Early Warning System 2008

Annual Report – 2008 web edition

Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Development Programme

EARLY WARNING SYSTEM Annual Report – 2008 Although publication of this Report is supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) the opinions stated herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Assistant Resident Representative: Armin SIRČO Project Coordinator: Tarik ZAIMOVIĆ; Mersiha ĆURČIĆ Review by: Peter van RUYSSEVELDT, Deputy Resident Representative; Armin SIRČO, Assistant Resident Representative Editors: Tarik ZAIMOVIĆ; Desmond MAURER Authors: Dina DURAKOVIĆ M.A.; Adnan EFENDIĆ M.Sc. Aleksandar DRAGANIĆ M.A.; Ivan BARBALIĆ M.A. Fahrudin MEMIĆ; Edin ŠABANOVIĆ M.Sc. Translation: Desmond MAURER Cover design: Tamara KOREN DTP & Layout: Samira SALIHBEGOVIĆ

CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................7 I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH ....................................................................................................................................................15 1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis ....................................................................................15 2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong international criticism ..................................................................16 3. Public pessimism prevails..............................................................................................................................................18 4. Support for European integration high ........................................................................................................................18 5. Support for the SNSD down ..........................................................................................................................................19 II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH............................................................................................................................................21 1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive political crisis ..................................................................................21 2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government institutions ..................................................................................22 3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines ..........................................................................................................................24 III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH ................................................................................................................................................27 1. Industrial production up ..............................................................................................................................................28 2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem ..............................................................................................28 3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of BiH reserves fall................................................................29 4. Trade deficit at worrying level ......................................................................................................................................30 5. The public see economy as doing poorly. ....................................................................................................................30 6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and getting more so ..................................................................33 IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH ..................................................................................................................................35 1. Economic situation worsens during 2008 ....................................................................................................................35 2. Idle capacity in every second company.........................................................................................................................36 3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse...........................................................................................36 4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax burden hamper private sector operations ......................37 5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions ................................................................................................38 V INCOMES AND SOCIAL WELFARE............................................................................................................................................41 1. Fewer households without income during 2008 ..........................................................................................................43 2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008....................................................................................44 3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through 2008 ..............................................................................47 4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely unchanged ..........................................................................50 VI SOCIAL INCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................53 1. Some aspects of social inclusion ..................................................................................................................................53 2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the economy ............................................................................56 3. Pessimism over the political situation ..........................................................................................................................58 4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most ......................................................................................................59 VII ETHNIC RELATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................61 1. The Ethnic Stability Index..............................................................................................................................................61 2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues ............................................................................................62 3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole......................................................................................................63 4. Support for refugee return recovers ............................................................................................................................63 5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve......................................................................................64 6. Separatism and Nationalism ........................................................................................................................................65 VIII PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY ......................................................................................................................................69 1. The Security Stability Index ..........................................................................................................................................69 2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year fades as year goes on ......................................................70 3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the population ..............................................................................71

Annual Report 2008

FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................................................................5

3

4 Annual Report 2008

%

I quarter

2008 II quarter

III quarter

IV quarter

Political stability indicators Politically speaking, the situation in BiH is getting worse

-14

-17

Would emigrate

View EU membership with hope

-3.4

-4

3.4

-1.2

8.9

1.8

-7.4

-3.5

Think EU membership is important for political stability in BiH

1.8

-1.3

-1.8

0

Support the process of joining the EU

4.5

-2.7

-1.6

0.3

Confidence in Presidency

4.3

-3.1

0.2

1.9

Confidence in Council of Ministers

4.9

-4.3

1.4

2.9

Confidence in FBiH Parliament

5.9

-5.2

2

0.5

Confidence in FBiH Government

6.6

-5.6

1

2.8

Confidence in RS National Assembly

-1.6

-4.7

1.3

2.4

Confidence in RS Government

-2.4

-4.3

1

2.2

Confidence in OHR

-0.3

-6.5

2.6

2.7

Confidence in EU

-0.3

-3.5

0.6

5.5

Industrial production

6

6

7

8

Unemployment

2

2

8

3

Retail prices

6

7

8

8

Foreign reserves

30

Balance of trade

5

2

1

Average wages

7

4

1

Consumer basket/average wage

1.5

Average pension

7

7

1

Minimum pension

15

2

2

Average pension/average wage

Would emigrate

Would protest over low income

Households with < 500 KM a month

Human rights violations related to ethnicity (reported) Accept return by refugees and displaced

0.9

12.4

Institutional approval ratings

Economic and fiscal stability indicators

Incomes and social welfare indicators

6

2

3

10

10

5

7

7

10

-3.5

1.6

2.5

-1.5

10

3

15

-0.1

0.7

-5

4.8

0.5

1.5

-0.4

-5.3

-2.8

0.6

Ethnic relations indicators

Willing to share country with other ethnic groups Strong pride in being citizen of BiH

Concern that war might break out again

-5

-10

6.6

4.5

Public support for ethnic parties

-1.2

3.9

8.3

-10

Illegal behaviour by police

-3.9

1.8

-4.3

1

Level of crimes against property and person (reported by our sample)

1

3.9

-0.1

-1.4

Number of requests for police assistance

-1.9

0.3

0.9

-0.8

Public satisfaction with police assistance

-9.3

-30

-3.9

Security indicators

5

FOREWORD

One may, certainly, add to this list the worsening economic situation and the potential impact of the global crisis. In the foreword to last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual report we pointed out the extent to which the political situation here has benefited in recent years from an economic cushion. We warned that this could not be expected to be the case for much longer. It is clearly no longer the case. As the economy shifts from a cushioning to an exacerbating role, we may expect the structural incapacity of the Bosnian political system agreed at Dayton to become increasingly clear. Dayton probably represented the best deal possible at the time and it did end a war.

What is more, some of the compromises achieved at Dayton continue to be necessary. But some elements of the agreement have served their function and there is a need to move beyond them. Dayton must be built upon in such a way that citizenship and not nationality becomes the structuring principle.

Armin SirÄ?o

Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP BiH

Annual Report 2008

As 2008 closes behind us and the Early Warning System project finishes its eight year of monitoring public opinion in the key areas of politics, the economy, social security, ethnic relations, and public safety, we are struck by the degree to which the situation has remained unchanged over the past several years. The list of most important current issues remains much the same, including as it does: - the process of integration with Europe and the various associated reform processes, - the continued failure to revise the post-Dayton settlement in a way that is acceptable to the representatives of all three constitutive peoples, while guaranteeing political stability and effective government, - the establishment of local ownership of and responsibility for the political process.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

As we enter the new year, with the global economy in the throes of crisis, the promise of a new geopolitical order on the horizon, and the American neo-conservative establishment that has dominated US and so World foreign policy over the past eight years set to be replaced by “pragmatic idealism” and “smart power,” there are unfortunately signs, particularly for Bosnia-Herzegovina, that this may nonetheless be a case of “Ring out the old, ring in more of the same.”

Annual Report 2008

Signs that this may be the case include continued political gridlock and continued use of radical and ethnically divisive rhetoric, as the mandate of the Office of the High Representative was extended with all powers intact and the European Union presented another critical progress report. There have been reports that government finances are facing difficulties, particularly in the Federation. This is unlikely to be helped by the removal of customs on EU goods. This does not provide a particularly favourable political environment for dealing with the economic crisis, whose impact will only be the worse, given the already high (real) unemployment rate, the degree of unused capacity in the economy, and the role played in economic activity by casual or part-time or temporary labour. The prospect of public dissatisfaction increasing as we enter the spring and finer weather seems realistic.

Graph 1

BH Stability Indices

As the graph makes clear, there has been no major change in overall stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the year. In fact, it has improved, recovering fairly steadily from the low in November 2007. The main Stability Index thus increased from 57 points at the end of 2007 to 59 in both the first two quarters of 2008 and to 60 in both the third and fourth quarter. The individual indices are, as usual, mixed, but with the exception of the Ethnic Stability Index generally show an upward trend in the early part of the year and no change in the second half. It is worth noting that while the ethnic, economic, and social stability indices suffered a low in November 2007, from which they have since been recovering, the Political Stability Index underwent its collapse in mid-2008. While it has recovered somewhat in the latter half of the year, that recovery is relatively weak.

This should not be taken to mean that the situation has been improving. Just that it has not been getting even worse since these various lows. Our indices are indices of stability in the various areas, not of health. There was an objective boost to stability in all areas during the second two quarters of the year, following the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU. That the indices stagnated in the latter half of the year is due to the fact that signing the SAA has been followed by little if any further progress, and the EU and the international community more widely have become increasingly impatient and explicit in their criticism of domestic politicians, on the one hand, while increased spending on public salaries and transfers has taken the edge off the significant inflation that marked the beginning of the year and the economic indicators suggest a time lag in the impact of the

Annual Report 2008

8

global economic crisis, which has begun to affect business but has yet to impinge fully on the public consciousness, on the other.

As the following six graphs make clear, the current modest upward turn in the indices does not offer significant grounds for optimism. The graphs show the trends in the indices (taken as annual averages) since Graph 2

Graph 4

Graph 6

The BiH Stability Index and trendline

Trends in the Economic Stability Index for BiH

BiH Security Stability Index and trendline

Graph 3

Graph 5

Graph 7

BiH Political Stability Index and trendline

BiH Social Stability Index and trendline

BiH Ethnic Stability Index and trendline

Turning now to the individual sections of our report, 2008 was clearly a year of political instability and profound institutional crisis. Our Political Stability Index fell to its lowest recorded level in the second quarter (48 points) and, as the above graph shows, the average for the year was also the lowest yet, at 50.5 points. This was in spite of the fact that the year saw an apparent culmination of two years of negotiation and political drama over the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement the European Union.

Legislation for police reform was finally passed and the country was able to proceed with finalising the SAA. It was, however, the last country in the region to do so. Moreover, the aftermath has proven anything but smooth. Through most of the year politicians proved incapable or unwilling to move ahead with the obligations involved in signing, in particular moving forward on constitutional reform. Instead, nationalist rhetoric was ramped up and divisions came increasingly to the fore both between and within the entities.

The pattern of divisive rhetoric was maintained, not least because of the local elections held in October. The results of these elections changed little in the balance of power, though it was clear that both the SNSD and the SBiH lost ground to more moderate partners. Nothing came, however, of talk about restructuring the ruling coalitions at federal or state level.

The political atmosphere in the country was recognised with concern by members of the international community previously active within Bosnia and Herzegovina and by relevant institutions of the European Union and the wider international community, namely the European Commission, the Peace Implementation Council, and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. A number of resolutions were passed condemning the failure to meet various conditions under various processes or to progress past the signing of the SAA as well as any attempts to undermine the status of either the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina or either of its constituent entities. The High Representative, however, did not translate the concern of the international community into punitive action against any of those responsible for the unsettled political conditions in the country. In early November, the European Commission adopted a Progress Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina that made clear how little progress it saw as having been made over the year and how much damage had been done by the irresponsible and reckless behaviour of leading politicians within the country. Moreover, the country and its leading politicians were warned that, unless things changed considerably and soon, they had little to expect of the European Union. Finally, we may note, that at the end of November the European Union foreign and defence ministers announced their intention of strengthening EU involvement in the country, but without specifics.

Other important events during the year that further complicated an already complicated situation included the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and, to a lesser extent, the arrest of wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžič in July.

In the final quarter of the year, the leaders of three leading ethnic parties, Milorad Dodik, Sulejman Tihić, and Dragan Čavić, agreed a series of compromises in Prud over the most important political issues and those most directly related to European Union concerns, including constitutional reform, the status of Brčko district, the status of national property, etc. This agreement was warmly welcomed by the international community, rather less so by other domestic politicians, parties, and the public generally. It remains to be seen what practical results it will have.

As a result of the political ferment over the year, it will come as no surprise to learn that both federal and state level were essentially subject to gridlock, with great difficulty passing legislation. Moreover, as the international financial crisis began to bite, the fragility of the budgetary position of the Federation and to some extent the state-level became clearer. In fact, the Federal Minister for Finance has issued several warnings that the Federation was facing possible bankruptcy.

The situation was certainly not helped by the constant talk of restructuring or dissolution of the coalitions at state and federal level, nor by the fact that no restructuring took place. As a consequence,

9 Annual Report 2008

2000. It is clear that only the Ethnic Stability Index follows an essentially positive pattern. The others for the most part improved considerably in the early years of the decade, then entered a decline in 2002 that gathered pace in 2004-2005 as both the economic and political situation worsened. There was a modest rally in 2006, after which the downward momentum was restored. The final upward turn in the BiH Stability Index is clearly due to the relative health of the economic and social welfare indicators, which can hardly be expected to continue. Given the intractability of the political situation and the impact of the global financial and economic crisis, it is difficult to see how the downward movement evident since 2001 will not continue.

Annual Report 2008

10

there could be little surprise that the Peace Implementation Council announced that the Office of the High Representative would not be closing in 2009. There has, moreover, been a growing consensus within the Federation and in some parts of the international community that the crisis of the last year or so has made clear that the Office of the High Representative has a crucial role to play in ensuring the stability of the country for some time to come. Given the relatively passive role played by the current incumbent, however, it is not clear what that role will be precisely.

Overall, our survey results are in line with the generally poor political conditions in the country over the year. The very pessimistic public mood already evident in 2007 continued through 2008. At the beginning of the year, nearly 80% of the Bosniak majority area sample and nearly 60% of both the Croat and Serb majority area samples were of the opinion that political life is headed in the wrong direction.

This softened somewhat in the middle of the year, but hardened again towards the end, when again 80% of the Bosniak Sample and approximately 50% of both the Serb and Croat samples were of the view that politically things were getting worse (see Tables I and II for political stability in annex). This is in spite of the signing of the SAA. This pessimism was also evident with regard to the economy (see below).

The public continue to see salvation in integration with Europe. More than 75% of the total sample said they supported the process through the year. Support was particularly high amongst Bosniaks (around 90% from the year). The percentages for the Croat and Serb samples were in ranges from 65 to 78% and from 56.9% to 67.1%, respectively. This, no doubt, reflects the fact that a certain percentage of these two groups see salvation in neighbouring countries rather than membership of a trans-national union. It is worth noting that Serb sample support for integration with Europe dropped 10 points over the year. The views of the ethnic samples as to how important EU membership is for political stability here follow the same pattern. Even less welcome is the fact that fewer of the total sample now view the process of integration with Europe from the perspective of hope than previously: down from 73 to 64%.

In fact, only 50% of the Serb sample viewed the process with hope, compared to 75% of the Bosniak and 65% of the Croat samples. (See Tables VI, VII, and VIII for political stability section in annex).

When it comes to support for political parties, the main change was the declining support for the SNSD, which began the year with 45% support in the Republika Srpska and ended it with just 24%. As a result it lost its position as the most popular party in the country to the SDP. The support leaked by the SNSD did not transfer to any other party, its former supporters preferring to declare as “don’t know” or declining to answer questions in this regard. (See Table IX for political stability section in annex).

It may therefore not surprise that both the Serb and Bosniak samples were increasingly critical regarding the parties in power over the year, with particularly few Bosniaks taking the view that the parties in power were in any way successful in defining or implementing key reforms, capable of meeting the conditions required for progress to integration with Europe, or deserving to stay in power. The Croats were less critical than in previous years, indicating a certain consolidation of Croat support behind the HDZ BIH. This is reflected in the relatively low approval ratings of various government institutions through the year: around 40% for the state level institutions, 38% for federal institutions, 39% for RS institutions, and around 51% for the municipal level. The showing of the municipal level, relative to the others, is largely due to a spike after the local elections. As previously, at least since the SNSD took power in the Republika Srpska and to a large extent at state-level, the Serb sample showed the most confidence in all levels of government, including federal institutions, followed by the Croat sample, with the Bosniaks considerably behind. This is indicative of the extent to which the RS sample support the SNSD policy that less is more, when it comes to central government. International institutions fared a little better, with overall support ranging from 38% for the United States to 46% for UNDP. Results were similar with regard to perceived corruption in government and international institutions. (Tables I and II and V on institutional stability in annex).

Finally, with regard to political and institutional stability, we note that attitudes towards the Office of the High Representative remained split on ethnic lines. While an average of 44% of the overall sample expressed approval of OHR’s job performance, this was due to higher support amongst Bosniaks counterbalancing lower support amongst Serbs. Croats were somewhere in between. Even amongst Bosniaks, the approval rating was only around 50%. (Table II on institutional stability in annex).

Much the same pattern is true of approval for the various OHR-led reform measures, with the Bosniak approval ratings in and around 50%, compared to Serb ratings in and around 30%. The pattern

When we come to economic stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we find at first glance a rather more positive picture, as the Economic Stability Index recovered over the year from a low of 43 points in November 2007, spending the year in the range from 46-48 points. The improving or at least not deteriorating Economic Stability Index is in part due to the relatively buoyant economic indicators for the year and in part to the slowness of public opinion to react to the global economic crisis. For example: • Industrial production was up in both entities over the year, 8% in the Federation and 17% in the Republika Srpska. The increase in the Republika Srpska was in large part due to an astonishing doubling of production in December 2008 compared to December 2007. (Table I on economic stability in annex).

• While unemployment remains a major macroeconomic problem, there was a near 10% reduction in official unemployment over the year, with 40,000 fewer unemployed people in November 2008 that there had been in late 2007. Most of this reduction was in the Federation. (Table II on economic stability in annex).

• The news regarding inflation was more mixed, with strong growth in prices during the first half of the year, particularly in response to international pressure on food and fuel prices. This affected food, utilities, and service industries most and was hardest on the poorest families. As in other parts of the world, this pressure eased during the second half of the year. (Table III on economic stability in annex).

