It means that it cannot use mechanisms used by civil society in the European Union. However, the European Commission has established principles for a civil dialogue between EU institutions and candidate countries, defined in 2005, intended for achieving exchange of experiences of civil society of member states and candidate countries, for the purpose to explain and justify the enlargement process, on the one side, and, on the other, to understand the candidate country, its culture, history and thereby to better understand the enlargement possibilities.

However, participation of the Western Balkan civil society in the dialogue at the European level is not sufficiently developed. Regional linking is therefore necessary because defining common priorities and joint performance may have much bigger weight than an individual performance. With reference therewith, the European Movement is a founder of one of regional networks, i.e. Coalition for Regional Cooperation of European Integrations. National, regional and international conferences and discussions organized by the Coalition resulted in transition to a new phase of the stabilization an accession process, emphasizing that civil society should not be considered only as nongovernmental organizations but also as representatives of the academic community, media, professional and business associations, associations of employers, trade unions, associations of local self-governments, which as such should be as soon as possible included in European discussions, forums, networks and platforms. Of Slovenian experience in the scope of European Integration spoke Tina Michieli, Project Manager at the Centre for Information, Cooperation and Development (CNVOS). She emphasized that interest of EI institutions for participation of citizens and civil society in dialogue conducting has grown. The dialogue with EU institutions is open not only for civil society organizations but also for citizens. However, the dialogue established through European networks usually works best. Dialogue practices differ depending on whether it is a dialogue between institutions or a dialogue between policies. The Lisbon Treaty is the first case that includes NGOs and citizens’ participation into an EU treaty. It is also very important that EU institutions are required to take part in an open and standing dialogue with representatives of organizations and with citizens as well. However, the fact is that dialogue practices differ. The European Parliament is rather open for dialogue with both NGOs and citizens and, besides the existing dialogue mechanisms, it has initiated some further opportunities for citizens’ participation: local events bringing together members of the European Parliament, NGOs and citizens for the purpose of 24

discussing EU issues at the local level, meetings with Parliamentary Councils. There is also an informal approach through internal groups that are not a part of the official structure of the European Parliament but informal gatherings of different members of the European Parliament who work on resolution of specific issues; then there are also petitions, which are an important mechanism for correspondence of citizens and organizations with members of the Parliament. The next institution whose work is maybe best known to NGOs is the European Commission, giving that communication with this institution precisely is the most active. The European Commission finances the majority of projects implemented by CSOs, therefore civil society is best acquainted with the work of this institution and has the most active dialogue with it. Also, all Directorates General (DGs) hold regular meetings with civil society representatives or in some other way establish communication with civil society. The most important means that may be used by CSOs are consultations. In the Register of Interest Representatives may be entered NGOs that wish to establish communication with the Commission, and they may do it through conferences as well. EC Delegations have a rather pro-active approach and very often forward important information to NGOs. Membership in one of the European NGO networks is important in order to obtain true information on the most important political initiatives, how to have a more successful access to European funds, how to advocate, but also for the purpose of exchanging experiences with other NGOs from member states. The EU Council is an institution closest to realization of any official communication with citizens or NGOs. Within the Council there are boards and working groups, but for NGOs it is also important to establish a dialogue at the state level with ministers of member states gathering in Brussels. All projects conducted by CNVOS were implemented through partnership between the European Commission and the Government of Slovenia. This partnership is focused on communication with EU with reference to projects that 25

the Government implements in the country. After Germany, Slovenia is the second EU country in which this kind of partnership exists. It is not sufficient to only open channels of communication, believes Tina Michieli; capacity building of NGOs must be financed, too, so that they could use the existing channels. Institutions must have a pro-active approach: “It is not sufficient to only set a website and expect the funds for achievement of potential to come by themselves, it is necessary to really support capacity building of NGOs, it is necessary to send invitations and communicate with NGOs.” She highlighted the importance of exchange of good practice examples, in order to acquire the knowledge of what works well and what does not. This aspect of exchange is the most active and the most effective within different NGO networks, which are the most successful in their communication with institutions. See power point presentation of Tina Michieli

CNVOS Centre for information service, co-operation and development of NGOs Tina Michieli, Project Manager Belgrade, 3 March 2009

••• DIALOGUE with EU institutions Growth in interest from the European institutions in the participation of citizens and civil society Who participates: citizens, CSOs, European networks (CEDAG, ECAS, CSCG, Social Platform…) Practice of dialogue differs: between institutions, between policies

••• Lisbon Treaty The European institutions are required to engage in an “open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society” • Organisations must have the “opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views”

• The institutions will carry out “broad consultations…in order to ensure that the Union’s actions are coherent and transparent” • the Citizens’ Initiative of 1 million signatures from a significant number of countries

••• European Parliament • Meetings with parliamentary committees • Intergroups (Health and Consumer Protection intergroup – EPHA, European Consumer Office – BEUC etc.) • Petitions: the right of every citizen or group / organisation • Correspondence with citizens • AGORA (November 2007 on the new constitution; June 2008 on climate change) • Citizen’s forum (since 2005: local events with MEPs, NGOs, citizens...)

••• CNVOS: EP • Project »European Parliament and NGOs – strengthening the dialogue« (2007, DG Information) • European elections 2009: Citizen’s forums across Slovenia (9 local events with MEPs, NGOs, citizens)

European Commission • Meetings with DGs • Consultations • Register of interest representatives • Events: Conferences • Projects: Europe for Citizens… • Plan D (DG Communication): Debate Europe, Civil society initiatives (European Citizens Consultations, Speak up Europe…)

••• CNVOS: European Commission EC Representation in Slovenia European Networks • CEDAG - Council of non-profit organisations • ECF – European Civic Forum • ECAS – Europan Citizen Action Service • CSCG - Civil Society Contact Group • Social Platform • CEECN – Central and Eastern European Citizens Network

Projects ...

••• CNVOS: European Projects • Plan D projects: European Citizens Consultations (2007 in 27 Member States); Our Europe, Our Contribution, Our Debate (2007 in 5 countries: Hungary, Austria, Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia) • Europe for citizens programme: Let’s talk about inter-cultural dialogue (2007-2008) • Promotion of Active European Citizenship programme: NGOs playing active role for European citizenship (2006-2007); Slovene NGOs becoming members of EU networks and active players in EU arena (2005-2006) • CARDS: Partnership in Action – Strengthening Balkan Civil Society Development Network (2006-2007)

••• EU Council • Ministers on national level • Committees and working groups: Social Protection Committee, Council Working Group on Human Rights… • EU Presidencies

CNVOS: Slovenian EU Presidency • Projects within Management partnership between EC and Slovenian Government (Government Communication Office) • EU Council Briefings/Debriefings: exchange of opinions between civil society and government • NGO “EU Presidency” web portal: www.predsedovanje.si • Conference “Strengthening Civil Society in European Neighbourhood” – in cooperation with ECAS and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2 April 2008, Brdo)

••• Thank you for your attention!

••• Contact: tina@cnvos.si info@cnvos.si

Pavol Demeš, Director of Transatlantic Centre for Central and Southeast Europe, spoke of conditions in EU in the past 20 years – of changes that occurred and of their impact on EU, but also on candidate countries and nonmember countries. He also spoke of key points of each country in the European Integration Process, of the most important areas in which communication between NGOs and EU institutions is realized. Situation in which Serbia is today diﬀers from the one when Slovakia was accessing the European Union. What has changed, in the ﬁrst place, is that EU itself is not so excited any more about including new member states. Firstly, within EU have occurred problems related to the management structure, given the fact that the attempt to pass the EU Constitution failed. It is evident that EU

needs new energy for further enlargement. Secondly, in the meantime happened September 11, when America that was strongly for enlargement, found out its vulnerability; then there is this war against terrorism invented by George Bush, which Obama is now trying to correct, as well as the picture of American democracy. During the first decade, both America and the European Union were strong, without crises, so that the pathway was easy – there was unity, clear situation, which do not exist today. In the meantime, Russia also entered the scene, and Russia changes the rules of the game. The economic crisis, which swept the whole world, including USA and EU, should also be taken into account. Regarding communication between NGOs and EU institutions, Demeš singled out five key issues: Citizens and NGOs are of crucial importance and without them EU association is impossible, because the EU accession process is very complex and contains changes on both political and psychological levels. It is necessary to establish partnership between the public and private sectors, so that everyone understands and realizes their different roles, whereby the Government and NGOs should not subvert each other. There will be no success of projects and programmes in the European Integration Process if certain political, economic and social reforms within our country are not implemented. This item refers to singularity and generality. Each country is singular; however, in packages this conditions further movement towards association, it is stipulated that chapters are the same for all, therefore in meeting requirements should be found an adequate balance between the singularity and generality. You have to be wise in communicating this balance within the country and with people in EU. One also has to understand that changes to be made are beneficial for us and not for the European Union. 33

Demeš also specified five areas in which the role of NGOs is particularly important. In the first place, it is necessary to bear in mind that NGOs, apart from organizations dealing with lobbying and advocacy, also include other different (university, cultural) associations, which may be of exceptional importance for informing the public, education of citizens on EU and the accession process, but also for monitoring the activities of the Government and EU institutions. Secondly, it is important to reach consensus within society on EU issues. The European Union is a huge territory within which it is necessary to carry out different adaptations, changes: then it is also necessary to implement chapters of laws, National Convention initiated by EMinS, which is a unique model that works perfectly because it contains different ideas that allow everyone to feel responsible and in a way entrusted with its implementation. Thirdly, it is necessary to understand the importance of communication with EU member states, i.e. to establish a dialogue with embassies, delegations, commissions, parliaments of member states, because they may assist in EU Integration issues and in possible project financing. Fourthly, cooperation with neighbouring countries and other EU membership candidate countries. Up to now, it has always been a “group exercise”, i.e. it has not occurred that only one country is invited and accepted for membership. Although it may not be excluded as a possibility, it is always better to think within the group framework, and if there are areas for negotiation with your neighbours it may provide you an extra bonus. The fifth and key issue is, as seen by Pavol Demeš, the unique contribution of NGOs to keeping up the hope of citizens that EU membership will occur sooner or later, but that the process is underway and that one should work hard on that pathway. “Representatives of commissions, delegations, parliaments etc. are in the first place occupied by technical issues and different conditionings. The 34

unique contribution by NGOs consists of their capability to repeatedly remind citizens of facts related to what has been achieved in the course of the past twenty years; they point to the spirit of freedom and faith in one another, to the spirit of solidarity and cooperation. This unique contribution precisely should be kept in mind by NGOs; they should not get lost in the bureaucratic machinery as well”, said Demeš. After presentations started the discussion, in the course of which participants had the opportunity to pose questions, to make their comments and give their opinions. They discussed the importance of implementation of adopted laws in the EU association process; of tiredness of EU regarding further enlargement, which must not be taken in Serbia as an excuse for insufficient use of already existing communication channels with EI institutions and with institutions of its individual members; of indispensable increase in interest of EU for the importance and role of civil society in the Western Balkans, and of EU responsibility for the speed of European Integration of these countries. One of questions was, who guarantees that new laws, harmonized with EU laws, will be implemented at all, given that we already face lack of implementation of the present legislation. Pavol Demeš pointed out that, considering good relations between civil society and the European Integration Office, improvement in that area can be made by regular pressure and by pointing to inconsistencies through different nongovernmental organizations and associations, but also through individuals “who have direct access to decision-making bodies in the country and in EU institutions”. Duško Radaković thinks that implementation of laws is not responsibility of State bodies only but of all of us: “We as citizens must raise awareness that laws should be implemented. You should help us, who are working in some State bodies, to initiate its functioning.” At the remark that interest of the European Union for civil society in our country is reduced to occasional consultations, Maja Bobić answered that every criticism is well said and that consultations conducted by delegations are more 35

like some kind of information on already done programme, and she concluded: “First we have to win partnership relations on the local terrain, and to work in parallel on the European one.” Here are some interesting questions by the audience: Do we give too much abolition to EU from the role in this partnership relation in the European Integration Process? Interest of EU for civil society should not be reduced to financing only, it should not be our primary donor but first of all a partner that will not base its cooperation with CSOs on occasional consultations only. Maja Bobić: The consultation process of Western Balkan civil society from the side of European institutions is exceptionally bad, at a low level, non-existing. Consultation allegedly conducted regularly by delegations are more a kind of informing: for instance, regarding “Civil Society Facility”, the regional programme intended for civil society of the Western Balkans, I know for sure that many nongovernmental organizations and CSO representatives had many questions and comments on how this instrument of support to civil society was imagined, but on principle, we remained without an answer and eventually everything stayed as it was designed at the beginning. Therefore every criticism is well said, I think that we first have to win partnership relations on the local terrain, and to work in parallel on the European one. Universities in Serbia function exactly on the basis of a citizen, i.e. us individuals who are engaged, who cooperate with both governmental an nongovernmental sectors. However, you will never find a university as an organized community that takes part in the EI Process. We at the Faculty of Political Sciences have an impression that we have monopolized the sector of the Integration in Serbia, which may be true; however, on the other hand, it proves that my colleagues from other faculties have no interest in assisting or in working in this segment, therefore I would like to hear of experiences from Slovenia and Slovakia on the matter. 36

Pavol DemeĹĄ: Regarding our experience, vice-chancellor oďŹ&#x192;ces were a group that we wished to include and that we asked to appoint one person to represent all of them, which could be of great beneďŹ t sometimes. However, in the majority of cases, we have individuals like you, who are trying to create a kind of a union among universities, but it never works, nor has ever worked in any country.

List of Participants in the Conference NAME AND SURNAME

ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION

CITY

Miljenko Dereta

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Duško Radaković

Ministry of State Administration and Local SelfBelgrade Government

Milica Delević

European Integration Office

Belgrade

Pierre Dybman

EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia

Belgrade

Maja Bobić

European Movement in Serbia

Belgrade

Tina Michieli Pavol Demeš 1 Vujadin Marinković 2 Ilija Stojanović

CNVOS – Centre for Information, Cooperation and Development of NGOs The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Centre for Central and Southeast Europe GO Voždovac, Coordinator for National Minorities

Ljubljana Bratislava Belgrade

NGO Novi svet (New World)

Belgrade

3 Katarina M. Ristić

Faculty of Political Sciences

Belgrade

4 Ivana Milošević

The People’s Office of the President of the Republic of Serbia

Belgrade

5 Marija Joksimović

Ministry of Education

Belgrade

European Integration Office

Belgrade

7 Sveta Mandić

Green Youth of Serbia

Belgrade

8 Nikola Naumovski

Ministry of Justice

Belgrade

9 Jelena Nastić

EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia

Belgrade

Embassy of Sweden / Sida

Belgrade

Milica Marković Tomić

10 Svetlana Baščarević

11 Žarko Marković

Belgrade Centre for Human Rights

Belgrade

12 Tanja Bjelanović

BCIF

Belgrade

13 Suzana Blesić

YUCOM

Belgrade

Mira 14 Konstantinovska

Municipality Assembly of Savski venac

Belgrade

15 Ivana Urošević

General Secretariat of the Government

Belgrade

16 Srđan Đurović

Open Society Fund

Belgrade

17 Ljiljana T. Gavrilov

Zajedno zajedno (Together Together)

Belgrade

18 Vasiljković Sofka

Union of Roma Associations of Western Serbia

Šabac

19 Silva Mišljanović

Ministry of Education

Belgrade

20 Marija Stojić

Fund for Development of Sports and Olympism Belgrade

21 Snežana Milojković

Fund for Development of Sports and Olympism Belgrade

22 Jadranka Novak

Association for Promotion of Inclusion of Serbia Belgrade

23 Snežana Milčić

Zajedno zajedno

Belgrade

24 Lazić Dragica

Ombudsman

Belgrade

25 Nebojša Marjanović

Pannonia interkultura

Belgrade

26 Biserka Marković

GO Surčin

Belgrade

27 Jelena Bogojević

Ministry of Education

Belgrade

28 Danijela Vuković

Ministry of Education

Belgrade

29 Dragana Aleksandrć European Movement in Serbia

Belgrade

30 Danijela Đurović

UNDP – UN Programme for Development

Belgrade

31 Suzana Popović

ABC Centre Vranje

Belgrade

32 Radovan Borović

Free Europe

Belgrade

33 Miladin Decanović

Forum for Vlach’s Culture

Bor

Aleksandar 34 Bogdanović

CRID

Belgrade

35 Anica Spasov

„Naša kuća” (Our Home)

Belgrade

36 Irina Ljubić

BCIF

Belgrade

37 Zoran Vojvodić

Creative Innovations

Belgrade

38 Rade Nikolić

ABCD – Belgrade

Belgrade

39 Miodrag Račeta

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

40 Farkaš Ištvan

NGO Majčina kolevka (Mother’s Cradle)

Novi Sad

41 Zoran Kostić

Roma informatika

Belgrade

42 Branko Komadina

Dištrikt 0230

Kikinda

Ukrštanje (Interweaving)

Novi Sad

44 Jelena Milovanović

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

45 Suzana Ponjavić

Friends of Children of New Belgrade

New Belgrade

46 Vladimir Paunović

NGO Milenijum (Millennium)

Kragujevac

47 Tanja Miščević

Faculty of Political Sciences

Belgrade

48 Ivan Vejvoda

Balkan Fund for Democracy G.M.F.

Belgrade

49 Mirjana Pušin

Novi Sad School for Journalists

Novi Sad

50 Marko Savković

Centre for Civil and Military Relations

Belgrade

51 Zorana Atanasović

Centre for Civil and Military Relations

Belgrade

52 Miloš Hinić

Centre for Social Activism of Serbia

Belgrade

53 Olivera Hinić

Centre for Social Activism of Serbia

Belgrade

54 Morača Tijana

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

55 Marko Stojanović

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

56 Nada Đuričković

Roma Women’s Organization DAE

Belgrade

57 Majda Sikošek

Citizen’s Association Felicitas

Belgrade

Melanija Kološnjai Nenin

58 Goran Forbici

CNVOS – Centre for Information, Cooperation and Development of NGOs

Ljubljana

59 Stana Glomazić

Women’s Forum ASNS

Belgrade

60 Mirsada Agović

Women’s Forum ASNS

Belgrade

61 Suzana Jovanović

Open Society Fund

Belgrade

62 Mirjana Šakić

Erste Bank EU Office

Belgrade

63 Vladimir M. Pavlović BOŠ

Belgrade

64 Jasmina Vermezović Tanjug

Belgrade

65 Ana Jakovljević

BETA

Belgrade

66 Tatjana Indić

FONET

Belgrade

67 Darko Cvetanović

FONET

Belgrade

68 Lidija Valtner

Danas (Today)

Belgrade

On behalf of Civic Initiatives: 1. Dubravka Velat

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

2. Ivana Gliksman

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

3. Dejana Mitev

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

4. Branislav Lovrenski

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

5. Bojana Jevtović

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Public Discussion in Kruševac, 26 March 2009

PROGRAMME

10:30–11:00 11:00–11:15 11:15–11:30

11:30–11:50 11:50–12:10

12:10–12:30 12:30–13:30 14:00

Registration Address of welcome: Miroljub Ćosić, Assistant Mayor of Kruševac Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives – Presentation of the Project “CIDEC – Citizen’s Dialogue for European Consensus Tanja Miščević, Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade – Why Is the Dialogue of Citizens of Serbia with EU Necessary? Jelena Stevanov, European Integration Oﬃce of the Government of the Republic of Serbia – Development of the European Integration Process, Communication on European Integration of Serbia and the Role of Civil Society Organizations Vojislav Milošević, European Movement in Serbia – Linking Sectors in the European Integration Process Discussion Lunch

Report on the Event The public discussion by the name of “Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions” took place in Kruševac, in the edifice of the City Administration, on 26 March. The discussion organized by Civic Initiatives in cooperation with Citizens’ Association Evrokontakt (Euro Contact) from Kruševac was attended by more than 80 representatives of the local selfgovernment, civil society, Network for Rural Development and media. Participants in the discussion were first addressed by the President of the Management Board of the Citizens’ Association for Support to European Integration, Nenad Krstić. He briefly spoke about the Association, thanked the City of Kruševac for support and assistance in organizing this gathering, and presented guests who were speaking at the discussion. On behalf of the City Administration, the audience was welcomed by the Assistant Mayor, Miroljub Ćosić. He mentioned that the City of Kruševac has an exceptionally good cooperation with the nongovernmental sector and that in the City budget there are considerable funds anticipated for its development. On the basis of contacts with representatives of different EU institutions, implementation of a few important projects has started in the City itself, while in the next period will be implemented a few projects for which funds have been provided from IPA funds. He also emphasized that the gathering, i.e. exceptional attendance at the gathering, proves how much citizens are committed to EU ideas and extended cooperation on the pathway to EU membership. The Executive Director of Civic Initiatives, Miljenko Dereta, briefly presented the project CIDEC – its aims and all that has been done so far. He transferred to the audience experiences of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the EU candidate country – Croatia, who were guests at the three conferences in Belgrade. Moreover, he said that, although support to European Integration has been in a decline for different reasons, the number of audience 45

at the gathering in Kruševac proves the opposite. It is very encouraging, particularly for representatives of civil society, who have been persistently trying to point to the fact that approaching EU and communication with its institutions is the only development pathway of Serbia. By transferring experiences of other countries we shall avoid mistakes that they made in the EI Process, and by using their direct methods, we shall accelerate that process and help citizens to get properly informed what EI Process actually brings along, how they may directly participate in it, get ownership over it and not understand it as exclusive responsibility of the Government and its institutions. Tanja Miščević, Professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, spoke about the need for establishing a dialogue of citizens with EU institutions, reasons for introducing civil society into the European Integration Process, the role that civil society had in creation, preserving and realizing the idea of European Integration of Serbia and achievement of European values. In the EI Process should be considered the role of each and every citizen individually, and

that role also refers to personal responsibility for realization of the Process. Regarding citizens’ dialogue, it is important to firstly explain why such a dialogue is necessary, if one takes into account that EI is, so to say, a technical process that to the greatest possible extent requires harmonization of laws and regulations. Civil society that is being introduced into the European Integration story is, in the first place, organized and it does not refer only to NGOs but also to all organized groups of citizens, universities, associations of employers, chambers of commerce. One of experiences of to date movement towards EU proves that not only nongovernmental organizations but also those who are specialized in individual domains (cooperation with employees, with employers or improvement of general economic development or research and development) play a very important role in the development of European Integration. In the citizens’ dialogue the most important is exchange of information; dialogue without good information is not a dialogue. Also, another important experience mentioned at the conferences, is monitoring, which is at a higher level than informing. So, it is indispensable to have enough information in order to be able to point them to the Government and to give recommendations for its method of work and the work of its institutions. The European Integration Process, said Ms Miščević, encompasses the process of transition and changes while moving towards EU membership. Accordingly, membership is the final goal, however, it is not only the desire that leads to membership but also the results achieved. Results are changes in legal, political and economic systems carried out after the European Union model, in which standard is what exists in the European Union, not because it is ideal but because there is no counterpart to it, there is no other model offered. The EU model provides life in a country in which main postulates are the rule of law, market economy and protection of human rights, particularly minority rights. The EI Process is doubtlessly responsibility of the Government and Parliament, i.e. political elite, and members of opposition parties cannot be free of it either. The Integration Process cannot be successful if not supported by all, i.e. if 47

there is no political consensus. There is no real political consensus in Serbia and actually it is one of the reasons why so often there are discussions with civil society – the purpose is to accelerate creation of general political consensus. Civil society has proven so far to be absolutely capable of being one of implementers of the Process. The European Integration idea emerged in 1990s and survived in Serbia owing to civil society organizations exactly. The idea was taken over by the Government in this country only after 2000. The second important role of civil society is in the process of democratization; there is no democratization, no change without being initiated or even accelerated by civil society. In countries that in 1989 emerged from a totally diﬀerent system in which there was no democracy, civil society, generally speaking, was much faster in strengthening the ideas of democracy and rule of law, as well as inﬂuence on the Government to create conditions for democratization. She especially highlighted: “The only good thing when you are the last one is that you can learn on experiences of others”, i.e. positive and negative experience of other countries, both during their EU approach and when they became member states. Serbia should make use of experiences of Central and East European countries, experiences of Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and particularly Slovenia, given that it originates from the same legal system. It is also necessary to monitor what is going on in the region. Because the region has already started 48

to accept and apply those experiences. Absolutely, the closest to us is Croatian experience in cooperation with civil society, institution building and establishment of foundations that assist arrangement of the civil society position. Civil society may have an impact on the European Integration Process in three ways, i.e. with three partners. First of all, to organize among itself, to cooperate and coordinate in diďŹ&#x20AC;erent activities, actions, projects, even in the dialogue with the State and with European Union institutions. The best method to achieve it is to create coalitions and civic platforms. It does not mean creation of one big nongovernmental organization but harmonization of mutual work of a larger number of organizations, which has so far proven to be a huge problem of CSOs in the dialogue on European Integration, both with the State and European Union institutions. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Only when they are mutually empowered, harmonized in their activities, their voice is also stronger, i.e. they can be heard better, particularly when it refers to local and regional nongovernmental organizations. Only then the State, local and regional institutions have an ear for what a group of civil society organizations is speaking of.â&#x20AC;? The second method of impact is cooperation with the State. The State of Serbia cooperates very well with nongovernmental organizations. In favour of this is speaking the existence of Memorandum of Cooperation signed by a large number of NGOs with individual ministries and governmental bodies. However, these are solitary examples. Memorandum should be signed with the Government as such, so that consistency and coherency, i.e. binding of impact would be 49

much bigger. In that sense, joint activities and programmes and exchange of information are of key importance, in order to be able to act in the proper manner. Participation of civil society in formal steps, i.e. in negotiations on conclusion of the Stabilization and Association Agreement was the first attempt to include it in the EI Process. Serbia was the first country that included in negotiations on stabilization and association the Chamber of Commerce as well. Nevertheless, this is not enough, it is necessary to include the entire civil society that will transfer its expertise in different fields. Civil society and its organizations adapted much faster to new needs and conditions than State institutions, therefore there is specific expertise in civil society that does not exist in State institutions. Conducting a dialogue with EU institutions is another method of impact of civil society. This dialogue consists of two segments. The first one is financial and it refers to means, EU funds that CSOs may obtain for implementation of their programmes and projects. It is very important to observe EU not only as a financier but to bear in mind its much more important function – it should actually strengthen the position of civil society, it should point to the importance and place of CSOs in the entire society. Regarding financial assistance, CSOs cannot directly use funds from the national instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA); they may use them through the relevant ministry, by getting included in different programmes and projects, for instance, cross-border cooperation programmes with NGOs and local self-governments of EU member states. Also, there are special funds intended exclusively for NGOs, such as EIF. As CSO partners in the dialogue with EU are appearing members of its institutions. The European Parliament, through different boards and forums may get included in the so-called Agora, which a forum for discussions with civil society. It is much more difficult to conduct a dialogue with members of the Council of Ministers and European Commission. See power point presentation of Tanja Miščević

Why is the Dialogue of Citizens of Serbia with EU Necessary? Tanja Miščević FPN, Belgrade

Kruševac, 26.3.2009

••• Explaining the Title! • Civil society • Citizens of Serbia organized in NGOs, trade unions, universities, chambers of commerce, associations of employers… • Possible impact of individuals • Dialogue • Exchange of information, attitudes and values • What should civil society communicate with EU about? • European Integration Process = transition, reform

••• Why Do We Introduce Civil Society into the European Integration Process in Serbia? • European Integration Process is a process of transition, by following the EU model that leads to changes in legal, political and economic systems, and as a final outcome leads to EU membership • It is doubtlessly responsibility of the political elite • Government of Serbia, in the first place • Technical liabilities and formal steps

• Responsibility of position and opposition in the Parliament • Harmonization and political consensus

• However, the process may be successful only if supported by all

••• • In the course of 1990s, civil society of Serbia was “safeguarding” the idea of the European Integration • Civil society is always the promoter of democratization – European values • There are no reforms, particularly as comprehensive as the ones during the European Integration Process, that can be implemented by the State without civil society being for them • Or trying to speed them up...