• Central Bank reserves continued to rise over most of the year, beginning to fall only in the final quarter, when they lost some 500 million in total. By the end of the year, however, they had begun to climb again, so the nature of the long-term trend is unclear. (Graph III on economic stability in annex).

• The most worrying indicator is, as always, the trade deficit and the export-import ratio. The ratio was as low as 41% and the country generated a more than 9.5 billion KM deficit for the year.

Further liberalisation of trade is set to take place in early 2009, particularly with the removal of customs on imports coming from the European Union, which already make up a very large proportion of total imports and exports .This will hardly make things any easier, particularly with regard to the government's current fiscal problems. (Table V on economic stability in annex).

This situation is reflected in the moderate pessimism expressed by our sample in all surveys conducted through 2008. More than half took the view that there had been no major changes in the economy over the previous year, while a third or more described the economy as deteriorating. Although generally negative, public opinion regarding the economy was, however, subject to moderate improvement (i.e. reducing pessimism) during the first three quarters. This was halted in the fourth quarter, as awareness of the likely consequences of the global crisis filtered through. The federal sample was moderately more pessimistic than the Republika Srpska sample, with Bosniak majority areas the most pessimistic, followed by Serb majority areas, and then Croat majority areas. (Table VI on economic stability in annex).

When it comes to expectations, the public was also generally pessimistic, but not increasingly so.

Even at the end of the year, only 25% said they expect things actually to get worse economically speaking, while the majority, as usual, expects more of the same. Moreover, the sample became somewhat less concerned than it was about the possibility of rising prices, though 63% still expect them to rise. As many as 20% even expect their income to improve. On the other hand, on average more than 80% of our sample expect not to be able to save over the coming year. (Tables VII-XII on economic stability in annex).

Our questions regarding the efficiency of institutions and their economic impact on the public also reveal a disturbing picture. In general, a majority of our sample think that institutions in Bosnia cost more than they should, both in money and in the time required to carry out tasks. Asked to quantify this, they said they add somewhere between 10 and 30% to their living costs in direct costs and an additional 10 to 30% in indirect costs. A not insignificant percentage of the population therefore said that government institutions add as much as 60% to their cost of living. This is after taxation and contributions. When it

11 Annual Report 2008

regarding the powers of the High Representative is even clearer, with a considerable majority (about 70%) of the Serb sample in favour of reducing the powers of the office, compared to a considerable majority of Bosniak's in favour of increasing them or at least leaving them as they are. Croats again were to be found somewhere in between. (Tables VI and VII on institutional stability in annex).

Annual Report 2008

12

comes to the institutions responsible for fiscal and monetary policy, the Central Bank and the Indirect Taxation Authority were best ranked in terms of their job performance through the year. Worst ranked were the Privatisation Agencies, the Employment Bureau, and the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency.

This makes clear that the public see the benefit of the monetary and fiscal agencies responsible for providing a stable framework for the economy, but not of those tasked with hands-on stimulation of the business environment, and perhaps there is some justice in that view. (Tables XIII-XVIII on economic stability in annex).

Our survey of 150 top managers tended over the year to display a rather bleaker picture of the business environment and economy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the end of the year as much as 70% of the business sample was describing the economic situation in the country as having deteriorated, while only 4% described it as better than last year. Business sector expectations for first six months of 2009 are hardly any more optimistic. 62% of the sample think things will deteriorate and only 3% expect them to improve. (Tables I and II on business sector stability in annex).

This is reflected in the fact that there is increasing idle capacity in the economy, with 50% of companies underutilising existing resources. Financial indicators are no better, with nearly 30% of the sample saying their results were worse than last year. 43% said they expect them to get even worse.

There has also been an increase in company debt, particularly in the RS. All together these indicators contribute to the fact that only 69% of the sample in December 2008 said they had made a profit. This compares to around 80% in 2007. These indicators generally deteriorated over the year, suggestive of an ongoing slump. (Tables IV, V, and VI on business sector stability in annex).

Companies put much of the blame for the situation on the various levels of government and the fact that they are more of a hindrance than a help to the conduct of business. The sample regularly find statelevel least helpful and municipal level most helpful. When asked about specific barriers to business, again it seemed clear that most of the worst obstacles related to administration or government rather than general economic conditions. In the polls of 2008, the focus tended to be on the courts as an obstacle to business, followed by the tax burden, corruption, and in fourth place unfair business practices. These four factors have consistently been identified as the main obstacles, though there is some difference as to the ranking from quarter to quarter. Moreover, they were consistently identified as such by more than 80% of the sample. (Tables VII, VIII and IX on business sector stability in annex).

Finally we may note that business was as critical as the public of the high direct and indirect costs associated with domestic institutions. A very high percentage of companies said such costs add anywhere between 10 and 40% to their costs, seriously affecting their competitiveness under tougher global economic conditions. The percentage was higher in the Federation than in the RS. It is perhaps no great surprise to find that the most efficient institutions, according to the business sample, were the Central Bank, the Indirect Taxation Authority, and the entity Tax Administrations, while the least effective were the legal system, the Privatisation Agencies, and the Social Insurance Funds. Nor is it particularly surprising to find that nearly 70% of companies admit to using informal connections and contacts to get things done. In fact, they have been increasingly willing to admit to using such means over the year and particularly since the third quarter. (Tables Xff on business sector stability in annex).

Next we come to incomes and social welfare, where the situation through the year was at least apparently stable. Like the Economic Stability Index, the Social Stability Index recovered early in the year from a low in November 2007 and maintained its new position, higher than the low but still relatively weak compared to its average in earlier years. This is not unrelated to the issue of household income, as there was a reduction in the number of households without any income or with less than 500 KM per month, as average salaries increased over the year, keeping pace with increasing living costs (Tables I and II on incomes and social welfare in annex). Moreover, pensions increased during the year, particularly the highest pensions (Table XIIIa on incomes and social welfare in annex). We have already mentioned a number of the other important factors, particularly the decline over the year in the percentage of the sample who expect the economic situation to deteriorate, down in Bosniak majority areas from 70.8% in late 2007 to 39.7% in late 2008, and from 46.1% to 20.1% in Croat majority areas, while unchanged in Serb majority areas at around 28% (Table V on incomes and social welfare in annex) This may, of course, be related to a feeling that things have got as bad as they can. There may also be a certain admixture of relief that the rising prices of early 2008 seemed to be over and done with, as global fuel and food prices had

Behind the relative complacency of the general population seems to be the increase in salaries, pensions, and benefit payments, and so overall incomes, through the year, so that price inflation did not have the impact it might have. The average salary in October 2008 was approximately 780 KM in both entities, an increase of 24.68% on the average salary in the RS a year before, though just 12% in the Federation (Table XIIIa). This increase in salaries is largely due to higher public-sector salaries and may prove unsustainable even in the short term. The similar increase in pensions in both entities is already proving difficult to finance.

There are therefore reasons for believing that 2009 may be marked by significant difficulties in social security and social welfare, as government resources prove inadequate to meet increased demands upon the system. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that steps were taken during 2008 to create a National Social Inclusion Strategy, but there is still no clear indication as to when the strategy will be completed or adopted. Moreover, the government has shown signs during 2008 of accepting the need for systematic solutions to ensure a minimum standard of living and adequate social welfare and protection. The RS government introduced regulations at the end of the year to increase the allocation for social welfare, but the burden will be borne by the municipalities, who simply do not have the resources, particularly the smaller municipalities. There is considerable ground for concern that the impact of the economic crisis may be felt most by the worst off in 2009, as employment contracts, incomes fall, and government funds dry up.

In this respect it is worth stressing the findings of our social inclusion section which found significant and consistent differences on the basis of our surveys between the ethnic minority and majority samples on the various ethnic majority areas in terms of their reported income and economic self-assessment, over and above the differences between the ethnic majority areas themselves. Perhaps the most concrete example is the considerable gap between majority and minority samples when it comes to the possession of consumer durables, like cars or mobile phones. This is compounded by the fact that rural households are clearly worse off than urban ones, while female headed household are worse off than male headed ones. These economic differences are compounded by major differences in the degree to which members of the minority and majority samples in the various areas respond to political life and in particular the extent to which they identify with their ethnic group and with the civic and political unit of which they form a constituent part, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nowhere is this clearer than between the majority and the minority samples in the Serb majority areas. There are similar differences between the ethnic majority and minority samples in terms of the approval ratings for the various levels of government, the courts and the police, and the Office of the High Representative.

This picture is confirmed by our section on ethnic relations. The Ethnic Stability Index was relatively high through the year, peaking during mid-year, but still ending 5 points up on the low of 72 for November 2007. As noted above, this is the only one of the indices to have maintained a generally positive movement over the past 8 years, no doubt reflecting the gradual subsidence of ethnic passions caused by the war. This was in spite of a year in which much of political life seemed to be designed primarily at causing ethnic divisions and strife, from the reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence, through disagreement over the census, and the RS Prime Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to withdraw from the state-level electricity distribution company and similar grandstanding related to and following the local election campaign. It is therefore encouraging that our sample was less likely to report harassment on ethnic grounds during 2008 than it had been in 2007 (Table I on ethnic stability in annex). Unfortunately this decrease relates primarily to Bosniak majority areas and there were in fact increases in Serb and Croat majority areas, particularly with regard to the minority samples. There was a more general increase in

13 Annual Report 2008

begun to come down. On the other hand, there was a reduction in the percentage who expect their cash income to fall, from 19.1% to 14.2% in the Federation and from 14.42% to 8.89% in the Republika Srpska between November 2007 and 2008, with a smaller but still significant increase in the percentage who expect household income to actually increase (Tables VI and VIII on incomes and social welfare in annex).

Again this is no doubt related to the fact that incomes have been rising, even if largely thanks to increased government spending rather than increased real employment or productivity. As government budgets come under increasing strain in 2009, this expectation is likely to look increasingly unrealistic. Finally, the initial bite of the economic crisis may be seen in the reduction in the already small percentage who expect to be able to save, as well as the increase in the percentage who think they might lose their job over the coming three months (Tables IX and X on incomes and social welfare in annex).

Annual Report 2008

14

support for at least the idea of minority return, with a jump in support in both Bosniak and Serb majority areas, but no in Croat ones (Table II on ethnic stability in annex).

Less positively, when it comes to measures of social distance between the ethnic groups, we find that Croats became less tolerant of Bosniaks and Serbs over the year, with considerably fewer finding it entirely or generally acceptable to have Bosniak or Serb neighbours, see their children go to school together, have a Bosniak or Serb boss, etc. Bosniaks were also more intolerant than before of Serbs and Croats. By contrast, Serb acceptance of both Bosniaks and Croats was up in most of the areas asked about.

Even with these changes, however, Bosniaks are considerably the most tolerant, followed some way behind by Croats, and with Serbs in third place. There was a similar pattern to willingness to move town for a better job to an area where one would not belong to the majority ethnicity, with both Bosniaks and Croats less willing than before to do so and Serbs expressing unchanged levels of readiness. Again, one must take into account the fact that Serbs were in general the least willing (around 25%) to countenance such a move in any case, followed by Croats (between 30% and 36%), with Bosniaks much the most willing (around 40%) (Tables IV, V, and VI on ethnic stability in annex).

Pride in ethnicity declined over the year in all three ethnic majority areas, with regard to the majority samples. The minority samples all registered higher levels of ethnic pride in November 2008 than they had in November 2007. The percentages of all groups expressing pride in ethnicity were close to or above 80%.

This contrasts to the percentages expressing pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were comparable only for Bosniaks, while for Croats and Serbs they were below 40% through the year. The minority samples in both Serb and Croat majority areas expressed considerably higher levels of pride than the majority samples, rising over the year to reach the mid-70s. The country clearly remains very divided along ethnic lines, with Bosniaks, whether living as the local majority or a local minority, the only group with a large percentage willing to express a strong degree of identification. By comparison, relatively few Croats and even fewer Serbs harbour positive feelings about the country they live in. (Tables VIII and IX on ethnic stability in annex) In spite of this, it is encouraging to note that there was a significant reduction over the year in the percentages of most of our analytical categories who think that the withdrawal of international forces from the country might lead to war â&#x20AC;&#x201C; except people living in the Republika Srpska, who were more like to think so at the end of the year than they had been at the beginning. It is worth noting that they were in any case the least likely to think war might break out and the increase was minimal, so that overall the change was clearly positive (Table X on ethnic stability in annex) Finally coming to public safety, we note that the Security Stability Index rose steadily from its low in March 2008 (85) to reach a reasonably high 88 by the end of the year, the same level as it had been in November 2007. The reason for this change was public reaction in the early part of the year to a juvenile killing in Sarajevo and other events which created major public concern over public safety. As the authorities in Sarajevo took concerted action, including a curfew for juveniles and stronger punitive measures related to parental responsibility, the public concern faded over the summer. This was reflected the fact that the percentages of our sample reporting having been victims of a crime were not much changed over the year, but there was a major increase in the percentages of the various samples expressing dissatisfaction with police assistance received, particularly in Bosniak majority areas (Tables I and III on public and personal safety in annex).

I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong international criticism Public pessimism prevails Support for European integration high Support for the SNSD down

1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis According to our Political Stability Index, 2008 was politically the least stable year since we started our surveys in May 2000. During the second quarter of 2008, it fell to its lowest recorded level (48 points).

The average for the year is also the lowest yet, at 50.5. What is more, this means that for the second year in a row the Political Stability Index was at a record low average value.1 In fact, as the above graph makes clear, the trend for the Political Stability Index has been clearly downward since its peak of 57 points in 2001. There was a major drop of 5 points between 2003 and 2005, reflecting the very difficult political period when Lord Ashdown was High Representative, the SDP-led Alliance lost power, and the restoration of the politics of ethnic division produced deadlock in nearly every area of reform required by the European Union for progress towards membership.

While there was a moderate recovery in 2006, political events during 2007 and 2008 have confirmed the negative nature of the overall trend, particularly following the collapse of the initial constitutional negotiations, the subsequent general elections, and the stand-off they produced between the 1

The average value of the Political Stability Index for 2007 was 52.7, the lowest value up till that point.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

15

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

16

increasingly radical RS Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, and the increasingly undiplomatic BiH Presidency Member Haris Silajdžić. 2008 proved a year of political instability and profound institutional crisis, in which positive events were few and far between, while difficulties came thick and fast. The long-awaited signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union came in the middle of the year, but failed to energise political life or to produce any significant progress on the path towards Europe. In fact, political life was overtaken by radical rhetoric, inability to agree on any political issue of importance, and the obviously dysfunctional coalitions at both state and federal levels. It was also a year of municipal elections, whose results provided no surprises and brought no major change to the balance of forces. Finally, 2008 confirmed the country’s susceptibility to influences and events in neighbouring countries, which only served to further complicate an already complicated political environment.

2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong international criticism This year, 2008, finally saw the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union, one of the few positive events of the year. After nearly 2 years of negotiations, the package of legislation for police reform was passed by the state level parliament in April, under considerable pressure from the international community. While Bosnia and Herzegovina signed its SAA as a result of compromise, it was the last state in the region to do so. This event, certainly one of the most important of the year, was nonetheless only the overture to a process which will require the country to pass a considerable amount of legislation and to reach compromise on political and institutional issues of the highest significance.

Regardless of nearly unanimous declared support for the process of integration with Europe, there was practically no further progress in this regard after the signing itself. Passage of the BiH Fiscal Council Act and the National Strategy for War Crimes Prosecution was practically the only legislative activity in the areas of reform which are a precondition to further progress. EU officials made clear that constitutional reform, while not technically a condition, will be required for membership of the European Union. Given the political cloud that hung over local political life almost the whole year, consensus on constitutional change seemed more remote than ever before.

This was an election year. The holding of local elections on 5 October helped maintain the polarisation of political life. Nationalist rhetoric was ramped up and divisions came increasingly to the fore. Calls for secession were made increasingly freely from the Republika Srpska, while representatives of Bosniak parties in the Federation called for the abolition of the entities, just as their colleagues from the so-called Croat block were appealing for the creation of a third entity. The result of the local elections brought no dramatic change. The SDA, SNSD, and the HDZ BiH fared best, while the relative losers were the two junior partners in the coalition, the SBiH and the HDZ 1990.

Political crisis continued after the local elections. Radical rhetoric, inability to reach consensus on important issues, and dysfunctional institutions remained characteristic of the domestic political scene for the rest of the year. The coalition at state level had never functioned properly, but in 2008 differences in opinion between the ruling parties took on more dramatic dimensions, not infrequently producing a condition of continuous crisis in state level institutions. Particularly good examples are instances of elected officials using official appearances abroad to present their own or their party’s views, rather than those of the institutions they represent.2 Because of this constant political crisis, a number of different European institutions paid particular attention to the country during the year. These European institutions were unanimous in stressing the need for the adoption of a new or changes to the existing constitution to create functional state-level structures. A meeting of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) held in February agreed that if the Office of the High Representative was to be transformed into an Office of a Special EU Representative certain 2 3

For examples, see the third-quarter report.

Five goals were set out: acceptable and sustainable solutions regarding the allocation of property between state and other levels of government, acceptable and sustainable solutions to the issue of military property, full implementation of the final arbitration agreement on Brčko, fiscal sustainability, and reinforcement of the rule of law. The two conditions were: signing the SAA and favourable assessment of the situation in the country by the Steering Board, which would be based on thoroughgoing respect for the Dayton peace agreement. The text of the PIC’s declaration is available at HTTP://www.ohr.int/pic/default.asp?content_id=41354

In September, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina criticising the country for failing to meet its admission requirements and calling upon it to change the discriminatory provisions in its Constitution, while condemning any type of obstruction to the work of the state level institutions or undermining the integrity of the state. The European Parliament also passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina in October, stating that there was no place in the European Union for Bosnia and Herzegovina as the country exists today – radicalised, divided, and without political consensus over the path towards Europe. In early November, the European Commission adopted a Progress Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina in which it made clear its view that there had been at best partial progress over the political criteria and that most of that had been in the first half of the year, while the lack of consensus over capacity building at state level, undermining of the Dayton peace agreement, and inflammatory rhetoric had detracted from any progress previously made. At the end of November, the European Union foreign and defence ministers discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina at one of their regular meetings and announced their intention of strengthening EU involvement in the country, which has yet to materialise.

Certain events in the region also affected the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the most important being the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo on 17 February. It should be noted that the mere expectation of this event had had a negative impact through 2007. Constant attempts by politicians from the RS to link the status of Kosovo with the status of their entity raised the political temperature even before the declaration of independence, so the reaction following the event itself was much as expected. The negative statements by RS politicians, the visit by the RS Prime Minister to attend public demonstrations in Belgrade, demonstrations held in the main towns of the RS, and even the voting of a resolution by the RS National Assembly refusing to recognise the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and Metohija offered little to surprise and brought little change to the political climate.

Events related to the Hague Tribunal, both directly and indirectly, also affected the political scene in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Positive events included the arrest of Stojan Župljanin in June and that of Radovan Karadžić in July, though the latter’s trial has yet to start and will certainly represent one of the most important political events of the coming period. Political life was also shaken by the sentencing of former Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Army General Rasim Delić, who was found guilty on grounds of command responsibility and sentenced to 3 years in prison for war crimes committed in central Bosnia.

As expected, the sentence provoked an extremely negative reaction in the RS, because of the leniency of the term imposed, which led to accusations of bias on the part of the court.

At the end of the year, the leaders of the three leading ethnic parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina made an attempt to reach agreement over the most important political issues, with a view to avoiding or overcoming the long-term crisis. The leaders of the SDA, SNSD, and the HDZ BiH reached agreement in principle on constitutional reform, the status of Brčko district, and the status of national property, under the so-called Prud agreement.4 The Prud agreement received a very warm welcome from representatives of the international community and the European Union, but was not particularly warmly received by other local political players, whether in the ruling coalition or opposition. As a result, it remains extremely uncertain whether implementation of the agreement will be at all possible, and to what extent it really represents the first step out of the current crisis.

4

The agreement provides for the following: ammendments to the constitution to bring it into line with European norms, while improving the effectiveness of state-level institutions and making clear territorial organization; a census in 2011, with the proviso that the 1991 census will remain the basis for ethnic representation at all levels of government and administration until 2014; a deal on the division of government property, with the state-level retaining ownership of such property as is necessary for state-level institutions to function and the remainder split between the entity and lower levels of government; a deal to sort out the legal status of Brčko District by constitutional amendment.

17 Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

goals and conditions would have to be met in advance by the country.3 All attempts at unilateral change to the constitutional structure of the country were also condemned, as were any attempts to question its territorial integrity. This position regarding the status of the Office of the High Representative was repeated at a meeting of the PIC held in June, and again in November. It should be stressed that, contrary to expectations, the High Representative’s own approach to local leaders and political circumstances remained relatively passive. Negative trends and even quite extreme displays by politicians received little more than a warning, with no use of concrete measures or the Bonn authorities.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

18

3. Public pessimism prevails The very pessimistic public mood already evident in 2007 continued through 2008. Already at the beginning of the year, the sample showed considerable pessimism regarding the political situation in the country, with as many as 78.8% of the Bosniak sample, 57.7% of the Croat sample, and 57.3% of the Serb sample taking the view that Bosnia and Herzegovina was moving in the wrong direction. Over the following two quarters, Serb and Bosniak opinion softened, only to harden again by the end of the year.

In the final quarter, 50.3% of the Serb sample, 52.9% of the Croat sample, and as much as 79.7% of the Bosniak sample said they thought the country was headed in the wrong direction politically. On average, more than half the total sample expressed pessimism throughout the year, with the Bosniak sample most pessimistic, and the Serb sample least so (Tables I and II in annex).

The Bosniak sample was also most negative during the year vis-Ă -vis the economic situation, with as much as 60% of the opinion through the year that the economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was bad, and a negligible number of the view that the economic situation could be described as good (between 1.4% at the beginning and 0.2% at the end of the year). The Croat sample were far less likely to express a negative assessment of the economic situation in the country, but this was largely because a large majority of the sample through the year (more than 47%) refused to express a clear opinion on the issue. The Serb sample also showed a very high and steady level of pessimism regarding the economic situation, which varied over the year between 61.4% and 17.9% (Table III in annex). The sample from the RS were also critical regarding the economic situation in that entity, with between 53.8% and 61.4% also describing the economic situation there as poor (Table IIIa in annex).

The percentage of the sample who would emigrate if the opportunity arose was also high through 2008, at between 38.2% and 42.2% of the total sample, yet another negative trend continued from the previous year. As has become the norm, the 18 to 35 age group was most eager to emigrate, with more Table IV

Would emigrate if they could Age 18 - 35 36 - 50 Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept 41.6 40.4 64.7 61.3 64.5 63.3 51.1 46.1 45.6 47.9 46.3 23.6 27.7 24.3 19.2 35.9 39.7 41.6 10.6 13.3 11.7 11.0 11.2 17.5 13.0 14.3 12.7 100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

All 2008 Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

March June 42.2 38.2 47.5 50.3 10.3 11.4 100.0 100.0

Nov 39.4 48.9 11.7 100.0

March 18.6 73.7 7.7 100.0

51 + June Sept 14.9 17.4 76.3 73.9 8.8 8.7 100.0 100.0

Nov 17.6 72.2 10.2 100.0

March 42.5 45.8 11.7 100.0

Male June Sept 37.2 43.4 49.7 46.3 13.1 10.3 100.0 100.0

Nov 43.3 45.9 10.8 100.0

March 41.9 49.1 9.0 100.0

Female June Sept 39.2 39.9 51.0 49.3 9.9 10.8 100.0 100.0

Nov 37.6 46.7 15.7 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

than 60% expressing such a desire through the year (Table IV). The breakdown by ethnicity was fairly stable through the year (Table V in annex).

4. Support for European integration high Support for the process of European integration was high through the year, higher even than it had been in 2007. That means between 75.6% and 79.9% of the total sample said they supported the process through the year. The Bosniak sample was most likely to support or express approval (between 87.9% and 94%), but support was also relatively high amongst both the other samples as well -- around 65% and 78.3% for the Croat sample and between 56.9% and 67.1% for the Serb sample. There was, however, a noteworthy drop in support amongst the Serb sample over the year, ending the year 10 points down on the first quarter (Table VIII in annex).

The view that becoming a member of the European Union is of particular importance to the political stability of the country also enjoyed considerable public support during the year, with between 77.2% and 80.3% of the total sample supporting it: more than 87% of the Bosniak sample, 66% of the Croat sample, and 60% of the Serb sample through the year. As with the previous question, there was a gradual decline

Table VII

19 How important do you think EU membership is for BiH?

Very Somewhat Neither important nor unimportant Fairly unimportant Not at all important DK/NA Total TOTAL IMPORTANT Neither important nor unimportant TOTAL UNIMPORTANT DK/NA Total

March % 57.8 22.5

June % 52.6 26.4

Sept % 45.2 32.0

Nov. % 48.8 28.4

Bosniak majority areas March June Sept % % % 80.6 77.9 60.9 11.7 9.5 28.1

11.1 2.2 2.5 4.0 100.0 80.3

11.4 1.6 2.5 5.4 100.0 79.0

13.8 1.1 3.9 3.9 100.0 77.3

12.9 2.4 3.9 3.6 100.0 77.2

3.6 0.1 0.4 3.6 100.0 92.3

3.6 0.2

11.1 4.6 4.0 100.0

11.4 4.1 5.4 100.0

13.8 5.0 3.9 100.0

12.9 6.2 3.6 100.0

3.6 0.5 3.6 100.0

Croat majority areas June Sept % % 43.8 51.5 32.9 22.7

March % 45.5 21.3

7.6

6.7

8.7 100.0 87.4

3.5 100.0 88.9

0.4 3.8 100.0 89.1

19.1 4.8 2.0 7.4 100.0 66.7

16.2 1.9 1.4 3.8 100.0 76.7

20.9 0.7 1.2 3.0 100.0 74.2

14.6 17.4 0.5 3.8 1.2 5.1 3.5 3.6 100.0 100.0 80.3 70.2

19.3 18.9 3.0 2.6 5.9 9.3 2.5 4.9 100.0 100.0 69.3 64.4

20.5 5.9 9.1 3.8 100.0 60.7

3.6 0.2 8.7 100.0

7.6

6.7 0.4 3.8 100.0

19.1 6.9 7.4 100.0

16.2 3.3 3.8 100.0

20.9 1.9 3.0 100.0

14.6 17.4 1.6 8.9 3.5 3.6 100.0 100.0

19.3 18.9 8.9 11.9 2.5 4.9 100.0 100.0

20.5 15.0 3.8 100.0

3.5 100.0

Nov. % 36.4 43.9

Serb majority areas March June Sept % % % 35.0 25.9 26.5 35.2 43.5 37.8

Nov. % 73.9 15.2

Nov. % 21.7 39.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

in support amongst the Serb sample over the year, with an approximate 10 point difference between the first and the last quarter (Table VII).

On the other hand, however, as the year wore on, the percentage of the sample viewed the process of integration with Europe from the perspective of hope reduced, while the number who expressed concern increased. During the first quarter as many as 73% of the total sample said they viewed the process with hope, down to 63.9% by the last quarter. The trends for the Serb and Bosniak samples are similar. The percentage of the Serb sample viewing the process with hope declined from 62.1% in the first quarter to 49.3% in the last quarter. The percentage of the Bosniak sample of the same opinion was much higher, but also in decline (from 85.8% at the beginning of the year to 75% by the end). Amongst the Croat sample, the percentage who took this position was more stable and averaged approximately 65% across the year (Table VI in annex).

5. Support for the SNSD down In 2007, the SNSD was by far the strongest party both in the RS and at state level. In 2008, the party’s dominant position was gradually eroded, as its support within its primary constituency, the RS, fell away.

In the first quarter of the year, RS support for the party was at an enviable 45.1%. This had clearly fallen already in the second and third quarters, to 32.7% and 35.3% respectively, to end the year at just 23.9%.

This decline also meant losing its position as the most popular party in the country – from 17.9% of the total sample in the first quarter, it fell to 9.7% by the end of the year. At the same time, there was no concomitant increase in support for any other party in the RS, just a considerable increase in the percentage of the sample who declared that no party represented a position which they considered close to their own as well as in the percentage who refused to declare at all. The next party, in terms of popularity, in the RS was the SDS, whose support fluctuated between 8.2% and 13% (Table IX in annex).

Regardless of the steady fall in support for the SNSD, no other party experienced a particularly steep rise in approval during 2008. Over the year, the party which enjoyed most support in the Federation was generally the SDP. This party's position remained between 12.4% and 17.2% over the year, the latter figure being for the final quarter and the party’s strongest result during the year, when it became the leading party in the country (10.7% of the overall sample). SDA support averaged approximately 12%, while support for the SBiH averaged 7%. The Croat party with the most support was the HDZ BiH (averaging 7%), considerably ahead of any other party from the so-called Croat block (Table IX in annex).

Both the Serb and Bosniak samples displayed increasingly critical attitudes towards the parties in power. The traditionally critical Bosniak sample displayed even greater dissatisfaction, with more than

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

All 2008

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

20

half of the opinion that the parties in power had not been even relatively successful in defining and implementing key reforms, that they were not capable of meeting the conditions required for progress towards integration with Europe on time, and that they did not deserve to stay in power. The Croat sample was less stable in its opinion over the year, with between 25 and 40% expressing negative assessment of the parties in power (except during the second quarter when a considerably higher percentage took a critical view). Nonetheless, we should mention that this represents a lower level of criticism than the previous year, largely due to the increased percentage of the sample unable or unwilling to express an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the ruling coalition, rather than an increase in the percentage expressing actual approval (Table XI in annex).

The Serb sample also displayed a more critical attitude than the previous year, though they remain the most positive overall with regard to the parties in power. Between 20 and 30% gave a critical assessment of the parties in power, while approximately 30% of the sample refused to answer through the year. This leaves between 28.5% and 36.3% of the opinion that the parties in power deserve to remain in power (Table XI in annex).

II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH 1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive political crisis 2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government institutions 3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines

1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive political crisis The institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina have always been faithful mirrors of any crisis present in local politics, so that their (inability to) function is a good indicator of political stability in the country. This was the case in 2008 -- profound crisis in political life was accompanied by equally profound institutional crisis. Problems in the performance of the ruling coalition at state level, evident from the very beginning of its mandate, deepened through the year. Profound political disagreements between the parties making up the ruling coalition were reflected, as expected, in the performance of the state level institutions.

More than ever before, these state institutions were a vision of ineffectiveness, inefficiency, party conflict, and the pursuit of party and not common interests.

After the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union, Bosnia and Herzegovina accepted a series of conditions related to membership, which will require not merely highly intensive legislative activity and involvement of institutions at all levels, but also a high degree of consensus between all political players regarding the path towards Europe. Unfortunately, since the signing of the agreement, it has become clear that there is little if any commitment to and no practical consensus regarding meeting the obligations and priorities set by the EU. It is a demoralising indicator that only 13 of the over 30 short-term priorities put before the country by the European Union had been met by the end of September this year, whether in whole or in part, so that it is impossible to talk of a comprehensive reform process this year.

Instead of dealing with reforms and carrying out the tasks required for integration with Europe, the state level institutions were preoccupied throughout 2008 with themselves. The decision-making process in the collective state level institutions was marred by outvoting and the absence of consensus. Already at the beginning of the year, two decisions by the collegiate head of state, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina were found to be in violation of vital national/ethnic interests. This body’s inability to reach compromise was confirmed after the Presidency failed to adopt a platform during the second quarter of the year for participation in the UN General Assembly, so that the Chair of the Presidency, Haris Silajdžić, gave a speech which was a reflection of his personal views. His speech to the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe was a similar case in point. This certainly contributed to the deterioration of the political climate, provoking the predictably negative reaction from politicians in the RS.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

21

Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

22

On the other hand, a number of appearances by the RS Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, and other politicians from the RS, during which they questioned the territorial integrity of the country and the authorities pooled by the entities at state level, also had a particularly negative impact on political stability and the functioning of state level institutions. The RS institutions went even further than mere verbal grandstanding. In early September, the RS government initiated the process of creating its own electricity transmission company (parallel to the state company responsible for this area), after which it refused to deliver documentation to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Prosecutor's Office relating to the tax declarations of two private companies, the RS government and certain ministries, while during the year it proceeded to open its own representative offices abroad. These activities continued in the face of occasional warnings by representatives of the international community and reaction by representatives of political parties based in the Federation.

Coming to the performance of the entity institutions, the SNSD maintained its dominant position within the RS government through 2008, and while there was some quarrelling with the junior coalition partners, principally the PDP, this did not affect the performance of institutions within the entity. The federal institutions, on the other hand, staggered from crisis to crisis through the year, again largely as a result of poor relations between the coalition partners at this level, particularly the SDA and the SBiH. After publication of the local election results, the SDA and HDZ BiH opened negotiations on restructuring the government, and there were even hints about the possible dissolution of the coalition between the SDA and the SBiH. Once the SDP made clear, however, that it had no intention of joining the ruling coalition, it became obvious that a new majority could not be formed without the SBiH (and HDZ 1990), so that all talk of restructuring was in the end abandoned. A clear indicator of the crisis within the federal institutions is the fact that the federal budget for next year is 240 million KM less than this year's budget as a direct result of this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deficit. That the Federation is on the edge of bankruptcy was announced more than once during the year by the Minister of Finance of the Federation.

Under such conditions of political and institutional crisis, rather greater involvement was expected from the international institutions, led by the Office of the High Representative. The energetic approach taken by the new High Representative, Miroslav LajÄ?ak, in 2007, which suggested he might take an active role in political process, underwent a transformation in 2008. His passivity, his reluctance to use his Bonn authorities, and his self-imposed restriction to verbal warning made clear that there is no consensus on a definite and determined course of action within the European Union or amongst the countries that make up the Peace Implementation Council. Several times during the year, the High Representative himself, alongside representatives of the EU institutions, stressed that the responsibility for progress towards integration with Europe lies exclusively with domestic institutions and local political actors. Nor did local politicians show a united front with regard to the role of the Office of the High Representative. While politicians from the Federation (particularly those from the so-called Bosniak parties) advocated a greater and clearer role for the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, those from the RS were unanimous in their view that the Office of the High Representative should be closed. The decision of the international community was somewhere in between -- at the end of the year, the Peace Implementation Council decided that the time had not yet come to close the Office of the High Representative or to withdraw the European security forces (EUFOR). On the other hand, it was also clear that any more significant involvement than that currently in place was not to be expected any time soon.

2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government institutions The overall approval ratings for various government institutions in 2008 were as follows: around 40% for state level institutions, 38% for federal institutions, 39% for RS institutions, and around 51% for municipal level. There was not much fluctuation in the approval ratings during the year -- after a modest fall in the second and third quarters, the institutional approval ratings generally recovered to the level of the beginning of the year (Table I in annex). There remain, however, significant differences between the various ethnic groups.

The Serb sample showed most confidence in all levels of government over the year, with a noticeable dip in the third quarter. On average, some 50% of this group expressed support for state level institutions, 65% for municipal institutions, and as much as 68% for RS institutions. A relatively high percentage even

The overall approval rating for international institutions present in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a little higher than the approval rating for government institutions and there was very little between the institutions in question. Overall support (annual average) ranged from approximately 38% for the USA to 46% for UNDP (Table I in annex). There was also less difference between the various ethnic groups in this regard.