••• Are We “inventing hot water” Again? • The only good thing when you are the last in a row is that you can learn from experiences fo others! • Both positive and negative • Experiences of countries of Central and Eastern Europe – Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia... • During their approaching EU • Membership experiences • Experiences of other countries of the Western Balkans • Croatia in the first place

••• How Does Civil Society Have an Impact on European Integration? • Through mutual cooperation • Agreeing on priorities • Civic platforms • Coalitions – particularly for projects • Through dialogue and cooperation with the State • Information and joint campaigns

• Participation in formal steps • Monitoring SAA implementation

• Participation in legislative initiatives • Civil society knowledge

• Participation in negotiations • Proven as incredibly important

• Through dialogue and cooperation with EU • Financial assistance • Partnership

••• Financial Assistance by EU • Important position of the donor assisting civil society activities • It would be wrong to consider it “the main financier”! • How to acquire funds • National IPA – through ministries • CBC – directly but in partnership • Special funds for NGOs • EIF • Special mechanism for civil society - new

•••

EU as a Civil Society Partner Giving support and more important position in the country • Dialogue is realized through EU bodies • European Commission • Exchange of information and consultations

• European Parliament • Discussion with Committees

• Council of Ministers – chairman • Impact on member states (bilateral)

• Ecosoc • Prepares reports on the position of civil society

• Most directly – EC Delegation • Should it be the main contact?!

••• What Else Experiences Say? • The most successful countries in the European Integration Process had the strongest consensus – political and national • The best organization for Integration also presupposed large participation of civil society – example of Slovenia or Poland • All negotiations conducted after consultations with civil society • Shall we learn from these experiences?

Representative of the European Integration Office, Jelena Stevanov, reminded of exceptional cooperation between the European Integration Office and CSOs formalized by signing the Memorandum of Cooperation in the European Integration Process. “The European Integration Office is a body that coordinates the entire European Integration Process and it is absolutely aware of the fact that citizens are owners of the European Integration Process. In conformity with it was adopted a mechanism, in order to directly bring the Process closer to citizens. In direct encounters, as this one today, representatives of the Office talk with citizens and create a kind of a dialogue related to the European Integration Process.” She also spoke of the European Integration Process development – of main definitions of the Process itself, background of creation of the Integration idea in Europe, background of EU development, enlargement and future. Ms Stevanov reminded that SFRY used to have relations with the then European Community, which was a precedent at the time, given that the European Community signed a document with a socialist country. When in 1980 was signed an agreement of cooperation between SFRY and the European Community, SFRY had a better position and was closer to the European Community than the associated countries of the former socialist system had in 1990s. However, due to the conflict in the former SFRY territory, relations abruptly deteriorated. After the Dayton Treaty was signed in 1995, EU introduced a regional approach towards Western Balkan countries. It is indispensable to make difference between regional approach and stabilization and association process. The essential difference is in a very important component: regional approach then did not explicitly guarantee to Western Balkan countries membership in the European Union. It will be done only after introduction of the Process, i.e. Stabilization and Association Agreement, formulated in 1999. Countries encompassed by the stabilization and association process are former SFRY republics, minus Slovenia, plus Albania. Ms Stevanov paid special attention to the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) – phases of its development, region it refers to, conditions that 56

have to be met in order to terminate the Process, Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), as an agreement whose signing leads to establishment of the ďŹ rst contractual relation of a country with EU, and to further steps of Serbia into SAP. The process itself is very complex. It encompasses several phases that end by signing the Agreement on Accession to the European Union. First of all the Stabilization and Association Process contains the preparatory phase for signing the Agreement, whereupon the country obtains a feasibility study, negotiations start on conclusion of the Agreement, and eventually come signing and implementation of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, by means of which the country becomes an associated country of the European Union. This is followed by the membership candidature phase, negotiations on full membership and signing of the EU Membership Agreement. 57

The purpose of the Stabilization and Association Process is, in the first place, stabilization of the region through an EU membership guarantee to countries, which is actually an incentive for a country to conduct reforms; and then stimulation of regional cooperation and creation of political and economic conditions that will enable these countries to take over liabilities deriving from membership. The aim of reforms that are implemented is to enable the country both economically and politically to be a member of the European Union. All countries included in SAP are assisted by instruments and programmes envisaged by the European Union: commercial measures, CARDS Programme replaced by IPA, programmes like TWINNING and TAEIX, then the Stabilization and Association Agreement itself. Besides Copenhagen criteria, which encompass specific economic criteria, democracy, the rule of law, for Western Balkan countries have also been introduced political criteria which primarily refer to requirements for cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. For that purpose, in 2001 were formed first consultative working groups consisting of representatives of EU and the Government of Serbia, whose task was to work on giving recommendations to the country how to harmonize with the European Union standards. It was the first step that Serbia made in the Stabilization and Association Process. However, another political problem emerged in 2002-2003 – redefinition of relations between Serbia and Montenegro. After formulation of the State Union in Belgrade, the European Union asked what partner it has on the other side. There was no unique economic system, unique customs union or customs tariffs. Then, in order to achieve a faster harmonization of economic system of Serbia and Montenegro and relation with the European Union, a special system was introduced – an advanced standing dialogue, the aim of which was to harmonize relations and accelerate negotiations with EU. Thereupon, the European Union applied the so-called double-track approach, which actually implied that with Serbia and Montenegro, i.e. with the State Union, should be signed one Stabilization and Association Agreement with two Annexes – one will refer to Serbia, the other one to Montenegro. Thus the problem was overcome. Due to political problems and lack of cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, nego58

tiations were suspended in May 2006, so that for a year Serbia actually did not conduct negotiations with EU. They were resumed only after the Government was formed, i.e. in June 2007. Given the fact that administrative and technical capacities already existed, technical negotiations were completed in September 2007, and the Stabilization and Association Agreement was signed on 29 April 2008. Ratification of the Agreement in the Parliament of Serbia followed in September 2008. However, it is necessary that the other party, i.e. EU, also ratifies the Agreement. Since all of 27 member states must ratify this Agreement in their Parliaments, which is a long process lasting for two years approximately, into force entered the so-called Transitional Agreement. The problem for Serbia regarding the Transitional Agreement is that the Netherlands are denying to give consent for its effectiveness. The Stabilization and Association Agreement itself is a contractual instrument for Western Balkan countries. It has several parts – it implies elements of political cooperation and regional cooperation, creation of a free-trade zone, adoption of the economic Aquis also presupposes free movement of goods, free movement of workers, cooperation in the domain of judiciary, internal affairs, finances. In the next period Serbia is facing, in the first place, submission of application for candidature. This application should be considered by the EU Advisory Commission, after which Serbia will be furnished a questionnaire whose aim is to get a review of the state of affairs in the country. After filling out the questionnaire, which contains some 4,000 questions, and sending it back with answers, the European Union, i.e. Commission should officially accept the candidature of Serbia for EU membership. Thereupon start negotiations on Accession Agreement and the pathway to EU terminates by signing the Agreement. See power point presentations of Jelena Stevanov

Development of the European Integration Process SEIO

••• I. Main Definitions of the European Integration Process • Unlike a typical international organization (forums for negotiations, bodies consisting of member states, non-binding decisions - recommendations) there emerges supranationality • Supranational/supragovernmental • Authorities above authorities of a national state • This type of organization has more legislative competences towards states • Its right is directly applicable • Decisions are made by bodies consisting not only of representatives of states

••• Supranationality Necessary for Integration! • Integration is an aspect of association of countries which implies transfer of significant competences to the organization • Precisely defines what is being transferred and what are competences of the organization afterwards

• Features of the first EU column • Second and third columns – interstate cooperation • The entire process is called the Integration Process

••• What Is EU? • International organization • None has such bodies nor decisions binding to that extent • Federation: • Has features but not all – it has no power, and obligations are obligations because of the legal mechanism • Something third • Sui generis creation

••• How Does Such a New, Specific Creation Emerge? I. Vision of Integration Idea in Europe • Pierre Dybmann (14th century) • Achieving peace as the key factor until World War I • Since World War I economic reasons • The idea was at a standstill between the two wars

••• USA Impact on the Integration Process • permanent invitations to allies to integrate • assistance to free people against subordination – Truman’s Doctrine (1947) • Marshall’s Plan (1947) - financial (and political) assistance to Europe under two conditions: • that European countries, too, participate in financing • that they reach a mutual agreement on projects

••• Creation of Three Communities - ECSC • The Schuman Declaration (1950) – functional integration • Idea to put under a joint, supranational control production of coal and steel (Monnet) • Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) – aiming at creation of joint market of coal and steel by abolishing all trade restrictions for 50 years • Founders – Germany, France, Italy, Benelux • UK – does not want membership in a supranational organization, the only one having a rounded up production

••• Creation of Three Communities– EEC and EAEC • Success of ECSC “overflows” to other fields • Suggested creation of two new communities: for general economy and for atomic energy • Treaty of Rome (1957) – establishing European Economic Community and Euratom • EEC aim: common market • Euratom aim – contribution to development of European nuclear industry, reduction of research costs and ensuring supply of nuclear fuel • Weaker supranational elements with Euratom and EEC – central place of Council of Ministers

••• EC Enlargements • Negotiations with UK, Denmark, Ireland and Norway successfully terminated in 1973 – Norway declined membership on the referendum • Second enlargement – 1981: Greece • Third enlargement – 1986: Spain and Portugal

••• Single European Act • The first major amendment of the Treaty establishing EEC – in order to include all informal amendments • Signed in early 1986, entered into force in 1987 • Crucial – plan to complete the internal market by 1992 • Institutionalization of amendments: • European Council • New policies (environmental, structural...) • European political cooperation • European monetary system • Strengthening the role of EP in legislative process: • Introduced qualified majority • Cooperation procedure between the Council and Parliament

••• Treaty of Maastricht • Signed in 1992 – entered into force in 1993 • New concept – EU based on three pillars • Economic and monetary union – deepening the internal market

• Right to citizenship • New fields of common policies • Common foreign and security policy • Police and judicial cooperation

••• Treaty of Amsterdam – 1997 • Revision for the purpose of institutional reform and adaptation to deepen Integration and EU enlargement • 1995 – Union of the 15 – Austria, Sweden and Finland • All CEE countries signed Agreements of Association • Precisely in those fields the Treaty did not bring any important advancement – except for the procedure of co-decision making, which empowers the role of EP • Consolidation and re-numeration of the treaties establishing European Communities

••• Novelties brought by Amsterdam • Second pillar • Introduced common strategies as decisions • Stronger cooperation between EU/WEU

• High representative for CFSP • Department for political planning and warning • Opportunity for enhanced cooperation in CFSP • Third pillar • Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters • Area of freedom, security and justice • Schengen included in the 1st pillar - integration

••• Treaty of Nice – 2001 • Answering two questions: deepening of Integration (issues not solved by Amsterdam) and enlargement of membership (CEE) • Commission changes the number of members – one representative by 2005, and then election – strengthened the role of EC President • Double weighting of votes in the Council • Enlarged voting QMV (31 new fields) • Number of members of EP (732) and stronger role • Widened the area of “enhanced cooperation” • Entered into force in 2003 – currently valid Treaty

Convention on the Future of EU • Declaration on the future of EU with the Treaty of Nice – new IGC by 2004 • Necessary also because of the fifth membership enlargement in 2004 (10 countries) and in 2007 (two) – challenges! • In 2002 formed the Convention (representatives of member states, Parliament and EU bodies) – proposal for the Union reforms and proposal for the Treaty establishing the EU Constitution – adopted in December 2004 • Problem with entering into force: • Referendum in France and the Netherlands – delay in UK • Consequences of non-entering into force

••• Key Novelties Brought by the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for EU • EU a legal personality • Opportunity of withdrawal from membership • President of the Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs • Institutional adaptations to enlargement • Precise division of competences between the Union and member states • Flexibility

Reform Treaty • After failure of ratification of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for EU • Signed in October 2007 and ratification process currently underway • Entry into force on 1.1.2009. • What does it say on enlargement? • Takes over novelties from the Constitution, however has a different name! • Compromise between the ones for deeper integration and its opponents • Does not create a super state, but also does not say much of its future – Group of the Wise

••• Former Relations SFRY/FRY/SCG – EC/EU • 1967 – Declaration on Relations SFRY - EEC • the first document signed with a socialist country

• 1971 – getting included in the system of General Preferential Schemes • implementation of customs facilities towards SFRY

• 1980 – agreement on Cooperation between SFRY and EEC – preferential treatment • At the same time SEV does not recognize the existence of EEC

• 1991 – impose sanctions by UN and afterwards by EC (08 November) • Agreement suspended (25.11) • Started conclusion of European Association Agreements with Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic

• 27.04.1992 – creation of FRY – sanctions against it continue • 1993 – defined criteria for membership (Copenhagen)

• 1995 – EU sanctions lifted (04.12. 1995) • 1996 – EC White Book on Association – enlargement plan for CEE countries

• 1997, 1998 – conflicts on Kosovo – new sanctions • 1999 – NATO Campaign • Beginning of the Stabilization and Association Process

••• What Is SAP? Phases of Association • Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) • Preparatory phase for signing SAA • Feasibility Study • Negotiations on conclusion of SAA • Signing and implementing SAA • Membership candidature

• Negotiations on full membership • Invitation by EC and signing of Accession Agreement

••• Western Balkans or western Balkans? • Different names for the region that Serbia belongs to: • Central and Eastern Europe • Southeast Europe • Western Balkans • Mathematics: SFRY- Slovenia +Albania • Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania • Geographical or political region?