Table V

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % %

FBiH Parliament Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total FBiH Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS National Assembly Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total Municipal authorities Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total

Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % %

Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % %

Nov 08. %

0.6 8.0 8.1 25.6 57.7 100.0

2.3 7.0 11.0 16.7 63.0 100.0

2.7 11.1 11.0 17.4 57.8 100.0

0.9 7.8 10.7 21.1 59.5 100.0

2.7 18.3 26.4 26.4 26.1 100.0

1.3 11.0 19.1 47.3 21.2 100.0

1.3 15.7 27.3 28.4 27.3 100.0

0.8 12.2 19.9 33.5 33.7 100.0

3.9 20.5 12.5 29.3 33.8 100.0

1.7 17.4 11.5 24.8 44.6 100.0

0.6 28.4 16.7 22.3 31.9 100.0

0.4 18.3 16.5 29.8 35.0 100.0

0.6 8.6 7.9 25.5 57.4 100.0

2.0 7.3 10.2 16.4 64.1 100.0

2.5 9.1 11.3 16.4 60.8 100.0

0.9 7.5 11.1 19.6 60.9 100.0

2.5 16.5 26.9 26.4 27.7 100.0

2.1 8.6 19.1 47.9 22.3 100.0

1.4 14.5 28.0 30.2 25.9 100.0

1.2 10.8 22.3 32.5 33.2 100.0

4.9 20.0 12.3 29.6 33.2 100.0

1.9 16.7 12.0 24.5 44.9 100.0

0.6 27.5 17.3 21.6 33.0 100.0

0.7 17.3 17.4 29.6 35.0 100.0

0.6 5.5 6.7 23.2 64.1 100.0

2.5 5.7 9.9 15.4 66.5 100.0

2.3 5.1 11.6 18.0 63.0 100.0

0.5 6.6 9.9 18.4 64.6 100.0

2.4 13.7 24.5 25.1 34.3 100.0

1.0 5.9 17.5 50.1 25.6 100.0

1.4 14.2 21.8 31.3 31.4 100.0

0.8 6.3 16.5 34.9 41.5 100.0

5.7 22.7 14.5 28.7 28.4 100.0

2.3 17.9 14.2 25.0 40.6 100.0

3.0 30.3 14.9 20.6 31.3 100.0

2.2 19.3 17.5 31.3 29.7 100.0

0.6 5.0 6.5 23.2 64.6 100.0

2.5 5.8 9.6 15.2 66.9 100.0

1.9 5.1 9.1 19.1 64.8 100.0

0.5 7.2 9.6 18.6 64.1 100.0

2.3 12.3 24.3 26.5 34.6 100.0

0.5 5.3 20.7 48.7 24.8 100.0

1.4 13.7 23.9 29.6 31.4 100.0

0.8 6.8 15.1 34.3 43.0 100.0

5.5 22.3 16.1 29.2 26.9 100.0

2.9 17.9 13.2 24.7 41.3 100.0

3.3 29.5 13.7 21.1 32.5 100.0

1.5 20.2 16.8 32.0 29.5 100.0

0.6 8.8 13.3 23.2 54.1 100.0

2.4 7.1 11.6 16.5 62.5 100.0

3.5 8.9 13.3 17.6 56.7 100.0

1.0 10.6 16.4 21.4 50.6 100.0

2.8 12.3 29.0 27.1 28.7 100.0

0.8 12.1 26.4 37.8 22.8 100.0

2.2 14.1 23.5 29.0 31.1 100.0

0.4 8.6 21.8 36.1 33.1 100.0

3.3 20.2 19.0 27.7 29.8 100.0

1.8 16.0 16.9 22.2 43.1 100.0

2.3 23.9 17.6 25.0 31.2 100.0

1.8 19.7 16.6 30.5 31.4 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

23 Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

expressed support or approval for the work of the federal institutions -- around 48%. The Croat sample started the year with a fairly high percentage expressing confidence in the various levels of government and their performance, but there was a significant decline in the second quarter and the low-level was maintained pretty well to the end of the year. The average for the year was around 36% support for the performance of the state level institutions, 35% for the federal level institutions, 40% for the municipal authorities, and around 22% expressing satisfaction with how the RS institutions were doing their job.

The Bosniak sample was the most critical group in 2008, though here too there was a moderate improvement in the second half of the year. On average they gave the state level institutions an approval rating of around 29%, federal level around 28%, RS institutions around 16%, with only the municipal level doing significantly better, at around 39% (Table II in annex).

Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

24

In contrast to the low-level of support they expressed for domestic institutions, the Bosniak sample showed a higher level of approval for the international institutions than the other two ethnic groups.

There was a significant drop in support only in the second quarter, with support relatively high level in all other quarters. Taking the annual average, some 42% of this group expressed support for the US, with 50% expressing support or approval for the Office of the High Representative. There was a significant decline in the Croat sample support for international institutions during the third quarter, which did not recover in the fourth. Nonetheless, the average annual value was somewhere between 40% and 43% depending on which international institution was in question. The Serb Sample recorded a relatively steady approval rating for international institutions through the year, albeit one which was somewhat lower than either of the other two ethnic samples. As has become traditional, this group expressed least support for the work of the United States (annual average around 30%), and most for the OSCE and UNDP (annual average of around 41%). See Table II in annex for more details.

Next comes the issue of corruption in government institutions, which our sample was very inclined to believe was widespread through the year. On average approximately 43% of the sample in 2008 was of the opinion that corruption is very widespread in government or state level institutions, 45% that it is very widespread in federal level institutions, and around 46% that it is very common in RS institutions (Table IV in annex). Once again, the Bosniak sample was considerably the most critical, with more than 50% generally of the opinion that corruption is widespread in state level institutions, more than 60% saying it is common in federal institutions, and around 64% alleging it of RS institutions. The members of the other two ethnic groups were considerably less critical, with an average of 26% of Croats and 37% of Serbs taking the view that corruption is very widespread in state level institutions. It is interesting to note that in spite of the very high approval ratings given to the RS institutions by the Serb sample, on average 32% still considered corruption to be very widespread in them (Table V in annex).

3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines In 2008, an average of 44% of the overall sample expressed support for the job being done by the Office of the High Representative (Table I in annex). There continue to be clear differences between the ethnic groups in their opinions and attitudes, but they are not as marked as they were in previous years.

As usual, the Bosniak sample was the most supportive -- except for during the second quarter, when there was a significant dip in support - with more than half of this group generally expressing approval of the job being done by the Office of the High Representative, so that the annual average was 51%. Next was the Croat sample. The percentage of this group who expressed approval of the OHR fell significantly in the second quarter (down approximately 15 points) and remained at that level to the end of the year.

Nonetheless, the average for this group was approximately 40%. The Serb group is the least supportive of the three, averaging approximately 35%. There was little change in the level of support expressed by this group through the year (Table II in annex).

When we look at the sampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views regarding the various OHR-led reform measures, we find declining confidence in public administration reform (average for the year around 42%), followed by political reforms (41%), economic reforms (around 39%), and anticorruption measures (around 36%) (Table VI in annex). There was a clear reduction in confidence regarding all areas of reform through the year.

Support for the measures being taken by the High Representative is still highest amongst Bosniaks, though even their support declined significantly during the first and third quarters, with a moderate recovery at the end of the year. The Bosniak approval rating for political reform averaged around 56%, around 50% for economic performance, 46% for anti-corruption reforms, and 54% for public administration reforms. Serb and Croat ratings were considerably lower and their views were very consistent. Here too we saw a gradual decline in support over the year, so that it was considerably lower in the last quarter than it had been in the first. On average, some 36% of the Croat sample expressed support for political reforms, 34% for economic reforms, 28% for anticorruption measures, and 32% for public administration reforms. Around 26% of the Serb sample expressed support for political reforms on average, while 28% were in favour of the economic and anticorruption measures, and approximately 34% expressed support for public administration reforms (Table VII in annex).

Table IX

Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % % 13.9 23.3 22.6 10.9 49.2 25.9 33.1 41.9 24.2 33.8 29.7 40.0 12.7 17.0 14.5 7.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % % 29.0 40.2 42.2 28.9 32.6 15.5 16.2 18.9 22.7 39.8 36.1 31.9 15.7 4.5 5.4 20.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 71.2 69.9 69.9 4.3 1.7 2.8 18.3 23.5 20.0 6.2 5.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 08. % 71.6 2.9 19.1 6.4 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

These three ethnic groups continue to show very different patterns of opinion regarding the powers of the High Representative. On the one hand, the Serb sampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views through the year were clear, with a considerable majority (around 70%) in favour of reducing the High Representative's powers. The Croat and Bosniak samples views were more labile over the year, with a majority of Croats tending to think that the high Representative's powers should be reduced or stay as they are, while Bosniaks rather felt they should be increased or stay as they are (Table IX).

Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

Reduced Increased Stay the same DK/NA Total

25 In your view, should the High Representativeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same?

III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH 1. Industrial production up 2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem 3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of BiH reserves fall 4. Trade deficit at worrying level 5. The public see economy as doing poorly 6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and getting more so We have been measuring economic stability using the index based on our opinion polls since these reports began in 2000. Generally speaking, we may say that the index has not fluctuated much on a quarterly basis, but we have noted steady deterioration quarter by quarter recently. To provide a clearer picture of these trends, we have calculated annual averages of the index and a trend line for the past eight years. The results are shown in the following graph.

The Economic Stability Index has clearly fluctuated considerably over recent years, when viewed at the annual level, with the trend generally a negative one. Our trendline shows the index as having enjoyed moderate growth between 2000 and 2003, but as falling after 2003 with increasing, if uneven momentum, to reach its lowest level to date in 2008.

Given that worldwide economic activity has been experiencing a slowdown, particularly in late 2008, it would seem that the index reflects fairly well what we have in fact been witnessing. Even though we are talking here about the public's expectations, it is indicative that they have for five years tended to suggest decreasing economic stability, with the lowest value last year. In other words, the public's economic expectations seem to have provided a realistic foreshadowing of the economic instability we are currently experiencing.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

27

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

28

1. Industrial production up Industrial production in Bosnia and Herzegovina grew in both entities during 2008, up 8% in the FBiH and 17% in the RS compared to the year before. The very high jump in the RS during the final month of the year is particularly striking, with levels of production practically double those of December 2007.

In the FBiH, the three highest growth branches Table I Index of the physical volume of of industry were the production of other vehicles, industrial production in BiH followed by chemicals and related products, and medical, optical, and precision equipment and VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I-VIII 2008 timepieces.1 This is the same set and order as the VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007 quarter before. In the Republika Srpska, the three FBiH 98.2 109.6 105.4 leading sectors were the production of coke and RS 100.2 109.4 107.8 petroleum products, followed by other electrical Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research machines and apparatus, and in third place motor vehicles and trailers.2 As the values for these indices (in the footnotes) suggest, certain of the sectors experienced growth of more than 100% compared to the same period last year. The production of coke and petroleum products saw particularly high growth, with an index of 675, so that production was more than six times the level in 2007.

For the sake of comparison, we may note that in 2007 industrial production rose most with regard to the production of office machinery and computers, followed by motorized vehicles and trailers, and semitrailers, and metal products other than machinery and equipment.3 In 2006, the most sucessful sectors were different, with the production of medical, precision, and optical equipment and timepieces in first place, followed by the extraction of metal ore, and in third place the production of chemicals and related products.4 According to these results, two sectors saw particularly high levels of growth over the past three years, namely: chemicals and related products and medical, precision, and optical instruments and timepieces.

Industrial production in the RS rose most with regard to the following three sectors: the production of furniture and similar products, the production of mass consumer products, and recycling.5 In 2006, the three leading sectors in the RS were: wood and cork processing and products, the extraction of stone and dark coal, brown coal, lignite, and peat, and the production of rubber and plastic products.6 It is clear that the structure of the leading sectors in the RS has varied considerably from year to year over the past three years.

The sectors in the Republika Srpska whose indices fell most in 2008 were the production of office equipment and computers, followed by furniture, and in third place the extraction of other ores and stones.7 The sectors with the lowest indices, however, were the production of radio, TV, and communications equipment, recycling, the production of office and computer equipment, and the production of metal products other than machinery.8 There is one sector which has appeared for three years in a row in this list, namely the production of radio, TV, and communications equipment, suggesting that this branch of industry has been going through particularly difficult times. On the other hand, both entities saw the production of office and computer machinery decline, suggesting that this sector clearly had a rough ride in 2008 when it comes to the prospects for continued growth. It is worth noting that in 2007 this was one of the most successful sectors in the FBiH, but one of the worst performing in 2008, at least relative to the year before.

2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem The high unemployment rate in Bosnia and Herzegovina is certainly one of the country's main macroeconomic headaches. The increase in registered unemployment in past years has recently been halted

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Index values, respectively: 180.1; 151.4; 119.9. Source: Federal Statistics Office, “Mjesečni statistički pregled,” no. 1, January 2009.

Index values, respectively: 674.8; 216.1; 143.3. Source: RS Statistics Office, “Saopštenje statistike industrije – Decembar 2008. godine”, no. 8/09, January 2009.

Index values, respectively: 164.9; 155.3; 153.8. Source: Federal Statistics Office, December 2007 Index values, respectively: 143.6; 132.5 and 129.7. Source: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni pregled FBiH 1/07, January 2007 Source: RS Statistics Office, Sopštenje statistike industrije, December 2007 Source: RS Statistics Office, Sopštenje statistike industrije, January 2007 Source: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni statistički pregled, no 1, January 2009.

Source: RS Statistics Office, Saopštenje statistike industrije - Decembar 2008. godine, no 8/09, January 2009

Table II

Jan-05 328,225 144,823 473,048

Jan-06 Mar-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 349,137 351,867 367,449 371,156 142,754 145,331 146,180 146,517 491,891 497,198 513,629 517,673

Apr-07 370,961 144,306 515,267

Jun-07 370,410 140,189 510,599

Aug-07 Sep-07 369,886 371,342 136,520 134,197 506,406 505,539

Jan-08 367,449 136,108 503,557

Mar-08 357,281 138,497 495,778

Aug-08 340809 133,827 474636

Women 173.837 64.069 237.906

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

and the number of the unemployed has even fallen slightly. These are, however, modest steps, as more than half a million people remain unemployed, which is a very high number for such a small economy. The following table presents data on unemployment as registered by the employment bureaux.

We note that in late 2008 (November) some 480,000 people were registered as unemployed, down some 40,000 on 2007. Gender analysis shows that women are moderately more at risk than men, with 51% of the unemployed being women and 49% men. When it comes to educational level, we find that the unemployed are most likely to be skilled or highly skilled (171,813) or unskilled workers (161,463), who make up 70% of the total. They are least likely to be university graduates, who make up just 11,771 or 2.5% of the total, while post-graduates make up just 1.5 %.

3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of BiH reserves fall After the introduction of VAT in 2006, there was a major rise in retail prices, with the retail price indices up 7% in the FBiH and 8.4% in the RS. In 2007, prices were more stable, with an increase of around 2% in both entities. 2008 saw considerable prices rises again, however, averaging a little above 7%, close to the level of inflation in 2006. There was no major difference between the entities.

Table I

FBiH RS

Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices VIII 2008 VII 2008 98.2 100.2

VIII 2008 VIII 2007 109.6 109.4

I- VIII 2008 I- VIII 2007 105.4 107.8

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

The main areas generating higher prices and living costs were food and non-alcoholic beverages (up 12.1%), followed by accommodation, water, electricity, gas and other fuels (up 8.6%), and third restaurants and hotels (up 7.1%). Retail prices only fell for clothing and shoes, down 2.1%.

Central Bank of BiH reserves have been growing steadily for some time, including most of the months of 2008. The fourth quarter did see a negative turn, with a reduction in the reserves, as Graph 3 shows.

Graph 1

Central Bank of BiH Foreign Reserves (millions KM)

The upward trend of last year came to an end in October 2008. In October and November 2008 the Bank's total reserves fell by some 500 million KM. The last month of 2008 saw a moderate recovery, which is of course a good sign, and the trend may well continue into 2009. In any case, the reason for this drop in late 2008 is not hard to surmise, as the global financial crisis resulted in the withdrawal of deposits from the banking system, reducing reserves. It should be noted, however, that this is likely to be a short-term adjustment and that reserves are still at the same level they were in July 2008, so there is no reason for panic. It is possible that they will fall further, but we do not expect a major decline or anything that would threaten the continued operation of the BiH Central Bank Currency Board arrangement. In any case, the global financial crisis is

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

FBiH REPUBLIKA SRPSKA BiH

29 Total number of registered unemployed by entity

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

30

a reality, whose indirect impact is clear from the graph and was always going to be hard to avoid. We may still hope that this negative phase in the cycle will pass during the coming year, though most predictions to be heard from domestic and international experts suggest that it may last longer and even take on the characteristics of a recession. We should keep in mind, therefore, that recessions do not affect developed and transition countries in the same ways and it is to be hoped that the evident slowdown in economic activity will have less of an impact on this country than on developed countries like the US and Great Britain.

4. Trade deficit at worrying level The country’s trade deficit has in recent years been subject to negative trends, with a low export-import ratio on the one hand and a steadily rising deficit on the other. It was reduced somewhat in 2006, when the export-import ratio improved, primarily as a short term consequence of the introduction of VAT. In 2007, however, the ratio fell again, though still better than in previous years. In 2008, there was a further deterioration of the balance of trade, as BiH generated a more than 9.5 billion KM deficit and the export-import ratio fell to 41%, 3.5% down on 2007.9 The main reason is that imports grew faster than imports, up 17.2% and 13.1% respectively, which naturally increases the deficit.

Between 2000 and 2008, BiH’s trade totalled 123 billion KM. This speaks to the openness of the economy. Unfortunately, exports over the period were worth just 32 billion KM, while imports were worth 90 billion KM. The total trade deficit since the war is 57 billion KM. While it is unreasonable to expect an economy like BiH to enjoy balanced trade, such a high cumulative deficit is certainly problematic. It is particularly concerning that so much of this deficit is due to imports of goods for consumption rather than production (e.g. agricultural inputs).

Table V

Exports Imports Total volum Balance Ratio

BiH Foreign Trade IX 2008

I – IX 2008

617 1,476 2,093 -859

5.147 12,337 17,484 -7,19

41.80%

41.70%

I – IX 2008 I – IX 2007 + 16,7 % + 22,3 % -

Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priopćenje statistike vanjske trgovine, no. 9, Year IV, October 2008

While the long-term impact of imports required for production may be positive, the import of consumer products has at best a short-term impact on consumption. Overall, the average export-import ratio of 34 % over the past eight years is hardly satisfactory and it is no wonder that the overall deficit is high enough to finance several Vc corridors through Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As per usual, the country's main trading partners were Croatia, Germany, Serbia, Slovenia, and Italy. The deficit was highest with Croatia, at around 1.7 billion KM for 2008. As a group, however, the EU countries were the most important, with both imports and exports rising, up 17.7% and 8.9% respectively.10 Given the additional liberalization and removal of customs on imports from the EU as of January 2009, imports from the EU may be expected to increase even further, unless the condition of the global economy interferes with established trends in the country's external sector.

5. The public see economy as doing poorly More than half of our sample in all the surveys conducted during 2008 was of the opinion that there had been no major changes in the condition of the economy over the previous year. Unfortunately, more than a third of the sample described the economy as deteriorating, with a moderate improvement in the third quarter. Answers in the final sector were amongst the worst, with the highest result for those saying things had got worse and the lowest for those saying they were improving. In fact, the trend regarding this question over the past number of quarters reveals that public opinion on this matter has become fairly static, without major oscillations between quarters, but with a modest upward tendency. This positive trend has now been halted. These results are not particularly surprising given concern over the potential scale of the economic crisis galloping through large parts of the world economy, whose first (unofficial) negative impact is just being felt on the BiH economy.

9 10

Source: Saopštenje – Statistika vanjske trgovine, BiH Statistics Agency, Year IV, no. 12, January 2009.

Source: Saopštenje – Statistika vanjske trgovine, BiH Statistics Agency, Year IV, no. 12, January 2009.

Graph 2

31 Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?11

Graph 3

How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year?14

The public's economic expectations for the coming year do not give much better grounds for optimism.

As usual, most of the sample in all the surveys of 2008 said they expected no change in economic conditions.

The answers to the last quarterly survey were the worst in this regard. We assume that fear of the economic crisis may have depressed the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expectations, as the percentage in our final poll of 2008 who said they expect things to get worse economically speaking was particularly high (25%).

Overall, however, public opinion seems to be only moderately affected by nervousness over the economic crisis, the hot topic of the day, which is, in the end, a good thing for the Bosnian and Herzegovinian economy. It is a recognized phenomenon that public opinion is an important factor in the economy, as the

11 12 13 14

Source: Table VI in annex.

Source: Table VII in annex.

Source: Table VIII in annex.

Source: Table IX in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

Looked at by entity, we find that during the second quarter of 2008, the RS sample were more pessimistic, but in the other three it was the FBiH sample who were. At the end of 2008, some 37% of the FBiH sample said the economic situation had deteriorated. The RS sample result was lower, but still high, at 32%.12 Looked at by ethnic majority area, we find that Bosniak majority areas were the most pessimistic through the year, followed by Serb majority areas, with the best results generally in Croat majority areas.13

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

32

less the degree of fear, the less consumption will suffer, and falling consumption aggravates the situation. To put it in the terms of one of the best known of economists, John Maynard Keynes, it is important that BiH not fall into the “liquidity trap,” where fear of crisis leads the populace and industry to save money, reducing consumption and investment, aggravating economic conditions in the country. If our sample's responses are representative of views in the country, then this should not happen, at least to any very significant degree.

Graph 4

Expect prices over the next six months to...I?15

As the graph makes clear, a very high percentage of the population in late 2007 and early 2008 were worried that prices were going to rise. While this was a matter of public perception, the picture does seem to reflect what really happened, as in late 2007 and early 2008 food and fuel prices rose sharply on world markets, for fuel prices to fall steeply again in the second half of 2008. In any case, we note a reduction in the second half of 2008 in the percentage of our sample predicting further price rises, though a majority still do. We also note that there should be a reduction in the prices of EU imports, but we will be able to judge this only after enough time has gone by after the implementation of the changes. Preliminary projections for January 2009 suggest that the impact may be less than expected.

Table XI

Expect household income over the next six months to...?

Bosnia and Herzegovina Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total FBiH Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total BRČKO Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total

Sep 2006 % 14.4 18.3 59.7 7.5 100.0 Sep 2006 % 14.4 17.8 60.2 7.6 100.0 Sep 2006 14.6 19.8 58.1 7.6 100.0 Sep 2006 11.8 5.6 78.5 4.2 100.0

Dec 2006 % 13.3 21.5 59.2 6.0 100.0 Dec 2006 % 15.5 19.0 58.0 7.5 100.0 Dec 2006 10.0 25.7 60.2 4.1 100.0 Dec 2006 15.4 11.9 72.7 100.0

April 2007 % 10.4 22.0 55.6 12.0 100.0 April 2007 % 11.0 20.2 52.9 15.9 100.0 April 2007 10.1 25.2 58.0 6.6 100.0 April 2007 0.8 13.0 82.8 3.4 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

15 16

Source: Table X in annex.

Source: Table XII in annex.

Sep 2007 % 12.0 23.8 54.0 10.3 100.0 Sep 2007 % 11.7 23.1 50.2 15.0 100.0 Sep 2007 13.1 24.9 58.2 3.8 100.0 Sep 2007 22.5 77.5

Nov. 2007 % 16.9 17.9 58.0 7.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 % 19.0 16.2 56.6 8.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 14.4 20.5 58.7 6.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 4.6 13.9 81.5

100.0

100.0

Mar. 2008 % 12.4 21.4 60.0 6.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 % 11.1 20.4 61.1 7.4 100.0 Mar. 2008 14.4 23.2 57.9 4.5 100.0 Mar. 2008 12.6 16.1 67.4 3.9 100.0

Jun. 2008 % 11.1 18.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 Jun. 2008 % 8.5 16.6 66.7 8.2 100.0 Jun. 2008 14.8 22.2 56.5 6.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 14.4 3.1 82.5

Sept. 2008 % 13.2 22.8 58.0 6.0 100.0 Sept. 2008 % 13.4 21.1 58.7 6.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 13.3 26.5 55.0 5.2 100.0 Sept. 2008 5.1 0.5 94.4

Nov. 2008 % 11.8 20.9 62.6 4.6 100.0 Nov. 2008 % 14.2 18.4 62.8 4.6 100.0 Nov. 2008 8.9 25.6 60.6 4.9 100.0 Nov. 2008 2.1 8.6 89.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

Finally, given the above analysis, we should not be surprised to find that more than 80% in all our polls during 2008 said that they would not be able to put aside any of their income as savings over the coming year. The worst results were recorded in the final quarter of 2008.16 Such indicators only further confirm the BiH economy's considerable dependence on foreign savings, which is hardly a good sign, particularly at a time when foreign capital will be scarcer, largely as a consequence of the global financial crisis.

6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and getting more so The importance of institutions for the economic progress of a country under modern economic conditions no longer appears in doubt. In addition to their importance for economic development, this is also an interesting question with regard to BiH, because there has been considerable discussion recently on institutional issues. There has been, consequently, sufficient reason for us to monitor issues related to the institutional aspects of the BiH economy and society. As this is the economic section of the report, we are most interested in the economic consequences of institutional costs and the quality and effectiveness of the framework of local institutions.

Graph 5

Expect prices and income to rise in BiH17

Graph 6

Transaction costs associated with government institutions in BiH18

According to our 2008 surveys, more than half the sample thinks the way in which government is organized and carries out its functions costs ordinary people considerably more than it should, both in terms of actual cash payments and of time spent in dealing with them. As with other answers, the fourth quarter saw the worst results to date. We assume one reason for this is the reform of direct taxation in the FBiH, but it may equally be the under par response to current economic problems, particularly given the global financial crisis. In any case, 56% think that institutions in BiH cost more than they should in money terms, while 57% said they require too much time. It is worth noting that the worst results were from the RS in the first two quarters, but from the FBiH after that.18 In other words, a clear majority are of the view that BiH institutions cost too much money and time. Even more starkly, they are expensive, time consuming, and of questionable efficiency.

17 18 19

Source: Table XIII in annex.

Source: Table XIII in annex.

Source: Table XVI in annex.

33 Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

We have seen that most of the sample said they expect prices to rise over the coming year. At the same time, a large percentage (around 63%) said they do not expect their income to increase. Around 20% do expect their income to improve, suggesting that any further increase in prices will be at the expense of living standards for most people. While we are talking about expectations, this trend is nonetheless worrying, particularly with regard to low income families.

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

34

If we rate the direct and indirect costs caused by institutions on a scale, our sample have clearly indicated that their cost of living is considerably higher due to both direct costs in terms of payments to institutions and indirect costs (e.g. time required for demanding procedures, inefficiency, poor implementation of laws, etc). Taking an average of our samples’ estimates of these direct and indirect costs, we find that their living costs were at least 10-30% higher as a result of direct payments to institutions and a further 10-30% higher because of indirect costs caused by these institutions.20 In other words, these responses suggest that the public are not at all happy with the quality and effectiveness of domestic institutions, as, in addition to direct costs like taxes, they are faced with high indirect costs and institutional failure, largely as a result of poor implementation in the field. We note that the answers were most pessimistic in Bosniak and Croat majority areas in all the polls carried out during 2008. In other words, the situation is worse in the Federation of BiH, which is hardly surprising given the complex administrative structure of the entity, which is very costly, both directly and indirectly.

Given that the institutions of importance for economic growth and development can be more or less efficient, we use our survey to monitor the public's views regarding certain basic institutions in BiH and how they do their job. The best ranking institutions are the Central Bank of BiH, the Indirect Taxation Authority, and the Courts. In all previous reports the Courts were very poorly ranked, so this result represents a major turnaround. It is however largely due to the collapse in confidence in the entity Tax Administrations, which had previously normally come third. On the other hand, the worst ranked institutions were the privatisation agencies, the employment bureaux, and the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency.21 These results should certainly give those institutions pause for thought, when it comes to assessment of their work. The results of the survey are given in more detail in Table XIV in the annex to this report.

Finally, when formal government institutions fail to carryout their tasks effectively, it provides a motive for the public and business to build so-called informal institutions in order to finish business which should be the responsibility of government institutions. Informal institutions include the use of friendly, family, or work connections in order to complete a task “more quickly” or “easily.” The results of the 2008 surveys suggest that the public do use such informal institutions or a range of informal rules of behaviour but not excessively.22

20 21 22

Source: Table XVII in annex.

Source: Table XIV in annex.

Source: Table XV in annex.

IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH 1. Economic situation worsens during 2008 2. Idle capacity in every second company 3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse 4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax burden hamper private sector operations 5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions

1. Economic situation worsens during 2008 The results of our polls for 2008 were, in so far as they relate to the economic situation in the country, not merely poor, but also showed signs of further deterioration towards the end of the year. The best results, relatively speaking, were for the third quarter, while the worst were the final quarter. As the graph shows, 70% of our sample of 150 leading managers characterise the economic situation in the country as worse and only 4% describe it as better than last year. Some 28% said that there had been no change.

Given the global economic environment, with economic, financial, and credit crises worldwide, which has begun to transfer to BiH, these results are approximately what was to be expected. All in all, the sample response suggests that 2007 was a more successful year for the business sector in BiH than 2008.

Graph 1

Compared to a year ago, the economy isâ&#x20AC;Ś.(%)1

Business sector expectations regarding the economic situation over the first six months of 2009, taken from our final survey of 2008, are hardly optimistic. In other words, a majority of the sample (62%) 1

Source: Table I in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

35

Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

36

expect things to deteriorate over the coming six months, while 35% expect no change, and only 3% expect things to improve.2 As above, these answers are not particularly surprising, given that the Bosnian business sector has no doubt begun to “feel” the consequences of the global crisis, the results of which remain to be seen. For the moment, we cannot claim unequivocally that the country is in recession or how badly it will be affected.

2. Idle capacity in every second company For some time we have been monitoring reported utilization of capacity by the business sector. As this is an indicator which it is difficult to get at through the official statistics, but an important one of the real condition of industry, the sample's responses regarding the degree to which existing capacity is being put to use deserve particular attention. We have frequently stressed in the quarterly reports that the degree to which existing capacity is being used indicates how far industry is from its production potential, which is to say how great the gap is between the work to be done and the capacity available to do it.

Generally speaking, the answers are not heartening, as a large percentage of companies do have unemployed capacity, nearly fifty percent in fact.

Graph 2

Exploitation of Industrial Capacity in BiH3

The fact that such a high percentage of the companies in the survey have idle capacity is not a problem for those companies alone, but also indirectly a macroeconomic issue for the country. Our survey makes clear the reason behind the underutilization of existing capacity, a reason that is certainly not hopeful for BiH industry. Unfortunately, as we enter 2009 we are beginning to hear talk of trying to maintain existing capacity utilization and employment levels, given the trend towards recession in the global economy. In other words, the measure of success for the BiH economy would now be to navigate the negative phase of the business cycle without major redundancies and further reductions in capacity use. The impact on the BiH economy remains to be seen, but initial and unconfirmed data suggest that workers are being laid off and capacity turned off. One can even hear commentary, for example in neighbouring Croatia, to the effect that the situation is being “welcomed” by some employers as an opportunity to get rid of potentially surplus or troublesome workers under cover of recession. Such behaviour can hardly be ruled out, though there have been no reports of it in Bosnia and Herzegovina as yet.

3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse BiH managers clearly think that the economy has been worse in 2008 than it was in 2007. As these are business people, their views are clearly based in large part on how their companies are doing. In other words, we should expect worsening financial data, which is what we have been getting through 2008.

While the first three quarterly reports of this year showed most companies reporting improving results, the 3

Source: Table III in annex.

Table IV

Expectations for the first six months of 2009 show that business expects things to continue getting worse, with 43% of companies projecting deteriorating financial results. This is the first time since we began polling that our sample has been more negative in its projections than in its assessment of the preceding period. There has always been a modest optimism that the future will be better, until now. The answers to these two questions suggest that companies in BiH are in a worse position than a year ago and expect it to continue to deteriorate. The main reason for this is of course the global crisis and its impact on the BiH economy. There are no major differences between the entities.

Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

37 With regard to your companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall operations, how would you characterize your financial status compared to the same period last year?

Better (%) 23 20 31 19 35 36 38 43 62 46 50 35 28 27

The same (%) 43 49 39 43 34 38 36 36 24 34 32 41 46 44

Worse (%) 34 31 29 38 28 26 26 21 14 20 17 24 26 29

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

In addition to the poorer financial results in 2008, our survey results suggest an increase in company debt compared to a year ago. The increase is higher in the RS. This is a somewhat ambiguous indicator, however, as an increase in debt may equally be a consequence of investment, as we have pointed out in previous reports. Moreover, when considering increased debt, we should expect it to fall in the coming period, given the rise in interest rates due to the crisis.

Table VI

How would you compare your company's level of debt to the same period last year?

Higher (%)

The same (%)

Less (%)

N.A. (%)

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08IX '08XII '08

BiH FBiH RS

28 29 22

23 24 19

39 42 29

26 27 24

23 25 17

34 31 41

37 35 42

46 42 62

35 31 48

34 34 35

46 43 52

47 47 48

42 43 41

35 25 31 38 28 33 33 17 23

25 24 29

27 28 24

20 20 21

24 26 18

28 27 25

1 1 0

11 12 10

1 0 6

1 1

10 9 14

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

And finally, poor financial results and higher debt levels than in 2007 may be behind the reduction in the number of companies reporting a profit. The percentage declined through 2008, so that in the December poll, 69% said they had made of profit and 31% said they had made a loss.5 In 2007, around 80% of the sample regularly reported operating at a profit.

4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax burden hamper private sector operations Our sample's responses when asked to what degree the various levels of government help business to overcome obstacles have been rather discouraging for some quarters. Results for 2008 varied considerably by quarter, but were worst in December, particularly for state and entity level.6 These poll results reflect business impatience with the macro-level of government, as though neither cantons nor municipal authorities did much better in the December survey, they did receive higher marks in earlier surveys. Overall,

4 5 6

Source: Table V in annex.

Source: Table VII in annex.

Source: Table VIII in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

actual percentage so reporting declined steadily over the year. This has culminated in our fourth quarter results, which show more companies reporting deterioration compared to the same time last year. To be precise, 29% of our sample said their results were worse than last year, while 27% said they were better.

Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

38

if we take a cross-section of answers regarding the effectiveness of government over the past two years, we find that the private sector has found the state level least helpful and the municipal level most helpful. If we look at the other two levels of government, entity and canton, we find that the results for the past two years suggest that the entity level was less helpful than the cantonal.

In addition to the lack of support from government, the private sector also meets a number of other barriers specific to this country. We have for some time been monitoring which of these represent the greatest barriers to business and have received much the same answers quarter after quarter, year after year.

Overall, our surveys suggest that most of the major problems they face in business relate to institutions in BiH, so that ineffective and inefficient institutions and high institutional costs are major obstacles to business here.