••• EU Strategy for Western Balkan Countries - Stabilization and Association Process • Created in June 1999 – on the basis of relations with CEE, however different (specific conditions due to the recent history) • Experience first association and then membership applied here, too

• SAP aim – Stabilization of the region through: • Potential EU membership as a reform incentive • Encouraging regional cooperation • Political and economic conditions that have to be met, for the purpose of improving the process of association • Main instruments • Autonomous trade measures • CARDS/IPA • Stabilization and Association Agreement • Summit in Thessalonica – TAIEX, twinning, EU programmes...

••• Three Levels of Conditions for Western Balkan Countries, Serbia Included • Conditions defined by Copenhagen criteria • Conditions defined in the Stabilization and Association Process for Western Balkan countries • Conditions established for every Western Balkan country individually – contained in the European partnership • 2000 – after 5 October inclusion into the Stabilization and Association Process • Summit in Zagreb (November)

• 2001 – started monitoring of reforms • CTF, since 2003 improved standing dialogue • Information for Annual Report and Feasibility Study • 12 April 2005 – Feasibility Study for SAA • Possible because of the policy of voluntary surrender and double track • 10 October (7 November) 2005 – opening negotiations for SAA • 3 May 2006 – call off • 12 June 2007 – negotiations resumed • 10 September 2007 – termination of technical negotiations with EC • 29 April 2008 – signing SAA

••• Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) • The first and main contractual instrument for Western European countries • Preferential commercial agreement with political elements • Political cooperation with EU • Regional cooperation • Creating free trade zone (6 years after Agreement entering into force) • Adoption of economic “acquis” • Cooperation policies

SAA Chapters • Political dialogue (realized in association bodies) • Regional cooperation • Free movement of goods • Free movement of workers, services, capital • Harmonization of law • It becomes a liability, voluntary up to now • Judiciary and Internal Affairs • Areas of cooperation • Financial cooperation • Association institutions

••• Further Steps in the Process • Association is not the aim – the aim is full membership in EU • Next steps: • Submitting candidature – some evidence of SAA implementation • Filling out the questionnaire – 4,000 questions • Positive opinion of the Commission - avis

• Gaining candidate status – unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers • Starting negotiations – precedent Macedonia • 35 chapters • Concluding the Membership Agreement – defines conditions for membership • Accepting membership – readiness for membership • Agenda 2012 SCHEDULE OF ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

PROCESS PHASES

PROCESS CONTENT

1. Consultative working group

Croatia

Albania

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Macedonia

Serbia and Montenegro

Technical group that assesses the state of economy, law and politics in these countries – results are joint recommendations

February 2000

HLSG i – November 2000

Formed in 1998 – EU Road Map ii

January 1998. – Agreement on Cooperation with EU

Starting activities: 24 December 2000; 5 meetings (June 2001 – July 2002)

2. Feasibility Study

Report of the Commission on opportunity to start negotiations for SAA conclusion

24 May 2000

HLSG Report – June 2001

November 2003, conditional – 18 items

16 June 1999

12 April 2005

3. Starting negotiations

Precede SAA conclusion – Agreement is only technical on schedule for SAA implementation and not on its contents

20 November 2000

6 June 2001 – decision 31 January 2003 – official beginning

25 November 2005 (January 2006) – condition!

24 January 2000

10.10.2005 3 May – call off (delay)

4. Concluding Stabilization & Association Agreement

Instrument for association envisaged for Western Balkan countries – 9 chapters of integration and cooperation

29 November 2001

March 2006

1 June 2001

MNE – October 2007 Serbia – 2008?

5. Agreement implementation - candidature

Operational implementation of SAA elements, according to the agreed phases

2004 candidature – negotiations November 2005

2005 candidature without negotiations

At the moment of signing?

i High Level Steering Group – formed after negative Feasibility Report, adopted by the Commission in 1999, according to which Albania is not capable of assuming contractual liabilities with the European Union. ii EU Road Map, published in 2000, is actually the schedule containing 18 necessary steps that BiH must fulﬁ ll prior to opening negotiations.

Communication on European Integration of Serbia The Role of Civil Society Organizations Jelena Stevanov Government of Serbia European Integration Office

••• Communication Strategy of the Government of Serbia on the Stabilization and Association Process Prepared in 2003; adopted in 2004 • Getting the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) closer to citizens of Serbia • Explaining the need and importance of reforms implemented in this Process • Providing objective and timely informing of citizens on SAP and necessary reforms MAIN MESSAGE European Integration Process = economic, political, social and mentality TRANSITION

EXPECTED OUTCOMES • Informing the public on SAP and motivating and encouraging citizens to take part in the process and to recognize their own liabilities in an accountable and constructive manner • Forming positive opinion of citizens of Serbia on EU accession through better understanding of European Integration Process and reforms as its integral part /does the high percentage of support also mean national consensus on EU membership/ • Achieving broader social consensus and higher contribution to the European Integration Process of all parts of the society • Forming positive attitude of citizens of the Union and EU officials towards efforts and achievements of Serbia in the European Integration Process

••• Methods of Communication with the Public and Stakeholders • Direct contact with citizens • Communication through media • Communication through networks (cooperation between key transmitters of messages – NGOs, media, business community, academic institutions, representatives of EU member states in Serbia, eminent individuals)

Cooperation between the Office and Civil Society Organizations • Memorandum on Cooperation with NGOs in the European Integration Process, signed on 12 July 2005 • Purpose: Institutionalization of cooperation between the Office and NGOs in the European Integration Process

• Memorandum on Cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce of Serbia, signed in 2004 • Memorandum on Cooperation with universities in Serbia, signed in October 2006

••• Why Is the Civil Sector Important? • Encouraging public discussion • Ownership over the Process • Improvement of democratic dialogue, culture and social cohesion • Providing participation of citizens in policy creation

••• Forms of Cooperation between the Office and NGOs • Regular contacts and exchange of information • Joint projects and activities

• Facilitating contacts between NGOs and potential donors • Organizing Europe Day and other campaigns related to EU • Organizing regular meetings • Giving recommendations • Participation of representatives of the Office in lectures and trainings organized by partner NGOs • Joint organization of conferences and round tables • The Office is publishing a bulletin intended for civil society • On the Office web presentation there is a special section dedicated to civil society

••• Expected Activities in 2009 • Preparation and adoption of the Communication Strategy in the EU accession process of Serbia • Encouraging and supplementing discussion on EU • Harmonizing the Communication Strategy with the National Integration Plan • Segmenting of messages • Strengthening the role of NGOs, private sector and media as information sources

Key Challenges • Maintaining public interest and not encouraging non-realistic expectations • Media’s attention should be more oriented towards the European Integration issues • Directing civil sector initiatives to relevant project proposals • Higher availability of EU financial support • Cooperation between all parts of the society • Joint communication of “changes” in the EU accession process, for the purpose of improving the to date image • Responsibility of politicians

••• Thank you for your attention!

Vojislav Milošević, member of the Executive Board of the European Movement in Serbia (EMinS) spoke about the importance of linking all sectors of the society in the European Integration Process (EI) but also about activities of EMinS. Since its foundation, EMinS has been actively working on bringing Serbia closer to the European Union. “Two main activities through which EMinS approaches linking of representatives of all sectors are information and education, as well as active inclusion into the European Integration Process”, said Milošević. The high level of being informed and knowledge of all social factors on EI, EU and its values and standards is an important prerequisite for successful termination of the Integration Process of Serbia into EU. EMinS is trying to meet this prerequisite in several ways: by organizing diﬀerent campaigns, by conducting programmes for pupils and students, by cooperating with the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia, by cooperating with the business sector and by rendering support to civil society of Serbia. Campaigns are the best method for informing wide population and representatives of all the three sectors. One of the campaigns that has been actively conducted by EMinS since 2000, all over Serbia, is marking the Day of Europe. The project Eurostar, initiated in 2004 with representatives of member states of the European Union (i.e. members of the corps diplomatique) in Belgrade, aims at linking representatives of EU member states with local self-governments, business community and youth, in the ﬁrst place with students in Serbia. Every year, or several times a year, EMinS initiates pre-election campaigns, but not for political option or party only. The idea is actually that citizens should get informed of what EU is, what European Integration is, what European values are, so that at elections they could choose the option for which they believe that it is pleading in the best possible way for implementation of those values, and which will follow the EI Process in the best possible way. Special segment of EMinS activities are programmes for pupils and students, which are implemented owing to excellent cooperation with secondary schools, faculties, Ministry of Education and companies. In late 1990s was also initi80

ated a programme of European Studies at the Faculty of Economics; thereupon was opened a library. i.e. a centre which gave all information to young people of EU and of standards to be achieved during the EI Process. MiloĹĄeviÄ&#x2021; pointed out cooperation of EMinS with the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia. One of the projects that EMinS has been implementing in the region for a number of years, aims at linking representatives of political parties, i.e. members of Parliament, of all Western Balkan countries. They exchange their experiences and opinions of the European Integration Process and of the role of the region. The main idea is to empower the regional aspect of European Integration and to give support to parliamentarian practice, aiming at capacity building of the Committee for European Integration of the Parliament of Serbia. Cooperation with the business community is also very important. Immediately upon changes in 2000 were initiated programmes of support to small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals who decided to start up their own enterprises for the beginning of transition of market functioning, teaching them how to bring their production closer to European standards. EMinS is also a founder of the correspondent centre in Serbia, which is a network of info centres, whose aim is to assist the business community, i.e. companies, small and medium-sized enterprises all over Serbia, to get linked and in what way with partners in Europe. 81

Regarding active participation of all in the EI Process, he specially highlighted the project, i.e. initiative whose aim was to reach national consensus on Euro Atlantic integrations, whose ﬁnal result was adoption of Declaration on Accession of Serbia to EU in 2004. In designing this Declaration part took representatives of all MP groups, and representatives of international organizations and civil society were included as well. There is also the project European Forum: Serbia in Europe, which included through a number of conferences with different topics (regional cooperation, business cooperation, cooperation with the International Court in The Hague) representatives of all sectors and collected their opinions. “The Project National Convent on the European Union in Serbia has the aim to functionalize in one place standing working bodies, in which will be conducted continuous debate on Serbia’s accession to the European Union”, said Milošević. The Convent, modeled on the identical programme in Slovakia, was founded in 2006. Capacity building of Serbia for the European Integration Process has been evolving through inclusion of all sectors in a dialogue and

creation of forum for public discussions on European future of Serbia. Here is particularly important openness of the dialogue between all stakeholders. The partnership principle is the core of the National Convent and in it are included representatives of the State sector, i.e. institutions directly included in the process of negotiations, then representatives of nongovernmental organizations, citizens’ organizations, political parties. Special place in the National Convent have young people and media. In the National Convent were formed eight working groups, which address topics that are most important for the EI Process: social dialogue, information society and education, free flow of capital, small and medium-sized enterprises, economy, regional cooperation, judiciary, freedom and safety, environmental protection. Working groups consist of a minimum 20 members, which are also representatives of the State. The body above these working groups is the Presidium. At the moment, the Presidium of the National Convent consists of the President of the Parliament of Serbia, Vice Prime Minister for European Integration, Director of the European Integration Office, Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of the European Movement in Serbia, President of the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities and representative of the civil sector. Working groups are sitting three times a year, they have experts for each domain, and CoPresident is always from the State sector. There is an annual agenda of sittings which clearly defines priorities of Serbia in the European Integration Process. After sitting of each working group is issued a recommendation, which represents the attitude of members of the working group on concrete position in the future negotiations on the topic. Milošević emphasized that one of the project ideas is that sittings of working groups should not take place in Belgrade only, i.e. in the National Assembly of Serbia, but that a specific number of them should be organized in towns all over Serbia, so that representatives of all regions could take part in them. See power point presentation of Vojislav Milošević 83

Linking Sectors in the EU Integration Process

- Examples from Practice -

• Informing and Education

• Active Participation

••• Informing and Education • Campaigns • “Europe Day” • “EU Star BUS” • Pro-election campaigns

• Programmes for pupils and students • “European Studies”, • EU INFO POINT • “Europe at School”, • “Ring for Europe” • Cooperation with the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia • Cooperation between Members of Parliament of countries in the region • “Support to parliamentarian practice in EU Integration Process” • Cooperation with business sector • “SMEs in Transition” • Euro Info Correspondence Centre in Serbia • “Promotion of EAR Micro Credit Lines” (2001) • European standards in agriculture and animal husbandry • Support to civil society in Serbia • Capacity building of CSOs • Trainings

••• Active Participation • Reaching national consensus on Euro-Atlantic Integration • European Forum: “Serbia in Europe” • National Convent on European Union in Serbia

National Convent on European Union in Serbia • Institutionalization of a standing working body for conducting public discussion on the future accession of Serbia to European Union • Founded in 2006 after the model from Slovakia • AIM • capacity building of Serbia for EU Integration Process • creating a forum for permanent and public discussions on the European future of Serbia • encouraging open and transparent dialogue between stakeholders Partnership Principle between: • State sector, i.e. institutions directly included in the negotiation process, • nongovernmental organizations, • political parties, • academic public, • businessmen, • youth, • media and • broader public.