Table IX

To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations

XII '07 Customs procedures 24 High taxes 49 Unfair competition 57 Corruption 51 The performance of the courts 44 Political instability 46 Labour market regulation 24 Tax administration 32 Procedures for issuing work permits 38 Environmental regulations 22 Safety regulations and standards23 Lack of qualified staff 24

Very III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 23 19 21 38 52 50 39 20 46 48 34 19 36 46 37 18 45 47 43 25 44 36 26 32 21 14 24 23 25 23 20 29 37 21 16 18

39 17 16 19

36 17 11 17

28 25 18 16

Somewhat III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 23 33 46 19 19 24 33 19 24 29 26 13 21 16 25 11 20 21 22 13 27 32 39 10 23 27 31 24 27 32 34 18 30 25 29 25

30 28 20 24

29 35 28 34

11 23 30 10

Little III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 23 13 17 9 12 10 17 3 15 9 25 5 13 9 20 5 15 11 20 5 10 10 23 5 25 27 27 16 19 20 29 10 8 21 21 16

9 21 32 20

20 30 36 25

11 15 14 10

Not at all III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 20 13 12 11 6 6 9 4 7 9 4 5 7 7 5 10 8 3 23 14 11 20 10 9 15 21 22 25

9 16 16 16

7 9 13 16

N.A. XII '07 III '08 VIII '8XII '08 10 10 21 6 9 6 10 5 6 7 10 6 15 21 26 15 13 14 14 11 8 10 14 9 13 7 18 6 11 8 14 6 11 15 15 39

11 11 12 15

13 5 19 13 17 11 21 7

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

In most of our polls in 2007 and in early 2008, our sample identified high tax rates, unfair business practices, political instability, and the courts as the main problems in conducting business. The answers for the third quarter of 2008 were somewhat different, in identifying the courts as the main obstacle to business, and only then the tax burden, corruption, and in fourth place unfair business practices. The final quarter poll results are very similar, with minor deviation, as the main problems were now ranked as follows: the tax burden, followed by the courts, unfair business practices, and corruption. Summing up the last two years, then, it would seem that the respondents to our seven quarterly polls were most inclined to identify the following as obstacles to business (as ranked by the polls): 1. the high tax burden; 2. unfair business practices; 3. political instability; 4. the courts. These obstacles were on average identified by more than 80% of our business sector sample, which shows the extent to which they are clear and obvious barriers to business in BiH and that they should be tackled as a priority in any attempt to deal with the problems afflicting the private sector here.

The respondents identified the following as the least problematic issues, from the list of suggestions provided in the questionnaire: safety regulations and standards, environmental regulations, and a lack of qualified employees. It is worth noting that according to our last three quarterly surveys the lack of qualified employees is the least of Bosnian managersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; worries. This suggests, to some degree at any rate, that the business sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina does not think that there is a major problem in accessing appropriate human capital. Connecting this to the answers regarding the use of capacity, as there is no lack of human capital but there is surplus capacity to be put to use, one possible problem would seem to be insufficient physical capital, or in other words a lack of investment required to bring domestic capacity on line.

5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions Given that it has become obvious from the results of our surveys that the business success of local companies is greatly affected by institutions, we have since the beginning of 2008 been monitoring the relative efficiency of the relevant institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Having identified which are the

Table X

How well do the following institutions do their joy

IV' 07 Central Bank of BiH 34 Indirect Tax Authority 23 Entity Tax Administrations 14 The Judicial System 5 European Integration Directorate 3 FIPA 2 Privatisation Agency 7 Banking Agency 10 Employment Bureaus 2 Foreign-Trade Chamber 2 Entity Chambers of Commerce 5 Social Funds 2

Very well Fairly well IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX 45 24 30 34 37 28 15 16 54 49 20 11 6 49 47 7 4 3 37 29 5 7 7 33 28 7 4 3 31 20 8 1 2 29 24 13 7 5 41 39 11 3 3 43 30 14 7 4 44 37 13 9 11 46 35 7 20 2 26 16

IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 43 39 3 47 50 10 46 48 16 18 17 13 22 18 8 29 19 8 20 14 14 28 32 7 31 36 15 28 29 13 28 28 17 9 10 11

Fairly poorly IX IX '08 3 7 8 23 13 25 22 39 9 26 11 18 21 28 7 29 14 34 13 32 18 31 7 33

XII '08 4 18 25 36 20 18 22 20 24 30 27 26

IV' 07 3 5 7 34 8 18 23 6 14 10 10 8

Very poorly IX IX '08 0 6 5 8 7 13 33 30 9 11 18 20 22 25 7 8 20 16 14 20 12 20 19 33

XII '08 6 9 17 35 10 19 28 7 17 18 19 37

IV' 07 24 8 14 11 47 40 28 36 26 31 22 52

IX 14 10 13 9 49 43 26 34 26 22 22 51

N.A. IX '08XII '08 20 20 7 9 5 5 9 10 34 43 29 41 26 34 28 37 16 20 13 19 12 15 23 26

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

In ranking the institutions which economic theory and practice consider relevant for the business sector and economic growth, companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina damned the following as the three least effective: the legal system, the Social Insurance Funds, and the Privatisation Agencies. The list has not changed much through the year, which is a sufficient indication of where progress is required as a priority.

An average of the last seven polls, including more than 700 companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, leads us to the same conclusion, namely that private sector considers the following three institutions the least effective (as ranked): 1. the legal system; 2. the Privatisation Agencies; 3. the Social Insurance Funds.

On the other hand, the most effective institutions are considered to be the Central Bank of BiH, the Indirect Taxation Authority, and the entity Tax Administrations. The fiscal and monetary agencies have in nearly all reports to date received the best ranking. The Central Bank of BiH has uniformly received the best ranking from business in all polls conducted over the past two years, a result which deserves recognition.

It is worth noting that the results of all four surveys for 2008 make clear the extent to which informal institutions are availed of in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nearly 70% of companies make use of informal connections and contacts, to a greater or lesser degree.7 Nearly 70% of the business sector sample also said that they used a variety of informal or unwritten rules in conducting their business, which is connected with the use of informal and the existence of inefficient formal institutions.8 In short, the great majority of our sample uses informal alternative institutions in their day-to-day operations, to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, our sample has been increasingly willing to admit to using such means over the year, but particularly since the third quarter.

Finally, the efficiency of the institutional framework may also be approached directly through the costs institutions cause the private sector. These costs are known as transaction costs and include both direct financial costs and indirect costs expressed in the amount of time spent on various procedures, activities, and processes. According to our third quarter poll, more than half (around 60% from the corporate sector) said transaction costs are higher than they should be both in terms of financial costs and of time required for the various procedures.9 Interestingly, over the past two years, our results have

7 8 9

Source: Table XI in annex.

Source: Table XII in annex.

Source: Table XIII and XIV in annex.

39 Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

key economic and non-market institutions for business operations and therefore, in the final analysis, for economic growth, our goal is to determine how well or poorly those institutions are doing their job or filling the function for which they were created. The following table presents the results of the last three quarterly surveys.

Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

40

tended on average to suggest that the private sector considers the opportunity cost in lost time a greater cost than the cash they pay the authorities, again suggesting dissatisfaction with how domestic institutions do their job.

During 2008, we also asked how much higher operating costs were as a result of both direct and indirect institutional costs. We were surprised to find that most companiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; costs were considerably higher as a result of direct costs, but even more that businesses put such a high estimate on the indirect costs they face. In other words, the business sector considers the costs due to lengthy procedures, inefficiency, poor implementation of the law, and so on to be very high.

Table XVI

0-5 % 5-10 % 10-20 % 20-30 % 30-40 % 40-50 % 50-60 % > 60 % n.a.

Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how much higher your total costs are because of indirect payments caused by government

BIH 19 22 17 7 2 1 6 3 23

III '08 FBIH 19 23 14 8 3 1 5 4 23

RS 21 21 24 3 0 0 7 0 24

BIH 10 27 26 9 4 7 1 3 13

IX '08 FBIH 13 27 33 7 4 4 1 1 10

RS 23 5 18 5 18 9 23

BIH 15 25 21 10 3 3 2 7 14

XII '08 FBIH 18 21 24 10 4 3 3 6 13

RS 13 29 13 13 0 4 0 8 21

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

According to our final survey for 2008, most of the sample (48%) said their costs were between 5% and 20% higher due to direct payments to institutions.10 Nor should we be surprised to find that costs are higher in the FBiH than in the RS, given the additional layers of government and the more complex institutional and administrative structure there. This was also the case in the third quarter. Moreover, our poll suggests that indirect costs are also very high, with 46% of companies saying they add between 5% and 20% to their costs. Again the percentage was higher in the FBiH than in the RS, as was the case during the third quarter.

10

Source: Tables XV and XVI in annex.

V INCOMES AND SOCIAL WELFARE 1. Fewer households without income during 2008 2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008 3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through 2008 4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely unchanged

The Social Stability Index has been in decline since 2001

There are several reasons for this: â&#x20AC;˘ The obvious connection between social, economic, and political stability: The final survey of 2008 shows a more than 0.7 correlation between the Social Stability Index and the Economic Stability Index, while the correlation of the social and political stability indices is 0.58. â&#x20AC;˘ Growing inequality: The GINI coefficient increased from 0.26 in 2004 to 0.41 in 2007, even though the number of people living in poverty decreased from 19 to 17 percent. Nearly the same number Table

Correlation between the social, economic, and political stability indices for May 00 - Dec 08.

Social Stability Index Economic Stability Index Political Stability Index Note: Range of -1 and 1 (0 no connection between variables) Source: EWS, quarterly reports.

Social Stability Index 1 0.72 0.58

Economic Stability Index 0.72 1 0.56

Political Stability Index 0.58 0.56 1

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

41

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

42

live around the poverty line. Our surveys show about 50% of households with less than 500 KM in monthly income, with seasonal ups and downs. Although this number is lower now than in 2001 or 2002, the increased cost of living means that many of those with nominally higher incomes are in fact struggling to meet basic needs.

• The general public’s expectations are gloomy, with constant worry regarding the economic situation, the impact of privatisation, whether they will be able to save, and price increases. The decline in the index since 2007 is related to higher prices and living costs and deteriorating expectations.

• Although average wages have almost tripled since 2000, the obvious consumerism that has swept the country had increased household debt levels. This is a very dangerous situation when job uncertainty is on the rise. The fact that household debt in 2008 was above 6 billion KM is very disturbing.

• Prices grew moderately during the first six years of EWS, but the introduction of VAT and the rise in global food and oil prices brought uncertainty. Moreover, it has become increasingly difficult to avoid paying utility and power bills, which was precisely the “give” in the system that allowed many people to cover their basic needs.

• Generally, the situation regarding minimum standards of living and social protection is very weak.

Conditions in the Federation suggest things are worse there than in the Republic of Srpska, but the social security system is fragile and subject to major political discretion in both entities. After problems in 2001 and 2002, the pension system has remained stable, though there were minor issues in 2008. There is clearly a problem regarding the ratio of the registered employed and pensioners, which has been falling, however. The current PAYE system will face serious problems in years to come.

We have paid more attention to social exclusion over the past few years. The 2007 Human Development Report found that almost 50% of population were socially excluded, with the most disadvantaged groups being old people, the young, the Roma, people with disabilities, and the rural population, with some impact of ethnic background and gender. Ethnic minority groups like returnees to areas where one constitutive people is dominant reveal the clear problems of Bosnia and Herzegovina – the lack of political or economic integration, combined with problems finding employment or accessing social protection, education, or health care. These problems will become more prominent now that almost all donors have left the country.

Shifting out attention to 2008, we note a certain recovery of the Social Stability Index, caused largely by isolated trends and events in economic and political life. In November 2008, it was at 46 points, three points higher than it had been in late 2007.

As already mentioned in the quarterly reports, particular trends in the social sector often have their causes in other areas. Consequently, it is worth noting that in 2008 the Economic Stability Index recovered considerably, as did the Ethnic Stability Index, while the turbulent political situation produced fluctuations in the Political Stability Index. As noted above, the Social Stability Index is strongly correlated with both the economic and political stability indexes, so that change in one sector produces change in the others.

The Social Stability Index reflects problems facing Bosnian and Herzegovinian society: low incomes, based on a poor economy and an undereducated workforce, inadequate policy to exploit the country’s competitive advantages, and the absence of appropriate government (social) programmes or mechanisms, as indicated by our own sample’s expectations, all speak to the fragility of the social security system. The year just past was marked by growing prices, pre- and post election instability, political tension and confrontation, declining regional stability following the declaration of independence of Kosovo, and weakening industrial and economic growth (particularly during the last quarter of the year).

Finally, even the most important event of 2008, the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union, has left little trace at the level of social stability, any more than on our sample’s opinions on related questions.

The increase in the value of the Social Stability Index during 2008 was due largely to a reduction in the number of households without any income or on low incomes (less than 500 KM), an increase in average salaries which kept pace with increasing living costs, and somewhat better expectations (except during the last quarter). During 2008, the percentage of the samples in the Republika Srpska and Brčko

1. Fewer households without income during 2008 Looking at our survey data for 2008, we find that for two quarters there were no households reporting no income in the FBiH and RS, and for three quarters in BrÄ?ko District (see Table I). This is a reversal of trends in previous years, as there have always been some people who claimed to have no sources of income.1 Table I

Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %) FBiH

March 08. June 08.

No income 2,2 < 100 KM 2,1 3,5 101 - 200 7,8 1,1 201 - 300 8,7 16,7 301 - 400 8,5 14,7 401 - 500 8,5 12,1 501 - 600 6,6 7,8 601 - 700 6,3 6,0 701 - 800 8,2 5,0 801 - 900 3,9 4,6 901 - 1000 2,4 1,4 1001 - 1100 5,3 0,5 1101 - 1200 1,3 0,2 1201 - 1300 3,2 0,4 1301 - 1400 0,7 1401 - 1500 1,5 1501 - 1600 1,4 1601 - 1700 0,9 1701 - 1800 0,4 1801-1900 0,2 1901 - 2000 0,0 > 2000 KM/DM 1,4 NA 18,4 25,8 100,0 100,0 No income 2,2 < 100 KM 2,1 3,5 101 - 200 7,8 1,1 201 - 300 8,7 16,7 301 - 400 8,5 14,7 401 - 500 8,5 12,1 SUBTOTAL to 500 37,9 48,2 1501 - 1600 1,4 0,0 1601 - 1700 0,9 1701 - 1800 0,4 0,0 1801-1900 0,2 0,0 1901 - 2000 0,0 0,0 More than 2000 KM/DM 1,4 0,0 SUBTOTAL >1500 4,3 0,0

RS Sept 08.

1,0 1,0 2,2 15,4 15,8 11,7 9,5 6,7 5,5 5,9 3,3 0,9 0,1 0,2

Nov 08.

2,4 1,3 10,1 14,4 12,2 10,8 8,3 5,9 5,7 3,3 1,3 0,2 0,5

0,3

20,4 100,0 1,0 1,0 2,2 15,4 15,8 11,7 47,1 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3

23,7 100,0 2,4 1,3 10,1 14,4 12,2 40,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

March 08.

4,3 5,2 9,8 9,3 9,9 9,9 6,7 4,5 3,5 3,7 3,1 3,8 1,4 2,1 2,1 2,2 0,8 0,7 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,8 13,8 100,0 4,3 5,2 9,8 9,3 9,9 9,9 48,3 0,8 0,7 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,8 4,8

June 08.

7,6 5,6 12,6 9,8 11,4 8,8 8,1 4,3 2,5 2,4 1,6 0,3 0,5

24,6 100,0

Sept 08.

0,8 5,6 6,7 15,4 17,7 13,2 6,7 4,6 2,3 2,7 1,6

Nov 08.

4,5 3,1 16,0 14,4 11,4 10,1 7,4 4,4 2,2 2,0 0,4

0,3 0,3

BrÄ?ko District March 08. June 08.

Sept 08.

4,3 5,6 17,1 7,9 24,1 6,9 13,6 30,2 25,4 38,4 6,8 8,6 19,0 11,1 9,0 3,8 8,1 2,9 4,0 4,1 7,3 4,1 2,2

Nov 08.

9,2 5,3 27,8 24,2 14,1 5,9 1,0

0,5

0,8

24,0 100,0

9,2 100,0

5,4 100,0

7,6 5,6 12,6 9,8 11,4 47,0 0,0

22,1 100,0 0,8 5,6 6,7 15,4 17,7 13,2 59,4 0,0

4,5 3,1 16,0 14,4 11,4 49,5 0,0

5,6 24,1 30,2 6,8 11,1 77,8

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

12,6 100,0

17,1 6,9 25,4 8,6 9,0 66,9 0,0

4,4 100,0 4,3 7,9 13,6 38,4 19,0 3,8 86,9 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

9,2 5,3 27,8 24,2 14,1 80,6 0,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

1

It is worth noting that the Social Security system in the narrow sense (social welfare and home help allowances, child allowance, and benefit) has recently shown some stability, with the caveat that the amounts involved remain very low.

43 Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

district ready to support public protests, strikes, or demonstrations tended downwards, while rising in the Federation. Fewer people also said they wanted to emigrate, particularly amongst the middle-aged (from 36 to 50 years of age). Pensions increased, though the increase was greater for the highest pensions even in percentage terms (around 22.7% in the RS and 10.5% in the FBiH, compared to 6.7% in the RS and 5.1% in the FBiH for lower pensions).

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

44

When we look at low-income households (less than 500 KM) we find that the number at the end of the year is not much different from what it was in the beginning. According to our quarterly surveys, the number of low-income households was up moderately in November 2008, compared to March that same year, in BrÄ?ko and the Republika Srpska, but not in the Federation, where it had fallen quite significantly.

There were significant fluctuations during the year in both entities, but these were largely linked to seasonal trends affecting household income (income from agriculture, construction, remittances from abroad, etc.). According to our poll, the number of low-income households in November 2008 was still highest in BrÄ?ko (80.6%) and lowest in the Federation (40.3%). The percentage of low-income households in the Republika Srpska was 49.5%.

If we look at the distribution of income in what we term ethnic majority areas, we find trends for 2008 which correspond to those by entity, with a reduction in low-income households between March and November 2008 in Croat majority areas (from 25.9% to 21.6%), but a moderate increase in the other two ethnic majority areas, from 48.3% to 49.5% in Serb majority areas and from 41.3% to 45.1% in Bosniak majority ones. These trends are not present for the minority samples in these areas. In fact, the percentage of minority sample low-income households rose steeply in both Bosniak majority areas (from 56.2% to 77.8%) and Croat majority areas (from 22.1% to 45.6%), but fell in Serb majority areas (from 67.3% to 66.8%). For more see Table II. Table II

Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)

Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500

Minority sample in BMA March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

2,7 0,7 1,6 3,9 1,3 8,3 1,3 2,0 9,6 19,0 17,2 9,2 17,3 18,8 9,8 14,0 12,2 41,3 55,5 52,3

Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500

Minority sample in BMA March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

3,7 2,0 6,9 1,4 2,0 17,6 0,6 2,0 6,8 21,3 15,4 9,7 24,5 24,5 11,4 9,0 10,6 56,2 56,9 56,5

Nov 08.

2,6 1,2 11,4 16,1 13,8 45,1

Nov 08.

4,3 6,2 29,8 17,5 20,0 77,8

March 08.

0,5 3,9 6,0 5,6 6,0 4,0 25,9

Minority sample in CMA June 08. Sept 08.

2,1 2,1 0,1 0,7 2,8 8,6 8,8 5,8 5,1 5,2 10,1 22,4 29,1

March 08.

0,5 0,9 5,0 4,2 5,6 6,0 22,1

Minority sample in CMA June 08. Sept 08.

1,0 1,8 1,8 1,9 22,5 11,4 27,2 10,8 10,3 14,4 63,5 39,3

Nov 08.

1,5 1,6 5,0 7,6 5,8 21,6

Nov 08.

2,6 2,5 15,4 9,4 15,7 45,6

Minority sample in SMA March 08. June 08.

Sept 08.

4,3 0,8 5,2 7,6 5,6 9,8 5,6 6,7 9,3 12,6 15,4 9,9 9,8 17,7 9,9 11,4 13,2 48,3 47,0 59,4 Minority sample in SMA March 08. June 08.

Sept 08.

10,1 0,9 9,6 9,0 5,2 7,7 11,1 11,8 23,2 27,3 25,9 8,2 8,7 16,8 8,5 4,6 9,5 67,3 60,7 70,1

Nov 08.

4,5 3,1 16,0 14,4 11,4 49,5

Nov 08.

4,6 3,8 21,6 25,9 10,9 66,8

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

To finish, we will review the distribution of income for certain other categories of the population (see Table III in annex). According to our survey, there was a reduction between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008 in the number of low-income households in both urban and rural areas (from 42.9% to 37.5% and from 54.9% to 50.3%, respectively). This downward trend is also present if we disaggregate data on the basis of gender. The number of low income households is unchanged for the 18-35 age group, where it was in any case lowest (29.5% in late 2008). It is down for both the other age groups. (See Table III in annex).

2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008 Comparing the first and last surveys regarding household economic circumstances during the past year, we find a reduction in the percentage who felt the situation had improved, with essentially no change in the percentage who said it had deteriorated. The percentage who described the situation as having improved was down from 13.48% to 10.76%, while the percentage for whom it has deteriorated did not change (see Table IV).

Table IV

BiH FBiH RS Brčko District March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08.

13,48 10,76 12,15 10,24 15,64 9,39 9,71 43,77 51,46 53,78 49,24 51,95 54,83 58,24 49,86 28,00 34,32 34,46 37,51 36,73 29,30 31,63 40,43 25,41 0,74 0,99 1,10 1,09 0,23 0,74 2,82 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00

BMA March 08.

10,33 47,30 41,45 0,92 100,00

CMA Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08.

8,7 18,6 16,3 49,7 56,1 60,8 40,5 23,6 22,0 1,1 1,8 0,9 100,0 100,0 100,0

SMA March 08. Nov 08.

15,6 9,4 54,8 58,2 29,3 31,6 0,2 0,7 100,0 100,

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

There were a number of significant events during the year which affected public expectations. At the beginning of the year, prices rose, largely due to global pressures on international fuel and food markets.

In the middle of the year, it was the campaign for the local elections held in October, while at the end of the year there was the global financial crisis and its expected impact on the real economy and financial system of the country. Given this, we need not be surprised that there was a pattern of deteriorating and improving expectations, but in our report we will focus on a comparison of expectations in late 2008 with those for late 2007.

The percentage of the sample who expect the economic situation to deteriorate over the coming year was down in late 2008 on late 2007, from 70.8% to 39.7% in Bosniak majority areas and from 46.1% to 20.1% in Croat majority areas, while essentially unchanged in Serb majority areas (29.6% as against 27.3%).2 At the same time, the percentage who expect the economic situation to improve was up in Bosniak majority areas (from 7% to 17.2%) as well as in Croat majority areas (from 6.6% to 23.2%), but down in Serb majority areas (from 22% to 19.1%). For further detail see Table V in annex. These expectations related to the general economic situation, as certain indicators (industrial production, employment growth, etc) suggest more growth in the Federation than in the Republika Srpska.

The sample's expectations regarding privatisation and its impact on household finances can be seen from Table VI. If we compare our survey data for November 2008 and November 2007, we see that there has been an increase in pessimism, as more people think that continued privatisation will have a negative impact on their household finances. This increase is evident in both entities, while there has been a reduction in the level of pessimism in Brčko District. In November 2008, 66.4% of the federal sample, 53.5% of the RS sample, and 33.6% of the Brčko District sample took a pessimistic view of the potential impact of further privatisation. These levels reflect the poor results of privatisation during 2008, as many planned privatisation initiatives failed to be realised in both entities, while the privatisation process is being brought to a close in Brčko District. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the percentage who think that continued privatisation will have a positive impact on their household circumstances was down in the Federation and the Republika Srpska, but up in Brčko District.

Table VI

Quarter TOTAL NEGATIVE TOTAL POSITIVE DK/NA Total

Expect further privatization to affect their household's economic status….

FBiH Nov 07. Nov 08.

57,5 66,4 16,3 10,1 26,2 23,5 100,0 100,0

RS Nov 07. Nov 08.

52,0 53,5 16,6 11,3 31,4 35,2 100,0 100,0

Brčko District Nov 07. Nov 08.

80,8 33,6 40,1 19,2 26,3 100,0 100,0

Bosniak Majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

57,1 68,8 16,6 7,9 26,2 23,3 100,0 100,0

Croat Majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

59,0 56,9 15,1 18,9 25,9 24,3 100,0 100,0

Serb Majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

52,0 53,5 16,6 11,3 31,4 35,2 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

After a particularly tumultuous period in late 2007 and early 2008, when the prices of goods and services rose as a consequence of external shocks and global price increases for food and fuel, the 2

Our survey findings as to the percentage who expect the situation to deteriorate in 2009 are in line with the Gallup Voice of the People polls, which places Bosnia and Herzegovina around the middle of the scale by number of pessimists - www.voice-of-the-people.net

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

Survey TOTAL BETTER STAY THE SAME TOTAL WORSE DK/NA Total

45 Over past year, household economic status has (in %)?

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

46

remainder of 2008 may be characterised as a period of relative calm, if not one in which concerns over future price rises were entirely absent (see table VIII). There was a reduction in the percentage of the sample who expect prices to rise over the coming six months in both the Federation and the RS (down from 89.51% to 78.08% and from 83.87% to 74.92% respectively) as well as in Brčko District (from 100% to 0.43%), between November 2007 and November 2008. It is worth mentioning, however, that the percentage of pessimists, which is to say the percentage of the sample who expect prices to rise, has been falling steadily through the year, as a consequence of lower oil prices, as well as of certain measures taken by the government to control profit margins.

Table VIII

TOTAL FALL TOTAL RISE No change DK/NA TotaL

Will prices rise or fall over next six months (%)

Nov 07. March 08.

6,48 3,93 89,51 87,05 2,08 5,13 1,93 3,89 100,0 100,0

FBiH June 08.

2,40 76,32 15,01 6,27 100,0

Sept 08.

6,24 74,28 13,70 5,78 100,0

Nov 08. Nov 07.

7,40 7,48 78,08 83,87 9,31 6,62 5,22 2,03 100,0 100,0

RS March 08. June 08.

4,02 2,46 80,62 89,28 11,97 5,30 3,39 2,96 100,0 100,0

Sept 08.

13,44 71,59 10,56 4,41 100,0

Brčko District Nov 08. Nov 07. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

8,88 38,53 4,18 38,41 74,92 100,00 53,42 59,62 10,76 11,67 8,05 33,33 46,01 4,53 2,87 4,83 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Nov 08.

35,56 0,43 61,96 2,05 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

The current economic situation and uncertainty regarding the global economic crisis have failed to have a significant impact on the percentages who expect their household cash income to change. Thus, comparing November 2007 to November 2008, we find a reduction in the percentage who expect their cash income to fall in both the Federation (from 19.01% to 14.22%) and the Republika Srpska (from 14.42% to 8.89%). At the same time, the percentage of the sample who expect household cash income to increase went up in both entities, from 16.22% to 18.35% in the Federation and from 20.51% to 25.64% in the Republika Srpska. It should be noted that these trends do not hold when looking at the percentage of people in Croat majority areas who expect household income to reduce or those who expect household income to increase in Bosniak majority areas (for more see Table VII in annex).

One of the key indicators regarding concern for the future is the public's expectations regarding their ability to save over the coming year. Looking at our survey data for the fourth quarter of 2008, in comparison to the fourth quarter of 2007, we find that the percentage who expect to be able to save reduced in both entities as well as in Brčko district - from 11.93% to 6.33% in the Federation, from 12.75% to 7.5% in the Republika Srpska, and from 3.95% to 0.43% in Brčko district (see Table IX in annex). Any reduction in ability to save or in the quantity of savings, under conditions of a global credit crunch, will lead to a significant reduction in consumption. Around 50% of all lending in Bosnia and Herzegovina is for consumer loans, so that any shortfall in domestic sources of financing, if accompanied by a reduced flow of foreign loans, increases the likelihood of recession and crisis within the country.

Table X

Think they might lose their job during next three months (%)

FBiH Nov 07. Nov 08.

17,63 15,41

RS Nov 07.

16,91

Nov 08.

22,28

Brčko District Nov 07.

Nov 08.

67,27

18-35 Nov 07.

Nov 08.

17,74 22,62

36-50 Nov 07.

Nov 08.

17,78 14,46

51+ Nov 07. Nov 08.

17,88 12,63

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

That the public are aware of the possibility that the economic crisis will shift from the financial sector to the real economy is clear from our survey findings regarding the likelihood of losing one’s job over the coming three months (see Table X below). In November 2008, the number of people who thought they might lose their jobs over the coming three months was approximately 20% of the total number of the employed, which is to say 15.41% in the Federation and as many as 22.28% in the Republika Srpska. This data on job security is in line with the findings of economic analysts at the end of the year. Thus, published estimates suggest that the recession facing Bosnia and Herzegovina may lead to between 2000

That the situation at the end of 2008 is, nevertheless, better in certain respects than the situation in late 2007 is indicated by our sample’s willingness to emigrate. According to our November 2008 survey results, 40.36% of the overall sample said they would leave the country if they could. This compares to 45.58% of the sample in November 2007. The 18 to 35 age group are still the most ready to emigrate, with nearly 2/3 expressing a desire to do so.

Graph 1

Percentages of sample who support protests regarding (November '08)

At the end of this section we will now look at the percentage willing to support the holding of public protests, strikes, and demonstrations related to particular issues (job loss, low salaries, civil rights, etc). If we look at our survey results from November 2008, in comparison to those for November 2008, we find a reduction in the Republika Srpska and Brčko district, but an increase in the Federation (see Table XI in annex).

Reviewing the results for November 2008, we find the following: • Residents of the Federation remain more likely to support the idea of protests, strikes, and demonstrations than residents of the RS or Brčko district.

• Rural inhabitants are more likely to support organised forms of expression of dissatisfaction regarding particular social issues than urban dwellers.

• The 18 to 35 age group are most likely to support protests, unlike earlier quarters, when it was the 36 to 50 age group.

• The population of the Federation is most likely to support protest with regard to job loss (61.3%), lower salaries and pensions (60.8%), and inability to find employment (58.2%).

• Residents of the Republika Srpska are most likely to support holding protests and demonstrations with regard to the recovery of property (41.9%), the behaviour of the international community (39.9%), and perceived threats to ethnic or civil rights (39.0%).

• In Brčko district, the sample is most likely to support protests over low salaries and pensions (38.8%) and job loss (33.7%).

3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through 2008 A look at the data from the entity statistics agencies on average salaries and the consumer price index lead one to conclude that the rise in salaries during 2008 was matched by rising living costs (see Table XIII). While at the beginning of the year there was a record increase of nearly 20% in the average salary in the Republika Srpska, there were no further significant increases during the year itself. Average salaries in October 2008 were 780.00 KM in the Republika Srpska and 780.51 KM in the Federation. Compared to December 2007, this represents a nominal increase of 24.68% in the Republika Srpska and of 12.02% in the Federation.

47 Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

and 2500 people losing their jobs in the metalworking and construction sectors. It is interesting to note that there could be as many as 700 to 1000 redundancies in the banking sector.

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

48

Table XIII

RS Month Average salary Consumer price index FBiH Month Average salary Consumer price index

Trends for average salaries and the Consumer Price Index for the RS and the FBiH (December 07. November 08.)

12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 628,00 584,00 724,00 731,00 751,00 758,00 768,00 765,00 762,00 783,00 783,00 790,00 100,80 101,50 100,30 100,90 99,30 100,80 100,90 100,00 100,20 100,00 100,70 99,40 99,40

Change 10/08 - 12/07 124,68 104,2*

12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/07 09/08 10/08 11/08 696,74 709,84 713,20 723,66 735,11 751,82 740,60 763,51 759,11 773,44 780,51 - 101,26 100,42 100,91 99,74 100,91 100,95 100,11 99,60 100,14 100,76 99,37

Change 10/08 - 12/07 112,02 104,71*

12/08 -

Source: Entity Statistics Offices

In the Republika Srpska, salaries rose most for employees in health care, education, the generation of electricity, and mining. In the Federation, they rose most in agriculture, mining, healthcare, and public administration (Table XIII b). Some areas of employment, including transport and warehousing, real estate, and financial mediation in the Republika Srpska, actually saw salaries go down if one compares salaries from October 2008 with those for December 2007.

Table XIIIb

Data on average salaries by sector, in the RS and the FBiH

Agriculture Fisheries Ore extraction and quarries Manufacturing Electricity, gas, and water generation and supply Construction The retail, wholesale, and repair or cars, bicycles, and articles for personal and household use Hotels and restaurants Transport and warehousing Financial mediation Property and renting Government administration, defence, and social security Education Healthcare and social welfare Other communal, public, or private services Total - average

RS FBiH December 2007. October 2008 Salary Growth (Oct. 08/ Dec. 07) December 2007. October 2008 Salary Growth (Oct. 08/ Dec. 07) 537,00 659,00 22,72% 607,03 727,30 19,81% 555,00 683,00 23,06% 423,56 483,66 14,19% 672,00 903,00 34,38% 645,98 751,05 16,27% 446,00 510,00 14,35% 507,04 562,18 10,87% 697,00 871,00 24,96% 1082,41 1235,22 14,12% 533,00 567,00 6,38% 450,95 516,36 14,50% 442,00 400,00 763,00 1269,00 688,00

536,00 450,00 752,00 1204,00 676,00

21,27% 12,50% -1,44% -5,12% -1,74%

482,09 460,88 871,36 1254,25 693,70

522,85 517,32 977,26 1257,11 757,62

8,45% 12,25% 12,15% 0,23% 9,21%

910,00 552,00 664,00 530,00 628,00

1059,00 890,00 1143,00 620,00 783,00

16,37% 61,23% 72,14% 16,98% 24,68%

951,99 740,23 827,28 702,45 696,74

1099,49 820,20 971,48 744,77 780,51

15,49% 10,80% 17,43% 6,02% 12,02%

Source: Entity Statistics Offices

During 2008, the average, minimum, and maximum pensions in both entities were increased.

According to the entity pension and disability insurance funds, the average pension for November 2008 was 368.42 KM in the Federation and 319.41 KM in the Republika Srpska. This represents an increase of 11.72% in the Federation and 19.7% in the Republika Srpska, compared to January 2008. Over the same period, the minimum pension increased 6.67% in the RS and 5.1% in the Federation. As for the maximum pension, it increased 10.5% in the Federation and 22.66% in the Republika Srpska (see following table).

The entity statistics agency data indicates that the consumer price index was lower at the end of 2008 than at the beginning of the year, when it had undergone significant growth (see Table XIV). If we compare the data from November 2008 with the data for December 2007, we find that the consumer price index was up 4.2% in the Republika Srpska and 4.71% in the Federation (Table III).

Table XIIIa

January 08.

281,98 1263,94 329,76

May 08.

289,17 1393,48 340,04

FBiH August 08. November 08.

296,36 296,36 1393,48 1393,48 347,50 368,42

RS January 08.

150,00 1148,60 266,84

May 08.

150,00 1329,00 300,60

August 08. November 08.