NATIONAL CONVENT ON EUROPEAN UNION IN SERBIA STRUCTURE Presidium

EVENTS

Slavica Đukić Dejanović President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia

Božidar Đelić Vice-President Government of the Republic of Serbia

Živorad Kovačević President European Movement in Serbia

Milica Delević Director European Integration Office Government of the Republic of Serbia

Nenad Milenković Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

RESULTS

BENEFICIARIES

Vuk Jeremić Minister of Foreign Affairs Government of the Republic of Serbia

Sonja Licht Director Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence

Members of Parliament

Government Convent Programme Council Ksenija Milivojević, Advisor to the Vice Prime Minister Laslo Varga, President of the Committee for European Integrations Gordana Čomić, Vice-President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Ivan Vejvoda, Director of the Balkan Fund for Democracy

Plenary sessions Closing conference Strategic issues Monitoring WGs Recommendations at the national level of RS

Working Group WG I WGII WG III WG IV WG V WG VI WG VII WG VIII

Social dialogue Information society and education Free flow of capital SMEs and entrepreneurship Agriculture Regional cooperation Judiciary, freedoms and security Environmental protection

Courts

Regional and local selfgovernment Media

WGs Sittings 3 times a year (total 24)

NGOs

Public

Members

• Partners in the project are Slovak Foreign Politics Association (SFPA) and Local Councils of EMinS in Niš, Novi Pazar and Zrenjanin. • Associate in the project is the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. • Media promotion of the project is secured through cooperation with TV B92. • The project NKEU is financed by EU through the Fund for European Integration – programme managed by EAR and implemented by Press Now.

After presentations of the guests, participants in the discussions posed them a number of questions, among others: What impact does the process of regionalization have on the EI Process and how do you evaluate the Draft Law on Even Regional Development? Tanja Miščević: Reorganization of authorities at the regional level is performed by forming statistical regions. The task of the Law is to deﬁne regional disparities, i.e. to what extent is one region less or more developed as compared to another one. This Law does not stipulate forming of special organization of authorities. It is important that debate on regionalization of Serbia is closely linked to decentralization of power, which is yet to start. Given that there is impression that the entire process of development of Serbia will stop when it becomes an EU member, the question is whether our aim is only to access the European Union or to become a country equal to rich countries and members of European Union? Miljenko Dereta: It is necessary to build institutions that will help us not only to ﬁnalize the process of accession but institutions that we are going to live with after becoming an EU member. Also, it is necessary to establish social, political and economic relations in which we shall live, whether as a member of the European Union or not. 89

Are there considerations on monitoring of citizens of Serbia over the EI Process, and at what level would it be conducted? Miljenko Dereta: although there are several different initiatives for conducting monitoring, at this moment there is none that would really do it as it was done in Bulgaria. In a way, it is done by the European Integration Office, however, it is a Governmental body, therefore it is to some extent justified to doubt its objectivity. It would be the best if monitoring was conducted by someone from civil society, too, so that we could get different but more objective data. It is certainly something that would be very stimulating. To what extent is lack of political consensus in Serbia a real impediment in the European Integration Process? Miljenko Dereta: I know that in Serbia it is very difficult to reach consensus on anything, however, quite certainly, the biggest responsibility for lack of political consensus bear political parties. We, from civil society try to remind them of their obligations, however, it often happens that people conducting the politics of this country often show signs of hesitation, which confuses us. Tanja Miščević: One should think of how to reach consensus by steps. It means that it is indispensable to first find what is a common issue for all. It 90

is necessary to reach consensus on issues where there is no conflict, and then make agreements on more difficult issues. In the process of EU accession, how big is the space for discussion on specific values, is it possible to keep some fundamental values that we are accustomed to? To what extent does fulfillment of conditions posed by EU have an impact on preserving traditional values of a nation? Tanja Miščević: First, we must make clear difference between values and conditions. Values are achieved by fulfilling conditions, you cannot achieve them without realizing what was made through conditions, criteria. So, by accepting and meeting these standards, you achieve the value.

Could uneven development of the civil sector be a problem in the EI Process? Miljenko Dereta: Of course. Yet it is normal that there exist diďŹ&#x20AC;erent levels of NGO development. That level also reďŹ&#x201A;ects some economic diďŹ&#x20AC;erences in Serbia. Thus, for instance, in the south and east of Serbia there are areas completely waste of nongovernmental sector. However, on the other side, there are areas in which the nongovernmental sector is exceptionally developed. The only way to make it more uniform are good practice examples. The sooner is noted the positive impact of the nongovernmental sector on the local development, and the sooner NGOs get linked at the national level, the sooner the importance of direct engagement of citizens will be understood.

List of Participants at the Public Discussion NAME AND SURNAME ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION

CITY

Miljenko Dereta

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Miroljub Ćosić

City Administration Kruševac

Kruševac

Tanja Miščević

Faculty of Political Sciences

Belgrade

Jelena Stevanov

European Integration Office

Belgrade

Vojislav Milošević

European Movement in Serbia

Belgrade

Slobodanka Miladinović

Pre-school institution „Nata Veljković”

Kruševac

Biljana Dačić

City Council

Kruševac

Jelena Sokolović

Union of Blind

Kruševac

Milka Nedeljković

Ministry of Agriculture – area centre for rural development

Gornji Milanovac

Nadica Nedeljković

NGO Milenijum (Millennium)

Kragujevac

Miroslav Petrović

Directorate for Town Planning and Building

Kruševac

Vukman Korać

Grammar School Kruševac

Kruševac

Predrag Marković

National Employment Service

Kruševac

Jelić Živka

Health Insurance Institute

Kruševac

10 Dalibor Nakić

Citizens’ Association Roma Centre

Kruševac

11 Milica Petrović

Romano Alav

Kruševac

12 Slađana Tairović

Romano Alav

Kruševac

13 Aleksandra Aleksić

Regional Chamber of Commerce

Kruševac

14 Marija Vesković

Regional Chamber of Commerce

Kruševac

15 Jovanović Marko

Association of Dystrophy Sufferers of the Rasina District

16 Mirela Milojević

Palestra

Kruševac

17 Sandra Farkaš

Peščanik (Sand-clock)

Kruševac

18 Dragana Roganović

NGO IDA

Kraljevo

19 Vladimir Gojgić

City Administration Čačak

Čačak

20 Mirko Pešić

City Administration Čačak

Čačak

21 Radojica Gavrilović

City Administration Čačak

Čačak

22 Božidar Plazinić

Centre for Visual Researches Krug (Circle)

Čačak

23 Viktorija Mladenović

MB of the Union of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Kruševac

24 Stamena Milosavljević Society for Assistance MNRO

Kruševac

25 Milisav Pajević

Non-Smokers Education Centre RP

Kragujevac

26 Dušanka Cvetković

The Circle of Serbian Sisters

Kruševac

27 Jelena Sekulić

City Administration

Kruševac

28 Ivana Pajić

City Administration

Kruševac

29 Goran Žikić

Historical Archives

Kruševac

30 Bojan Ćirković

Organization JUG

Kraljevo

31 Dragoslav Dedović

Organization JUG

Kraljevo

32 Slobodan Agaponović NGO KGYOUTHSECTOR

Kragujevac

33 Dragan Nešić

NGO KGYOUTHSECTOR

Kragujevac

34 Zoran Petrović

NGO Ruke prijateljstva (Hands of Friendship)

Kraljevo

35 Andrea Jemini

Office for Young Roma

Kraljevo

36 Nikola Popović

Magazine Pobeda

Kruševac

37 Marko Vukojević 38 Milica Srsenović 39 Smiljana Milanović

Youth Association of the Municipality of Kruševac Youth Association of the Municipality of Kruševac Youth Association of the Municipality of Kruševac

Kruševac Kruševac Kruševac

40 Slađana Čabrić

Centre for Social Work

Kruševac

41 Vesna Vesković

Library Kruševac

Kruševac

42 Vladeta Donda

TV Kruševac

Kruševac

43 Vladeta Gajić

BID Kruševac

Kruševac

44 Goran Lapčević

Regional Centre for Development of SMEs

Kruševac

45 Dejan Jovac

Rasina Administrative District

Kruševac

46 Milomir Petronijević

Red Cross

Kruševac

47 Milenko Mihajlović

Autonomous Trade Union

Kruševac

48 Zorica Jovanović

City Administration

Kruševac

49 Svetlana Vidanović

City Administration

Kruševac

50 Sretina Dobrodolac

City of Kruševac

Kruševac

51 Snežana Spasić

Sports Centre Kruševac

Kruševac

52 Ljiljana Panić

Cultural Centre

Kruševac

53 Snežana Andrejić

Citizens’ Association Princess Milica

Kruševac

54 Violeta Krstić

Citizens’ Association Princess Milica

Kruševac

55 Tatjana Simović

Public Health Institute

Kruševac

56 Zlata Mihajlović

Union of Employers of Serbia

Kruševac

57 Bratislav Poprašić

Kruševac Education Centre

Kruševac

58 Violeta Stevović

NGO Education Centre

Kruševac

59 Svetlana Gajić Ilčić

Regional TV

Kruševac

60 Vesna Vujičić

TV Plus

Kruševac

61 Marija Ilić Janković

Weekly Svedok (Witness)

Belgrade

62 Slobodan Cenc

Weekly Grad (City)

Kruševac

63 Dragan Bradić

European Movement – Kraljevo

Kraljevo

64 Jasmina Milojević

Eko glas (Eco Voice)

Jagodina

65 Gordana Rodić

Moravski orašak

Trstenik

66 Milica Petković

Environmental Movement Ibar

Kraljevo

67 Mirjana Stevanović 68 Zoran Simonović

Association of Citizens and Parents of Children with Special Needs Association of Citizens and Parents of Children with Special Needs

Kruševac Kruševac

69 Dragana Jovanović

Moravski orašak

Trstenik

70 Nebojša Antić

Elementary School Miodrag Čajetinac Čajka

Trstenik

71 Vladimir Milunović

NGO Stablo (Trunk)

Kragujevac

72 Nebojša Dimitrijević

NGO Stablo

Kragujevac

73 Snežana Đurđević

Environmental Movement Bela breza (White Birch-Tree)

Kruševac

74 Vladimir Petrović

Youth Organization Kvart (Quarter)

Kraljevo

75 Svetlana Đurđević

Cultural and Educational Community

Kruševac

76 Irena Miljković

Citizens’ Association Princess Milica

Kruševac

77 Dragana Bogićević

Evrokontakt (Euro Contact)

Kruševac

78 Jelena Milutinović

Evrokontakt

Kruševac

79 Radmila Jevtić

Evrokontakt

Kruševac

80 Jugoslav Lazić

Evrokontakt

Kruševac

81 Nenad Krstić

Evrokontakt

Kruševac

On behalf of Civic Initiatives: 1. Dubravka Velat

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

3. Dejana Mitev

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

4. Branislav Lovrenski

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Public Discussion in Niš, 20 May 2009

PROGRAMME

10:30–11:00

Registration

11:00–11:15

Address of welcome: Predrag Cvetković, Assistant Mayor of Niš

11:15–11:30

Ivana Gliksman, Programme Coordinator of Civic Initiatives for the development of civil society, Presentation of the project “CIDEC – Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus”

11:30–11:50

Tanja Miščević, Faculty of Political Sciences

11:50–12:10

Ksenija Milivojević, Cabinet of the Vice Prime Minister for European Integration

12:10–12:30

Kristina Ašković, Ministry of Finance

12:30–13:30

Discussion

14:00

Lunch

Report on the Event

The last one in the row of public discussions in the scope of the project CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus took place in Niš, in the Hall of the Regional Centre for Professional Development of Employees in Education, on 20 May. In the discussion whose topic was Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions part took more than 60 representatives of civil society organizations, local self-government institutions and media from Niš and surrounding towns (Leskovac, Prokuplje, Pirot, Knjaževac, Kuršumlija, Blace). On behalf of the City Administration, the audience was addressed by Predrag Cvetković, Assistant Mayor of Niš, who pointed out that presence of representatives of the city at such a gathering means support to initiatives and ideas of civil society regarding improvement of the level of informing and understanding of European Integration Process. According to his words, the aim of the gathering was to find a way for understanding the system of European values, given that Serbia has been slowly transforming into society respecting European values and principles. Very often, the Integration Process is considered through partial, separate segments, while a comprehensive approach is lacking. Behind all individual steps and efforts to get closer to EU should stand something called moral vertical and system of values and responsibilities towards oneself, towards individuals, society and State. “European capacities of the City of Niš should not be doubted, however, the true potential lies in what is going to happen in the future. We are all actors of a process that is permanent, therefore such discussions should contribute to spreading information and knowledge on EU, of what it offers, and the most important, on what it is based”, emphasized Cvetković. Experiences of guests from previous conferences and public discussions were presented to participants by Ivana Gliksman, Programme Coordinator of Civic Initiatives for the development of civil society. Before all, she briefly pre99

sented the project “CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus”, whose main aim is to initiate public discussions and dialogue on European Integration between all social actors, i.e. representatives of civil society and State oﬃcials. That dialogue should contribute to achievement of general social consensus on integration of Serbia into EU. After presenting experiences of Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Croatia in the European Integration Process, she highlighted that although they are exceptionally useful for our country, one should be very cautious when applying them. The fact is that social and political situations in those countries diﬀer to a great extent from circumstances in Serbia; however, there are examples of good practice which may be used in Serbia, primarily by civil society, in order to achieve better cooperation with the State during the European Integration Process, and to have a bigger impact on the very course of the Process. Tanja Miščević, Professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, spoke of the necessity to establish a dialogue of citizens of Serbia with EU institutions, and of 100

the role of civil society in the European Integration Process. Civil society, which does not encompass only NGOs but also universities, chambers of commerce, trade unions, associations of employers and, for sure, media, through mutual cooperation, dialogue and cooperation with the State, but it also, together with EU, has a direct impact on EI Process. In that Process not a single individual should be neglected. Slovakian experiences exactly proved that an individual may also play an important role: and individual who is respectable, well-known to foreign public, may greatly inﬂuence creation of the picture, of the image of a country. Regarding citizens’ dialogue, it is important to point out that it does not imply only informing, which is the ﬁrst phase of the discussion. Very important

101

is communication, i.e. not only receiving information but also exchanging them among all those who are a part of the EI Process – civil society and State institutions and EU. Although primary responsibility for the European Integration Process, for bringing the country closer to EU membership, is on the Government and Parliament, the Process does not refer to one Government only, to one party only, but to each and everyone of us, citizens of Serbia. It does not change the structure of authorities, it changes Serbia as a society and State in which every individual feels responsible for termination of the Process. Ms Miščević also commented on the inappropriate Law on Associations. That Law should be adopted as soon as possible, not only because it is one of the standards, conditions or criteria for EU membership but because it is, in the first place, indispensable to regulate functioning of NGOs in a completely different environment and under different conditions. Lack of that Law, however, hinders but does not stop good cooperation between civil society and some of the governmental institutions. The necessity to cooperate with the governmental sector is an exceptionally important element of success of the civil sector in the European Integration Process. Why? Because the Integration Process implies comprehensive reforms for which, very often, in the governmental sector there is no expertise, while the civil sector (universities, chambers of commerce and specialized NGOs) can render great assistance in that context. 102

The clear mutual cooperation of the civil sector does not mean unisonity, i.e. uniformity of nongovernmental organizations. In the first place, it presupposes defining precise priorities, because political consensus on European Integration must exist in the civil sector, too, and not only at the governmental level. The dialogue with EU institutions evolves in two segments: the first one is rendering financial assistance, while the second one is building partnerships. Financial assistance, as good as it is, may also be a very dangerous thing. The European Union, by giving big financial support, appears in the Process as an important partner of civil society, however, it is wrong to consider it a “main financier”. It is therefore necessary to diversify donors. After a country has acquired membership, EU and particularly its member states, withdraw as civil society donors, believing that civil society is already sufficiently developed, which leads to crumbling of a large number of nongovernmental organizations, the small ones in the first place. Therefore, CSOs should through ministries, directly, but also in partnership with other NGOs and by using special EU funds, acquire the necessary resources. The European Union as a civil society partner, should assist development of its capacities, as it assists State institutions – through diverse programmes. Capacity building of the civil sector is equally important as administrative capacity building of a country. “The most successful countries in the European Integration Process had the strongest consensus – political and national. Shall we learn from these experiences?”, Ms Miščević finished her presentation. Ksenija Milivojević, Advisor to the Vice Prime Minister for European Integration, also spoke about the importance of establishing political and national consensus on European Integration, which, unfortunately, does not exist in Serbia. According to the latest research, presented in January 2009, support of citizens to EI from the historical 72% fell to 62%, caused by stagnation in the Integration Process, i.e. lack of making any formal steps since signing the Sta103

bilization and Association Agreement in April 2008. However, regarding secondary-school population, the percentage amounts as high as 81%. So, if one observes the age structure of population, it is noticeable that younger the population higher the percentage is, i.e. young population can see its future in EU. Although within civil society consensus is much wider, one should not overlook the fact that civil society also consists of organizations such as Nacionalni stroj (National Formation), Obraz (Honour), Emperor Lazarus’ Guard, whose programmes, aims and activities are in contravention with EU values. This proves that consensus within the framework of civil society is not complete, however, it is on a much higher level than is the case with political parties, i.e. political elite. This might partially explain why the Process is evolving slower than everyone would like, i.e. why the pathway of Serbia towards EU evolves on the principle one step forward, two steps back. Among political elite is evident a higher level of cautiousness than desirable, and deficiency of determination, while citizens expect determined actions that lead to concrete results. Regarding the dialogue and communication with EU institutions, one should bear in mind that they evolve at three different levels. The first level is communication with State institutions as EI Process implementers, the Government in the first place, given that other State institutions, including the Parliament, mainly play the secondary role, while in some countries, like Finland and Slovenia, the Parliament has much more important role. The communication is 104

direct, it does not suffer from any limitations, it evolves from the highest political level to operational levels of authorities. The second level is communication with civil society. Although EU constantly emphasizes the importance of good functioning of civil society, particularly in the context of democratization of former communist countries, CSOs have a consultative role only, their opinion is only listened to and possibly respected. Unfortunately, it happens that EU itself very often calculates, just because there are specific interests that in the given moment are more important than the overall democratization of society and development and functioning of the civil sector. Communication with citizens is the third level which is the least developed one and leaves the smallest space for influence. It results from organization in Brussels, i.e. EU which, due to excessive bureaucratization, has been facing a number of problems in the past few years. EU citizens are not satisfied, not only with existing communication with institutions that should represent them but also with remoteness of institutions from citizens, whereby their purpose and sense are challenged, and the question is whether they – and it mainly refers to EC – have become an end in themselves. It is one of elements of crisis currently shaking EU, which should be resolved by the end of the year, for the sake of the enlargement process. If one takes into account that at elections for the European Parliament, scheduled for 4-6 June, is expected an all-time low response of voters, the question is to what extent will EU manage to solve the existing problems? Regardless the fact that the European Parliament is the institution mostly trusted by EU citizens, they mainly believe that it does not have any real impact. This year for 9 May, the Day of Europe, the European Union designed a new project of opening its institutions to citizens, which resulted from its being aware that its attitude towards citizens is remote. On that day, 9 May, EU citizens could freely walk the corridors of buildings of EP, EC, Council of Ministers. Although the gesture is symbolical, the fact is that such actions, particularly if conducted periodically, for medium and long term might have an impact on the growth of trust and feeling of more closeness than it was the case to date. 105

On instrument for pre-accession assistance, IPA, and cross-border cooperation spoke Kristina Ašković, Coordinator of the Programme Bulgaria-Serbia at the Ministry of Finance, Sector for Management and Programming of European Union Funds. This Sector is the direct link that actually adapts all our needs towards issues that the European Union wants to finance. Main components of this instrument are: assistance in transition and building of institutions, crossborder cooperation, regional development, human resources development and rural development. The aim of the financial instrument IPA for countries that are potential candidates for membership, which may use only components I and II, while components III, IV and V may be implemented through component I, is support to fulfilment of requirements in the Stabilization and Association Process. The condition to enter the association Process at all is that the civil sector should be an active participant in the process of the use of European Union funds. Specificity of that component, i.e. implementation of these programmes is direct participation in competitions announced by two countries. Cross-border cooperation programmes are mainly bilateral, concerning the Member States of the European Union and candidate countries or potential IPA programmes beneficiaries. The aims of these programmes are: to achieve an even and sustainable socio-economic development of the region, drawing closer and acquainting non-member countries with the EU practice and procedures, joint engagement in projects for the purpose to jointly solve problems and to secure higher safety in the border region. 106

Ms Ašković said that, regarding financing from IPA funds, the situation will change soon. Up to now, NGOs whose projects were approved received an advance of 80% of funds from the required donation. This amount will be somewhat smaller in the future, however, there will still be specific advances that will make possible at least the beginning of implementation of the project. The reason why EU will not pay big advance to nongovernmental organizations any more is related to the system of management – centralization, or decentralization. Serbia is currently in the phase when the EU funds management system is centralized, meaning that the European Commission through the Delegation of the European Commission in Belgrade makes all decisions, signs contracts, pays funds etc. The Serbian administration has certain previous control through local offices, i.e. they are here to teach the beneficiaries of the donation how to implement projects and how to report on the funds spent. The next step that should be taken is to establish the so-called DIS, i.e. decentralized system of management. Then responsibility of the Delegation of the European Commission will be transferred to State bodies, i.e. in the scope of the Ministry of Finance will be

107

formed a sector responsible for control and contracting, whereby the Delegation of the European Commission will retain the right on previous control. Introduction of decentralized management system is one of requirements that Serbia has to fulfil in order to become a candidate country. The situation is identical at the local level, too. Responsibility for financing and implementation of projects is lowered to the level of the organization, which has to provide funds for prefinancing of activities. The financial crisis caused that IPA funds intended for 2009 will not be used for the domains previously scheduled for, because our country required that they be used as direct budget support. This has reduced to a great extent, one third, the amount of funds that will be used for projects of line ministries and NGOs. See power point presentation of Kristina Ašković

108

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IPA Niš, 20 May 2009

••• COMPONENTS • Assistance to Transition and Institution Building • Cross-Border Cooperation • Regional Development • Human Resources Development • Rural Development

••• Aim of the IPA Financial Instrument Countries potential candidates for membership • Components: I and II • Components: III, IV and V may be implemented through Component I Aim: support to meeting requirements in the Stabilization and Association Process

109

Candidate countries • Components : I, II, III, IV and V Condition: Accreditation for decentralized system for implementation of EU funds (DIS) Aim: adoption and implementation of Acquis

••• Management Systems • Centralized: EC represented by EC Delegation makes all decisions on behalf of the assistance recipient country; Serbian administration does not have actual responsibility, real responsibility is in the negotiation process during assistance programming; • Decentralized: State institutions of the assistance recipient country are responsible for contracting and implementing programmes and projects, however, for each step during implementation must be obtained approval of the EC Delegation; for financial and administrative management is responsible the assistance recipient country; • Extended decentralized management: The level of responsibility is growing; There are no previous consents by EC

•••

110

Component 1 • State administration reform • Harmonization with Acquis • Strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law • Social and economic development • Infrastructure • Civil society empowerment • Participation in the Community programmes

••• IPA Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes Component 2

Hun-Srb Rom-Srb Bul- Srb Adriatic СЕЕ Cro-Srb B&H - Srb Mne-Srb

111

Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes in Serbia • EU support to cooperation of border regions between member states and countries outside EU bordering them Aims: • Achieving equal and sustainable socio-economic development of the region • Getting non-member countries closer and getting them acquainted with EU practice and procedures • Joint engagement in projects, for the purpose of joint problem resolution • Providing higher security in the border region

••• Importance of Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes Non-repayable funds (85% grant: 15% IPA co-financing) Projects are implemented by EU rules – preparation for structural funds Cooperation with neighbouring countries

••• Priorities 1. INFRASTRUCTURE 2. ECONOMY, EDUCATION AND CULTURE

112

Thank you for your attention!

••• Contact www.evropa.gov.rs cbc@mfin.gov.rs kristina.askovic@mfin.gov.rs Fax: (+38111) 36 12 230 Ministry of Finance Sector for Programming and Managing EU Funds and Development Assistance Kneza Milosa 20 11000 Belgrade Serbia

113

Participants in the discussion posed to the speakers a few questions. They were most interested in: Is meeting European standards the key criterion for entrance of Serbia to EU? Tanja Miščević: You are absolutely right, meeting European standards is the measure of our success; however, exactly the issues about which you here opened the discussion, i.e. standards for building constructions and environmental protection, are the issues that somehow in this process come at the end. They come at the end because they are very expensive. You know, to put a ﬁlter in a factory costs a lot, it is true, however, one must absolutely start with it. However, these are issues and liabilities resulting from the Stabilization and Association Agreement, which must be implemented in the local community because they are related to it, as well as the issue of communal waste, issues to ﬁnd the way to respond to the needs of disabled persons. The European Integration Process is very important because these issues come into focus. If there were not this focus, and if Serbia were in the transition process, we would only deal with economy. Indeed, it is indispensable that someone reminds us that there are standards, and in this case it is the European Union. Could there be changes of priorities in the IPA programme at the annual level? 114

Kristina Ašković: Main priorities are infrastructure and local capacity building. These are mainly projects of smaller scale, in the context of accessibility to border crossing, marking or some local plans that may have an impact on the other side, because one of the conditions of cross-border cooperation is that the project should have a cross-border impact. Education, retraining, organizing joint workshops etc. are actually activities very highly marked during evaluation of project proposals. However, they acquire relatively small amount of funds for a project. Out of these funds it is possible to ﬁnance one and a half year activities of a nongovernmental organization, for the purpose of extending the knowledge, making direct contacts with colleagues from Bulgaria, empower institutions, cultural relations etc. How and in what manner is the local administration ready to institutionally act as mediator in cross-border programmes? Ivana Gliksman: I shall refer to experience of Croatia that was presented to us at one of the international conferences, which points out the importance of local cooperation between civil sector and local self-government, for the purpose to have the results of the European Integration felt all the way to the ward level. When speaking of institutional cooperation, it means forming speciﬁc bod115

ies with the local self-government, or when speaking at the national level, forming those bodies with the Government; they would be in charge of assisting nongovernmental organizations, both professionally and financially. Predrag Cvetković: One of priorities of the City authorities is precisely implementation of European projects. Indeed, there is good will to institutionalize cooperation, however, it is simply not possible for the City to organize a meeting, to invite representatives of numerous nongovernmental organizations in Niš. So, the invitation is open. There are two possibilities: the first one is to make a plan, to bring together all nongovernmental organizations, to present them City resources and then to wait for their answer. The second possibility is that organizations themselves find a modus of mutual cooperation. Will it be a forum, will it be a collegium or association, it is absolutely left to nongovernmental organizations to decide. How does the Government respond to interests of individual groups in the European Integration Process? Tanja Miščević: If there is no clear political consensus, then there is no clear vision either. Therefore you do not know what to offer and explain to pensioners, what to tell children in secondary schools, what is it that will be better for them in the European Integration Process. It is therefore important to have communication strategies. For example, the strongest opponents to Integration Process for entrance of Poland to EU were farmers. They were so strongly against it that they almost were on the verge to stop it. Five years later, the strongest advocates for 116

European Integration are farmers, because they obtained what was promised to them in a clear message from the Government and EU, i.e. funds to enlarge their property, buy new machinery, to increase their production and get subsidized prices for the production. Therefore, a precise and sincere message is very important, but you cannot have it if you do not have a clear political consensus.

117

List of Participants at the Public Discussion NAME AND SURNAME ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION

CITY

Ivana Gliksman

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Tanja Miščević

Faculty of Political Sciences

Belgrade

Ksenija Milivojević

Cabinet of the Vice Prime Minister for European Integration

Belgrade

Kristina Ašković

Ministry of Finance

Belgrade

Predrag Cvetković

Cabinet of the Mayor of Niš

Niš

Dragan Đorđević

Katica Ranđelović

Jordan Ivanović

Centre for Autonomous Life of Disabled Niš People Centre for Autonomous Life of Disabled Niš People Administration for Children’s Social Protection Niš

Jelena Radojković

Women’s Association „Etno forum”

Svrljig

Irena Veljković

GO Medijana: Centre for Regional Policy Niš

Niš

Silvija Saćipović

Roma Students’ Centre

Niš

Milica Vučković

Roma Students’ Centre

Niš

Sandra Mutić

Roma Students’ Centre

Niš

Ana Saćipović

Roma Women’s Association Osvit (Dawn)

Niš

10 Dušica Mustafa

Roma Women’s Association Nada (Hope)

Niš

11 Nataša Petrović

Roma Women’s Association Nada

Niš

12 Predrag Jović

Youth Association Um (Mind)

Grdelica

13 Bora Cvetković

Youth Association Um

Grdelica

14 Dragan Stevanović

NGO Konstantin Veliki (Constantine the Great) Niš

15 Božidar Živković

NGO City Library Apostrof (Apostrophe) Citizens’ Association Timočki klub (Timok Club)

16 Sanja Džakula

118

Niš Knjaževac

17 Darko Savić

Centre for Creative Development

Knjaževac

18 Vladimir Ristić

Education Centre Knjaževac

Knjaževac

19 Kostadinka Jovanović Eco Kung-fu College

Niš

20 Ljubomir Kitić

Eco Kung-fu College

Niš

21 Danijela Dalipović

Roma Society Prokuplje

Prokuplje

22 Ferhad Saiti

Association RTV Nišava

Niš

23 Ivan Nikolić

NGO Ekoland (Eco Land)

Niš

24 Vesna Savić

NGO Rila

Niš

25 Milan Rančić

Roma Association Atsinkani

Pirot

26 Tatjana Petrović

Roma Association Atsinkani

Pirot

27 Nenad Dimitrijević

NGO MilenijuM (Millennium)

Niš

28 Vesna Petrović

Elementary School „Trajko Stamenković”

Leskovac

29 Dragana Savić

Elementary School „Trajko Stamenković”

Leskovac

30 Nataša Tomić

Elementary School „Trajko Stamenković”

Leskovac

31 Ružica Sverković

Pensioners’ Society

Aleksinac

32 Aleksandar Ivanović

Free Action

Prokuplje

33 Milan Rakić

Free Action

Prokuplje

34 Siniša Stojanović

CRGD Milenijum

Niš

35 Lidija Stojanović

Resource Centre Niš

Niš

36 Dragana Ivković

Youth Office Kuršumlija

Kuršumlija

37 Miloš Čolić

Youth Office Blace

Blace

38 Jelena Stajković

Protekta – Evropska kuća (European House)

Niš

39 Milan Stefanović

Protecta Citizens’ Association Narodni parlament (Folk’s Parliament) Service for Mayor’s Affairs – Office for European Affairs

Niš

40 Miloš Krasić 41 Vesna Simić 42 Branislav Cvetković

Europabro

Leskovac Niš Niš

119

43 Antonio Antić

GČ Pirgos

Pirot

44 Nikola Nešić

Volunteers’ Centre Niš

Niš

Society for the Protection and Improvement of Mental Health of Children and Youth

Niš

NGO Talas (Wave)

Aleksinac

Society for the Development of Creativity

Aleksinac

48 Ljubisav Pantić

City Municipality Red Cross

Niš

49 Igor Milovanović

Centre for Human Rights Niš

Niš

50 Biljana Jovanović

Single Mothers’ Association

Niš

Jelena Golubov Todorović

46 Dalibor Marković 47

Aleksandra Stevanović

City Association for Cerebral and Children’s Paralysis City Association for Cerebral and Children’s 52 Ljiljana Ilić Paralysis Women’s Ethno Centre Lužničke rukotvorine 53 Karolina Stamenković (Lužnice Handicraft) 51 Ivan Peković

Niš Niš Babušnica

54 Malina Marković

Women’s Ethno Centre Lužničke rukotvorine

Babušnica

55 Violeta Colić

Women’s Ethno Centre Lužničke rukotvorine

Babušnica

56 Marijana Veličković 57 Nenad Radenković 58 Nada Veljković

Intermunicipal Committee of the Union of Blind of Serbia Intermunicipal Committee of the Union of Blind of Serbia City Organization of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Niš Niš Niš

59 Marijana Božilović

Media Centre

Niš

60 Vladimir Simović

Media Centre

Niš

61 Milena Lazić

Niš Television

Niš

Civic Initiatives

Belgrade

Dejana Mitev

120

Recommendations Civil society consists of citizens organized into nongovernmental organizations, trade unions, universities, chambers of commerce, associations of employers; however, a possible impact by an individual should not be neglected at all (particularly by the ones respected both home and abroad). Citizens and civil society organizations are very important in the European Integration Process, because without them a country cannot access EU. From the very beginning of the European Integration Process of a country, one should take into account that access to the European Union is a very complex process of change of political, philosophical point of view, therefore, its success is not possible without participation and activities of civil society. Situation is similar also regarding the process of harmonization with EU regulations and communication with EU institutions. In that context, public-private partnership is indispensable, in which both participants, the Government and civil society, will ﬁnd their proper place: civil society organizations cannot be the ones to push the Government in the European Integration Process, nor can the Government require from the nongovernmental sector to act as its agencies. On the other hand, experiences prove that civil society organizations do not gain anything by being constantly “subversive” towards the process conducted by the authorities in the country, which organize technical activities for European Integration – therefore “alchemy” between the governmental and nongovernmental sectors is of great importance, in order to reach balance in these activities. Finding that balance must be based on the dialogue between the executive authorities and civil society, through exchange of information attitudes and values. Experiences in this process to date show two levels of communication – one of them is informing, which is the base of everything, while the other one is partnership. Informing per se does not mean partnership, while partnership means division of responsibilities and liabilities – intensive partnership is exact121

ly the aim that both the State and civil society should aspire to in the European Integration Process. On the other hand, interest of EU bodies for participation of citizens and civil society in the European Integration Process grows as the Process is entering its later formal steps. In this dialogue with EU do not participate only organized parts of civil society but citizens themselves, too, as individuals. Up to now, the best way of communication has proven to be through European networks of nongovernmental organization, because they bring together a large number of nongovernmental organizations, thus performing as one voice in topics they are interested for. It is noticeable that there is no uniform dialogue practice – it depends on the EU body in question, but it also depends on the type of policy in question. Actually, in this second aspect it depends on whether it is about issues transferred to the EU level, such as environmental protection, or issues that are still in hands of member states, such as social policy or care for youth. Exactly for this reason, good practice says that messages and the method of activities cannot be the same for every policy or for every EU body – only diﬀerentiated messages and approach may achieve results. Development within EU shows that the role of the European civil society is ever stronger, which is also proven by the Lisbon Treaty (2007). For the ﬁrst time, the wording of a main Union treaty stipulate the necessity of cooperation with nongovernmental organizations and citizens. Namely, the new Title II of the Treaty on EU refers to provisions related to realization of democratic principle, which requires from the Union to pay attention to equality of its citizens in all its activities and activities of its bodies and agencies. Functioning of EU is based on the representative democracy, and direct representation of citizens at the Union level is through the European Parliament. Moreover, representatives in both the Council and European Council are democratically responsible either to their National Parliaments or to their citizens. Every citizen has the right to take part in the democratic life in the Union, and decisions must be made as transparently and as close to the citizens as possible. Political parties at the Eu122

ropean level should contribute to forming the European political awareness and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union. The most important Article in the Lisbon Treaty is Article 11, which gives opportunity to citizens and associations to present their opinion through EU bodies, or to exchange their attitudes regarding all issues dealt by EU; the bodies must maintain an open, clear and standing dialogue with representative organizations and civil society. The European Commission should provide wide consultations with all the interested, for the purpose to secure that the Union activity is coherent and evident. For the first time has been introduced the opportunity that a million of citizens, who are citizens of the majority of member states, may have the initiative to invite the European Commission to propose adoption of a legal document by means of which are realized founding contracts. Actually, the key question is in what way civil society may have an impact on the European Integration Process in a country? In the first place, its impact may be stronger through mutual cooperation within civil society – through agreements on priorities, forming of civic platforms and coalitions (particularly for projects financed by EU). The other method is by having a dialogue and cooperation with the State – through information and joint campaigns, participation of civil society organizations in formal steps (the example of monitoring of Stabilization and Association Agreement implementation, or liabilities towards the Process) but also through participation in legislative initiatives and by rendering expertise owned by civil society. This knowledge of civil society may especially be used, and it may be of benefit for both civil society and State authorities, through participation in negotiations on membership. The third aspect of participation is a dialogue and cooperation with the European Union, through its financial assistance, but also through partnership with EU. Experiences of Central and Eastern European countries (Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania) show two types of experiences in this cooperation – one type of experience is during their approaching to EU, while their membership experiences are completely different. Nevertheless, one can also 123

learn from experiences of other Western Balkan countries (Croatia, in the first place). The role of EU as a civil society partner means giving support and more significant position to civil society in the country, actually its empowerment. The dialogue is practically realized through contacts with EU bodies: the European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Ministers. Dialogue with the European Commission – this is the first body that civil society faces in the context of exchange of information and consultations, and before the country obtains the status of an EU member state. First base for communication is – submitting applications and management of programmes and projects that arrive to the country through the Commission, and become available to civil society. EU financial assistance implies that the Union has an important position of donor that is assisting civil society activities, however, it would be a great mistake to consider it as the “main financier”! Funds currently available to Western Balkan countries come from the pre-accession assistance instrument (IPA), which is managed by the European Commission, specifically its national part, which is managed by ministries. The second opportunity offered by this instrument are Cross-Border Cooperation programmes – CBC, where civil society organizations may obtain funds directly, but also in partnership with other nongovernmental organizations (from the country or from a neighbouring country). The European Union has also anticipated special funds for nongovernmental organizations, such as European Integration Fund (EIF) and a new, special mechanism for civil society (Civil Society Facility). Considerable are funds available through IPA to civil society organizations every year, and they amount between one and a half million Euros and two million Euros, with a stress on two priorities: human rights and civil society. There is also an additional fund for media, because communication is the key element of the European Integration Process: being able to successfully fulfill obligations and perform changes is just one half of success; being able to present the well-done work to everyone through media is also very important, for the purpose of getting acknowledgement for it, or necessary additional funds. All Directorates General 124

of the European Commission hold meetings with civil society, or conduct some other aspects of communication, in their domains, of course. The most important are certainly mechanisms of consultations – continuous aspects of communication are conducted on line, too, and may also be found on the European Commission website (Your Voice in Europe). The European Commission is also keeping a Register of Interested Representative Organizations, which is a very important mechanism used by this EU body; therefore, suggestion that organizations should require to be registered for this type of dialogue is very important. One should not neglect conferences as an important mechanism, where it is possible to get directly included into the dialogue with representatives of the European Commission. Direct communication and dialogue is certainly going on with the Delegation of European Commission in the country. It should be the main contact with civil society, through its liaison officer, with whom communication should be regular. The best experiences prove that their approach should be to a great extent proactive, in the sense of forwarding information to nongovernmental organizations because these organizations usually do not have sufficient capacity to follow all information and happenings in Brussels, therefore it is necessary that someone processes these information and presents the most important initiatives, and invites to commenting the issues related to development of specific policies. Dialogue with the European Parliament – since this body represents citizens of the European Union, who elect them, it is quite logical for it to be the most open for a dialogue with civil society. There are several mechanisms of this dialogue, however, the Parliament itself is also very active in proposing a large number of new opportunities for citizens’ participation, such as AGORA1 or civic 1

Agora is an instrument used as a discussion with citizens and civil society on issues being the subject of legislative activity of the European Parliament, however, not with reference to current proposals only but also with reference to future challenges for EU. In discussion opened for the public, citizens and organizations may express their opinions, present their own analyses, but also express their will to participate in the Union’s activities.

125

forums organized by the Parliament since 2005 at the local level, which also bring together members of the European Parliament. Certainly, the oldest mechanism of the dialogue is debate with committees in the European Parliament, however, there is also a much less formal approach through interparliamentary groups, which are not a part of official structure of the Parliament; they are informal gathering of its members addressing the appropriate topic2. Precisely for their informal structure, it is easier for interparliamentary groups to cooperate with nongovernmental organizations or European Platforms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the example is the Interparliamentary Group for Protection of Health and Consumers, which also has its Secretariat in the scope of corresponding European Platforms in Brussels, i.e. the ones addressing these issues. Of course, one should by no means forget the right to petitions to the European Parliament, as a very important mechanism that is open to both civil society organizations and citizens as individuals. A significant method of communication is also correspondence with members of the Parliament, because citizens are encouraged to write to their member of the European Parliament, in order to point to any issue of importance for them, whether at local, regional, State or European level. Communication with the European Parliament is also possible at the project level, for which there is a good example from Slovenia, i.e. support to the idea of improvement of the dialogue between the Parliament and nongovernmental organizations from this member state, which was supported by the Directorate General for Information, or preparations for the European Parliament elections in 2009, in the scope of which was organized a large number of gatherings with members of the European Parliament, local authorities, citizens and nongovernmental organizations. Dialogue with the Council of Ministers is in the sense of a dialogue with citizens and civil society the most closed one; however, one should take into account that this body consists of a large number of boards, committees and 2

Interparliamentary group exists for the Southeast Europe region, too, and it very often pays visits to countries of this region, for the purpose of getting more information on development and reforms on the agenda. Members of this group are representatives of all political groups in the European Parliament, who expressed their wish to deal more with the region issues.

126

working groups, with whom a dialogue may be established and civil society interests advocated. Also, it is important to establish a dialogue with the country presiding over the Council and, of course, with the national Minister, member of the Council (if the country is an EU member state). In earlier phases of association and accession it is rather important to establish good relations and to try to have an impact on member states (bilaterally) through their diplomatic representatives in one’s own country. In the dialogue with EU bodies the greatest benefit for civil society, as proven by experiences of Slovenia and Slovakia, are, for instance, activities of European Platforms of Nongovernmental Organizations – the Council of Nonfor-Profit Organizations, European Civic Forum, European Service for Citizens’ Action, Civil Society Contact Group, Social Platform, but also the Central and Eastern European Citizens Network (in which organizations from Serbia are already taking part). It is important to emphasize that cooperation with these networks before a country becomes an EU member and immediately upon it, is important as a great assistance to civil society development, because it can give information for understanding how things are actually evolving in EU, where the most important political initiatives are, how to provide a better access to European funds, how to lobby. Also, European Platforms are precisely the place for exchange of experiences with civil society organizations from other member states. This learning process is especially important for the participation in European projects, because in that way not only partners may be found but also one may successfully compete and provide more considerable funds for its activities. One can learn from organizations with previous experiences that it is not simple to take part in European projects, because there is quite a lot of bureaucracy, both during application phase and during project management, that there is always the need for co-financing, that projects are never fully covered by EU, which has always to be born in mind. Experiences prove that the most successful countries in the European Integration Process had the strongest consensus – political and national. The best 127

organization for Integration also presupposed big participation of civil society – examples of Slovenia or Poland show that all negotiations with EU took place only upon consulting civil society. The civil society role grows as membership negotiations are coming close to their end, because successful closing of some negotiation chapters depend on assessment of civil society as well. The real struggle in this Process is taking place at home – the country will not be successful in getting closer to EU if it is not successful in gaining some political, economic and social reforms within the country. The attitude that must prevail is that all that is done during the Process is good for the sake of citizens and not (only) for the sake of the European Union. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that every country is unique, different – but also that there is a large number of common elements for every country approaching EU membership (chapters, acquis, conditions that have to be met…). However, it does not mean that the country renounces its essence, but it must renounce some habits and push its institutions and citizens in that direction, in order to find the appropriate balance between specificities and togetherness. Yet, it would be wrong to claim that it is sufficient to only open communication channels between civil society, State and the European Union. It is necessary, at the same time, to assist capacity building and development of the nongovernmental sector, which will only then be capable of using communication channels at its disposal. It is also important that EU institutions have as proactive approach as possible, not only by setting a corresponding website for dialogue with civil society organizations and waiting for their contribution – EU must really assist building and strengthening of civil society capacities, exchange information with them, consult them and include them into discussion. In the course of 1990s, civil society of Serbia was “safeguarding” the idea of European Integration, which remains their role so far, therefore they are main advocates of Integration. There is a large number of different projects organized and implemented by NGOs and other parts of civil society, and there are also such programmes implemented in cooperation with the public sector. Never128

theless, there still is lack of opportunity/capability for joint actions in improving this Process, whereby the necessity for cooperation has been ever bigger: the Executive Authorities indispensably need cooperation with the civil sector, because it is always the promoter of democracy, whereby also the promoter of European values; also, there are no reforms, particularly not as comprehensive as the ones during the European Integration Process, because the State cannot implement them without support by civil society and its pressure to accelerate the reforms. On the other hand, for this is necessary unified and thereby strong voice of the civil sector. It is very important that precisely this sector gets stronger and capable of active participation in each moment of the Process – the European Integration Process is not only a policy of states but also unification of peoples. The attempt of institutionalization of cooperation between the civil and public sectors, as some successful experiences prove, is through creation of a special office/agency for their cooperation, which has ever more becoming a prevailing attitude as a cooperation model for Serbia as well. This issue is always tightly linked to the issue of reform of the State administration and local selfgovernment, so it cannot be otherwise in the case of Serbia. However, in order to play this role, it is necessary to take several preliminary steps – the first one is decentralization of local self-governments. Here, the main problem is capacity of local self-governments, and the example in Serbia is also the fact that they face problems when collecting property tax (only 30% of self-governments in Serbia have managed to take over these activities since early 2009). The next crucial element is depolitization, that can be reached in Serbia through rationalization of employees at the local authorities level, in order to avoid so-called political employment. The next essential segment of success of the reform of local self-government is professionalization, which may be achieved by adopting a new law on election of councilmen, and professionalization of self-governments may create an environment in which citizens can much more successfully and quickly solve their problems. There are only 30-40 local self-governments in Ser129

bia which are at a rather envious level of services, while all the others are not. The next important segment is rationalization â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to that end has been initiated the project of reduction of the number of employees at the local level, which envisages that within the next ďŹ ve years the number of employees should be reduced by 10,000. In that context, modernization is very important, in order to have much better level of work of employees in local self-governments, but also to enable networking with companies, cultural institutions, wards.

130

Good Practice Example On 5 June 2009, the BCSDN Secretariat forwarded a letter on behalf of a group of civil society organizations from the region to Mr Yngve Engström, Head of Unit of the Directorate General for Enlargement, Direction D – Regional Programmes), on the occasion of organization of a meeting in Zagreb, without CSO participation

A Chance for True Partnership Support to civil society as a promoter of support to the initiated democratic reforms in Western Balkan countries In the 2007 EU Enlargement Strategy, the European Commission for the first time identified dialogue and civil society development as the essential priority for the EU enlargement process in the Western Balkans, and it announced establishment of this programme of assistance for the purpose of rendering support. The 2008 Enlargement Strategy particularly underlines what afterwards Olli Renn, Enlargement Commissioner, confirmed in his presentation at the Conference on Civil Society of the Directorate General for Enlargement, in April 2008, that: “civil society plays the key role in the EU accession process in Southeast Europe. [...] Approaching EU membership also requires political will and support by citizens. Civil society organizations may help in achieving that support.” Currently, programming of support in the scope of the programme Civil Society Facility for 2009 is nearing the end. The regional meeting at which first discussion on this programme of support for 2010 will be conducted by representatives of the Commission, governments of countries and regional councils for cooperation, will take place next week in Zagreb, in Croatia. With the total budget of 27 million Euros for two years, this support will to a great extent determine the form of the future development of civil society and support to local CSOs in the Western Balkan countries. 131

If CSOs are recognized as partners and promoters of changes in the Western Balkans, why are only representatives of the Commission, governments of countries and regional councils for cooperation included in programming the Civil Society Facility at the meeting like the one in Zagreb? The seventeen undersigned organizations for civil society development from the region are expecting that support in the scope of the Civil Society Facility should be based on the following three principles: Regular consultations with local CSOs related to designing the Civil Society Facility. Consultations are to a great extent improved at the State level, but not on the occasion of designing the programme of Multi-Annual Indicative Plan Document. Local CSOs should be equal partners in programme designing, by participating in meetings like the one in Zagreb. The existing regional networks and national platforms should be an important instrument for these efforts, too, to make the consultative process feasible, effective and productive; It is better to provide grants than technical mechanisms for support to implementation of the Civil Society Facility. This will make possible for the civil society development issue to be addressed by local actors of civil society and not to have it done by somebody else on their behalf. By finding solutions and model of support at the local level, better property right, sustainability and stronger impact will be created; Local regional initiatives for exchange of the best practices and networking for the purpose of development of national mechanisms for establishment of the civil society dialogue, should be included as priority topics for support. Such initiatives will enable association of activities, exchange of the knowledge and allocation of funds within the existing national IPA support to the civil society development. A stable civil society and an effective and competent administration are on opposite sides of the same coin. In the majority of countries, IPA national assistance is harmonized with governments that develop mechanisms of establishing a dialogue with civil society and enable legal and financial frameworks. 132

As proved by the case of Croatia – the most advanced candidate country for EU membership – when these mechanisms are once established they have to be monitored and supported all the time, in order to be fully implemented and changes established. Regional initiatives and exchanges initiated at the local level, were established between NGO oﬃces and employees through the regional meeting in Skopje, in March 2008. Likewise, between local CSOs since 2007 there has been coordination and exchange of the best practices and initiatives in this ﬁeld, based on the seminar on civil dialogue and publication of the Guidebook through Civil Society Dialogue in the Western Balkans. It is now Commission’s turn to take the next step regarding the promised partnership and support to CSOs in the Western Balkans This initiative was supported by the following organizations: AIDRom, Romania Albanian Foundation for Civil Society, Albania Centre for Development of Nongovernmental Organizations (CRNVO), Montenegro Centre for Services of Information, Cooperation and Development of NGOs (CNVOS), Slovenia Centre for Civil Society Promotion, Bosnia and Herzegovina CenzuraPlus (Censorship Plus), Croatia Civic Initiatives, Serbia Diakonia Agapes, Albania Ecumenical Humanitarian Organization, Serbia Education for Civil Sector Organizations (EOS), Croatia Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Albania Kosovo Foundation for Civil Society, Kosovo Macedonian Centre for International Cooperation, Macedonia Opportunity Associates Romania, Romania Pokrov Foundation, Bulgaria Association Vesta, Bosnia and Herzegovina Women’s Alliance for Development, Bulgaria 133

Reply of the European Commission to the letter sent by the BCSDN Network on behalf of civil society organizations from the region, and invitation to representatives of the Network to a meeting in Brussels in early July On 16.6.2009 the European Commission sent a reply to the letter forwarded by BCSDN Network on 5 June 2009, on behalf of civil society organizations from the region, on the occasion of coordination meeting on Multi-Annual Indicative Plan Document for 2010 in Zagreb, on 9 and 10 June, without participation of CSOs. The letter was signed by Mr Yngve Engström, Head of Unit for Regional Programmes of the Directorate General for EU Enlargement, in charge of managing IPA Civil Society Facility – CSF. The most important is that EC invited representatives of the network to a meeting in Brussels, to be scheduled for July this year. The letter reads as follows: Dear Tanja Hafner Ademi, Thank you for the letter you sent us, in which you drew our attention to the importance of participation of civil society in the IPA programming process. I send you a reply also on behalf of other colleagues from Directorate General for EU Enlargement, and on behalf of the European Commission Delegation, to which your letter was also forwarded. The Civil Society Facility programme was initiated last year and its principles of promoting the role of civil society in the democracy process will determine mechanisms of support to civil society in the course of the years to come. Some projects and activities have already started, such as the programme “People 2 People”, while others are in the phase of contract signing; among them is also establishment of the Section for Technical Assistance (T/A desks) in the region, and a partnership project in the scope of the Regional IPA Programme for 2008. CSF is the only framework for national and regional IPA programmes, with the aim to make regional and national programmes coherent and coordinated. The regional CSF component aims at creating networks and partnerships be134

tween organizations and stakeholders from different countries, IPA beneficiaries, and it will finance the work of the Section for Technical Assistance in the region. National programmes will be focused on capacity building and dialogue at the local level. The meeting held in Zagreb on 9 and 10 June was a part of regular coordination meetings of the Unit for Regional Programmes of the Directorate General for Enlargement with stakeholders within the Government and EC Delegations, where programming and implementation of the regional IPA Programme is discussed. At this meeting were discussed project ideas in the scope of the regional programme for 2010, as well as timelines, and designing of strategies for the period after 2011. Ideas for projects in 2010 also include continuous support to civil society in the scope of CSF. After discussions with governments of beneficiary countries, we shall also consult other stakeholders with regard to preliminary project ideas, as well as other donors and civil society. Regarding CSF implementation, the component included in the Regional IPA Programme for 2009 is expected to start in early July. The most important financial component for the 2008 is establishment of the Section for Technical Assistance at the national/local levels, and we estimate that these Sections will start their activities after summer vacations. Section for Technical Assistance will work as departments for rendering assistance to local civil society organizations (CSOs) and they will collect and forward information related to CFS to stakeholders, including CSOs, Government, EC and other donors. Starting an active website will be a part of those activities. The sections will, inter alia, deliver trainings and seminars for CSOs and civil servants. Together with Sections for Technical Assistance will be established local advisory boards, too, where CSOs, governments, donors, multilateral organizations will be invited to participate. Our intention is that these advisory boards play the role of an interconnection between partners included in civil society, and in that way carry out an important function in coordination, as well as in programming 135

further support in the scope of CSF. Before this mechanism becomes fully functional, we have to manage with more traditional forms of consultations, given that in the programming process we need information from civil society. It is really a positive sign that so many organizations got included into your network with the initiative to take active part in the programming process. We shall gladly meet you in late June or in early July, to discuss the regional programme in the scope of CSF. We also wish to encourage you to contact EC Delegations in your countries, which are responsible for programming support to civil society in the scope of CSF at the State level. Yours sincerely, Yngve Engstrรถm

136

Publisher: Civic Initiatives, Belgrade For Publisher: Miljenko Dereta Proofreading: Katarina KrajinoviÄ&#x2021; Design: Ivan ValenÄ?ak DTP and printing: Yu TOP Agency, Novi Sad

On Civic Initiatives A group of eminent NGO activists included in the antiwar movement and non-nationalist democratic opposition analyzed and evaluated relative failure of democratic movements against Milošević’s regime, and in May 1996 founded Civic Initiatives, a citizen’s association for democracy and civic education. The set aim is to contribute to creation of a social, civic base that could support democratic changes by educating citizens about their rights, democracy, civil society, and how to be active citizens, in order to be able to make decisions on their own lives. Our vision is a society of equal and active citizens who make decisions on how to live their lives in a democratic country with a rule of law, and with full respect of human rights. Our mission is to empower civil society through education, promotion of democracy and support to active citizens’ status. Our main values are equality and equal opportunities, sharing with others, commitment, tolerance, solidarity, care for people, creation of links and partner relations with others, without imposing, as well as permanent education for all. People are the greatest values and resource of our organization. CI strategy is that only by eliminating regional, national, ethnic, religious, gender and social barriers it is possible to build a stronger, more efficient and potentially sustainable NGO community, and thereby contribute to development of the society in general. We strive to overcome fear and isolation, inherited from the past and increased during the Milošević’s regime, by linking people who would not meet otherwise, which encourages cooperation, joint activities, exchange of ideas, learning from each other. For that reason Civic Initiatives focus their activities on nongovernmental organizations outside Belgrade, establishing relations with smaller towns and rural localities all over Serbia, because they believe that it is important to link local groups with the ones in the capital. We decided not to open local offices of Civic Initiatives but to base our work on cooperation with strong and independent local partners.