150,00 160,00 1329,00 1408,88 300,95 319,41

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XIV

Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (January 2007 - November 2008)

Total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothes and shoes Accommodation, water and other utilities Furniture, furnishings, and regular maintainance Healthcare Transport Communications Recreation and culture Education Restaurants and hotels Other goods and services

I 2008 / XII 2007 101,5 102,2 100 99,9 102,2 100,2 100 102 103,8 100,4 100,7 100,6 100,6

RS I 2008 / I 2008 / I 2007 XII 2007 105,8 101,26 110,4 101,97 100,2 99,97 97,8 99,99 103,9 102,52 101,4 100,24 101,9 99,88 111 100,59 105,5 103,44 99,9 100,72 104,5 100 101,7 100,49 101,6 100,52

I 2008 / I 2007 106,35 111,96 100,79 97,31 105,33 101,39 99,8 108,03 103,14 103,15 104,38 108,38 101,15

XI 2008 / X 2008 99,40 99,80 100,00 100,00 100,30 100,10 100,10 94,70 102,80 100,00 100,00 100,20 100,00

FBiH XI 2008 / XI 2008 / XI 2007 X 2008 105,10 99,37 107,30 99,63 101,70 100,09 98,10 99,64 107,70 101,69 102,80 100,24 100,80 100,07 104,30 94,34 106,60 99,97 104,90 99,95 101,10 100,60 105,60 101,04 103,60 100,02

XI 2008 / XI 2007 105,95 109,38 101,40 96,47 112,14 103,33 99,45 101,72 104,80 106,47 97,96 107,75 104,38

Source: Entity Statistics Offices

The data in the above table indicate significant stability in the prices of food and fuels, as well as in their overall impact on other goods and services. Consequently, given that food and fuel were the main engines of growth for the consumer price index at the beginning of the year, as they fell towards the end of 2008 so did the overall consumer price index in both entities. One should stress in this regard the role of state, entity, and cantonal government in making use of appropriate instruments at their disposal (commodity reserves, market inspectors to prevent price gouging, and other similar mechanisms) with a view to maintaining price stability, particularly as we approach the expected crisis.

Comparing our survey results for November 2008 with those for November 2007 makes clear that food (including coffee and beverages) and debt repayments now account for a larger percentage of household spending in the Federation, while food and fuel and car maintenance require a greater share of resources in the Republika Srpska than previously (see Table XV in annex). It is concerning that the percentage of household spending accounted for by food has increased in both the Federation and the Republika Srpska, reducing the amount of disposable income for other spending. It is also concerning that there is an increase in spending on repayments, which is at least in part due to the increase

Graph 3

Purchasing power in Southeastern Europe in 2007 and 2008 (in EUR)

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

Lowest pension Highest pension Average pension

49 Data on pensions, RS and FBiH

Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

50

in bank rates over the past few months, which have increased the level of payments required to service existing and new loans.

That Bosnia is at the bottom of the scale in Europe when it comes to purchasing power has been confirmed by the GFK marketing agencies study of purchasing power across Europe. According to their data, the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina has on average €2325 at their disposal, putting them 36th out of 41 countries in Europe. The situation in 2008 was a little better than in 2007, but only when one looks at the nominal amount and not the country’s ranking (see Table XV a in annex and the following graph).

Modern living standards are also reflected in the possession of basic consumer durable goods, like telephones, mobile phones, computers (with access to the Internet), and cars. That there has been little significant change in this regard is clear from Table XVI, below. According to our sample, more than half of households in the Republika Srpska and Federation possessed a car in November 2008. Similarly, the data show that 83.22% of households in the Federation and 71.41% of households in the Republika Srpska have a telephone, but considerably fewer have access to the Internet (20.78% in the Federation and 14.22% in the Republika Srpska). According to our survey, approximately 3/4 of people above the age of 18 in the Federation and approximately 2/3 in the Republika Srpska possess a mobile phone.

Table VI

Households with durable consumer goods (in %)

FBiH Nov 05.

86,68 43,20 7,96 n/p

Telephones Mobile phones Dial up internet access Car

Dec 06.

79,46 56,83 11,57 47,26

RS Nov 07.

81,47 63,65 15,28 50,86

Nov 08.

83,22 74,27 20,78 53,08

Nov 05.

73,09 48,33 8,59 n/p

Dec 06.

75,80 58,42 12,37 51,49

Nov 07.

63,85 64,85 8,67 48,72

Nov 08.

71,41 65,23 14,22 54,59

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely unchanged The social protection system in both entities is in serious difficulties. It is facing a major increase in demand for the various forms of social welfare, which are still under development, as well as being burdened by inappropriate or inadequate legal arrangements which enjoin a broader range of social protection than budgetary capacity allows. Better socio-economic conditions in the country during 2008, evident largely in fewer people describing their household standard of living as below average, are certainly a positive development. As a result, in November 2008, 38.7% of the federal sample, 49.9% of the Republika Srpska sample, and 67.4% of the Brčko district sample described themselves as below average in terms of household economic status (see Table XVII). This situation represents an improvement on the end of 2007 in both the Federation and Brčko district, but no change in the Republika Srpska. Economic self-assessment is strongly linked to income levels and distribution by household, but also to the presence or absence of mechanisms for ensuring a minimum standard of living (price controls, social welfare programs, etc).

Table XVII

Self-description of household economic status(%)

BiH

FBiH

Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07.

Barely surviving Well below average Below average TOTAL below average

13,2 14,6 20,4 48,3

8,1 11,4 24,3 43,8

11,0 14,6 20,6 46,2

RS

Brčko District

Urban

Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07.

5,1 9,2 24,4 38,7

14,6 14,6 20,3 49,5

11,5 14,3 24,1 49,9

48,9 15,9 18,7 83,4

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

25,7 17,3 24,4 67,4

8,5 13,8 19,8 42,2

Rural

BMA

CMA

Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07.

5,9 10,9 23,3 40,0

16,7 15,2 20,9 52,8

9,7 11,8 25,0 46,6

11,0 14,0 21,1 46,2

5,1 9,4 26,3 40,7

10,8 16,4 18,8 46,0

SMA

Nov 08. Nov 07.

5,1 8,6 17,0 30,7

14,6 14,6 20,3 49,5

Nov 08.

11,5 14,3 24,1 49,9

Graph 4

3

Self-description of household economic status (%)

Chawla, Betherman, Banerji, et al., From Red to Grey – the “Third Transition” of Aging Populations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, World Bank, Washington, 2008

51 Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

During 2008, the following trends were characteristic for the social protection system and the provision of a minimum standard of living: • Rising prices at the beginning of the year affected the most vulnerable, particularly rises in the price of food, fuel, and community services or utilities. Action was taken to preserve a minimum standard of living, like the allocation of 28 million KM by the RS government for the worst-off or the introduction of cash payments for unemployed demobilised soldiers in the Federation, but with considerable delay, so that their impact has been questionable. Introducing payments for demobilised soldiers in the Federation has in fact endangered the federal budget itself and there has been considerable talk about possible bankruptcy. The second half of the year brought with it a certain dose of relief, as food and fuel prices fell on world markets, while the entity governments took action to prevent price gouging with regard to certain goods and services.

• Early in the year, the minimum pension was increased in both entities, as was the coefficient used to calculate the pension in the first place. This produced a shortfall in the funds required for payment throughout 2008. The Republika Srpska pension and invalidity insurance fund was already looking for additional resources in February to pay pensions, while the federal fund was in constant fear of the consequences of a European Court of Justice ruling in favour of Duško Karanović and the possibility that it might have to make supplementary payments to a large number of beneficiaries.

Although the RS pension fund’s action against the federal fund, intended to force it to take over 38,000 beneficiaries and pay out around 118 million KM in supplementary payments, was in the end thrown out by the Mostar court, the case introduced a high degree of uncertainty into the federal fund’s expenditure planning. Serious indicators of the need for reform of the pension and invalidity insurance system were presented at the World Bank conference launching a special report on the impact of aging in countries in transition.3 According to their indicators and analyses, Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs amongst the "ageing countries which have taken up reform too late" and which face particular risks associated with aging-- not merely because of demographic changes but also because the reforms required have not been brought far enough to assist in ameliorating the consequences of ageing. The authors predict that by 2025 the over 65s will account for somewhat more than 20% of the population, while the overall population will fall by approximately 3%. In their view, the practical implications of an ageing population and securing adequate living conditions for the elderly are such that serious attention must be paid to sectoral policy regarding the labour market (in particular greater inclusion), productivity improvements, and reforms of the pension and education systems, as well as migration management. It is clear from the numbers of the employed, unemployed, and pensioners at the end of 2007 and the end of 2008 in Table XVIII that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not taken any radical steps.

52 Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare

• While public spending in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to be at an exceptionally high level (approximately 45% of GDP), spending on social protection and welfare remains at approximately 15% of GDP, which is to say less than the European average. It is worth noting that both state level and entity bodies have little difficulty in rejecting allocation for social protection and ensuring a minimum standard of living, due to the size of public administration and salaries in the public sector, even though a number of public works or investments could reasonably be handed over to the private sector, leaving more room for allocation for social welfare.

• During 2008, steps were taken towards the creation of a national social inclusion strategy, but there is still no clear indication as to when the strategy itself will be completed and adopted. The social inclusion strategy is important because it focuses on the more than 50% of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina which may be considered excluded and is intended to provide a systematic approach to development in all those areas which lead to such a situation (education, health care, the labour market, employment, the social welfare system, and social services).

• The latter part of the year was marked by the announcement of a major economic crisis, followed by the collapse of the world financial system in early October 2008. Given that the effects will be felt on the Bosnian and Herzegovinian economy, a major task facing the authorities will be to ensure minimum standards of living and adequate social protection for all those who will need it.

The pension system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, like the health care system, is entirely dependent upon the contributions levied from employee salaries. So long as the economic impact of the crisis results in declining economic activity, with a concomitant reduction in employment and salaries, it is to be expected that there will be serious problems in the health care and pension and invalidity insurance sectors, particularly given that the number of beneficiaries will not fall in the foreseeable future. That the authorities are also concerned about the income of the healthcare and pension insurance funds is clear from recent moves by the Republika Srpska government, e.g. to include representatives of the unions and employers in "social dialogue" at the end of the year with a view to raising the minimum salary used in calculating tax and contributions from 250 KM to 320 KM. • A number of steps taken by the government during 2008 indicate that more attention is still needed to systematic solutions for ensuring a minimum standard of living and adequate social welfare and protection. The RS government introduced regulations at the end of the year to increase the allocation for social welfare, but the burden will be borne by the municipalities, so that we will no doubt soon see problems in a number of smaller municipalities whose budgets are barely enough to finance current spending (salaries and material expenses). The RS government will contribute only 5% of the 70 million marks required to finance social welfare at the local level. Representatives of the international institutions, like the World Bank, are fully aware of this problem and are working with the authorities in the country to develop systematic solutions for more effective ways of targeting social benefits. There is considerable concern that the global financial crisis will have its greatest impact on the poor,4 particularly in those countries which lack an efficient system of targeting social benefits and where the government authorities have considerable discretion in determining the allocation of resources.

4

Statement by Kathy Lindert, World Bank Social Protection Portfolio Manager.

VI SOCIAL INCLUSION 1. Some aspects of social inclusion 2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the economy 3. Pessimism over the political situation 4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most

1. Some aspects of social inclusion A review of the social inclusion sections in the quarterly reports for 2008 reveals that the main aspects of social exclusion covered related to the economic situation and household finances, as well as the attitudes of the various ethnic groups. We have attempted to expand the analysis of certain of these aspects by looking at categories of the population that may be considered excluded on the grounds of status, place of residence, gender, or ethnicity.1 As the situation did not change significantly over the year, we will focus in this annual report on attitudinal changes for the various socially excluded categories of the population between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008.

Ethnic divisions remain one of the most important factors determining social exclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina and we will now look at three ways this is the case: First, as a direct cause of the exclusion of minority groups, i.e. those who do not belong to the majority ethnicity in the area; second, as a weak institutional capacity to prevent exclusion; and third, its negative and far-reaching impact on social processes. Ethnic divisions prevent progressive changes and exacerbate alienation amongst the general public. The effects of ethnic division are most clearly to be seen in the process of return, as ethnic minority groups remain one of the most easily recognizable socially excluded groups, largely due to very poorly integrated processes of return to pre-war places of residence. This is not reflected only in limited political participation and access to services, but also in alienation from ordinary social processes in the areas where they live.2 While the other main excluded groups face similar forms of marginalisation, their exclusion is not a direct result of the political divisions in Bosnian society. The Roma are one particularly vulnerable group, as are persons with disabilities, the elderly, people living in rural areas, and the young.

When we look at our sampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assessment of current economic conditions by ethnic majority area, in terms of what both the ethnic majority and the ethnic minority samples in those areas thought in November 2007 and November 2008, we find a reduction in the numbers who would describe current conditions as bad in both sets of samples. In November 2008, current economic conditions were

1

2

According to data available in the reports of the economic planning directorate of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the National Social Inclusion Strategy will focus on young people, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, the Roma, and the rural population, while also paying attention to gender and ethnic aspects.

The National Human Development Report for 2007, Social Inclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNDP, Sarajevo, 2007.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

53

Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

54

described as bad by 77.6% of Bosniak majority areas sample, 62.3% of the Serb majority areas sample, and 35% of the Croat majority areas sample. This is an improvement on the results for November 2007, when the figures were 84.9%, 72.1%, and 68% respectively (see Table I). The reason for this is the relatively stable economic situation in late 2008, compared to late 2007, when prices were rising fast and other economic indicators were deteriorating (for more see the section on income and social welfare).

The minority sample in Croat majority areas tends to take a more pessimistic view of the economy than the majority, but even for them we find a tendency to be less pessimistic about the economy than a year before. The minority samples in Serb and Bosniak majority areas, however, described the situation in more positive terms than the majority samples on those territories, which is a reversal of how things stood at the end of 2007.

Table I

Total bad Neither good nor bad Total good NA/DK Total

Total bad Neither good nor bad Total good NA/DK Total

Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%) Bosniak majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

84,9 77,6 12,3 21,3 1,6 0,2 1,2 0,9 100,0 100,0 Minority population in BMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

89,1 71,6 4,9 25,2 2,4 6,1 0,8 100,0 100,0

Croat majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

68,0 35,0 23,8 46,8 7,0 16,6 1,2 1,6 100,0 100,0 Minority population in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

50,8 47,3 47,1 41,4 2,0 11,2 0,2 100,0 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

72,1 62,3 23,3 35,4 2,6 0,6 2,0 1,6 100,0 100,0 Minority population in SMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

73,8 55,4 24,4 41,5 1,8 3,1 100,0

100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

In November 2008, 16.6% of the sample described current economic circumstances as good, compared to 0.2% in Bosniak majority areas and 0.6% in Serb majority areas. When we consider the minority samples in the various areas, however, we find that 2.4% in Bosniak majority areas, 11.2% in Croat majority areas, and 3.1% in Serb majority areas were willing to describe circumstances as good.

If we take as our criterion household economic status and categorise our sample in terms of place of residence, we find that the percentaGraph 1 ges who consider their household Percentage of minority sample in each of majority areas who think that the economic situation in BiH is bad circumstances to be below average have fallen in both rural and urban areas between November 2007 and November 2008 (see Table XIa in annex and the following graph).

Economic indicators suggest that household income and general economic conditions are considerably worse in rural than in urban areas. Our surveys confirm this.3 The unclear employment status of people working in agriculture, poor access to basic institutions and social infrastructure, inadequate health care and pension and disability insurance policy for

3

See section on incomes and social welfare.

When we look at the population in terms of age group, we find evidence of a number of different forms of social exclusion affecting young people, who are the most vulnerable group when it comes to employment, as is clearly shown by the Labour Force Survey, which indicated that youth unemployment (people from 15 to 25 years of age) was twice as high as the overall rate. This is clearly one of the main reasons young people (in this case 18 to 35 year olds) are so willing to emigrate (for more see following graph). While there has been a reduction between November 2007 and November 2008 in the percentage of our sample who said they would emigrate, it is worth noting that this reduction is least amongst the young. The social exclusion of the young is a particular problem in rural areas and small municipalities, which do not have the resources or the institutional support mechanisms to ensure that young people continue their education.

Graph 2

At the same time, our quarterly opinion polls show that the over 50s are in a worse position than the younger age cohorts when it comes to income levels. This group includes a lot of pensioners, as well as individuals who lost their jobs during privatisation and the restructuring of the large industrial corporations, along with any hope of finding new employment due to their declining physical abilities and their obsolete skill sets. The lack of social networks for dealing with problems of social exclusion in all areas of life (education, health care, employment, and social welfare) ensures that many people in the country may be assigned to categories requiring social inclusion.

Self-assessment of household economic status(%)

The situation is little different when we look at our results in terms of gender. The quarterly reports indicate that women have a lower self assessment of economic status and report lower monetary income (household) than men do (see income and social welfare section). There is also gender discrimination at work, as some employers are unwilling to meet their legal obligations regarding maternity leave.

Table IX

Possession of consumer durables

Majority in BMA Telephone Mobile phone Car

Nov 07.

83,3 64,3 47,9

Telephone Mobile phone Car

Nov 07.

84,5 60,5 28,3

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

85,7 74,6 49,2

Nov 07.

75,1 61,2 61,4

Nov 08.

80,5 47,6 31,3

Nov 07.

76,5 56,3 54,3

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

73,4 73,1 68,2

Nov 07.

63,8 64,9 48,7

Nov 08.

62,5 53,1 36,9

Nov 07.

63,8 64,9 48,7

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

71,4 65,2 54,6 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

51,2 62,2 24,5

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Finally, we must admit that our surveys do not allow us to access the attitudes or opinions of two socially excluded groups, namely the Roma and persons with disabilities. It is worth noting that the authorities have recognised the problems faced by these categories of the population and are tackling them through the development of a National Disability Policy, passed by the Council of Ministers in June 4 5

According to the 2007 National Human Development Report, the incidence of extreme social in exclusion is 19% higher in rural areas than in urban ones.

Some municipalities do have development strategies based on human rights (the RMET approach).

55 Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

agricultural workers, and low levels of participation in local decision-making related to the development of rural areas have all contributed to increasing the incidence of social exclusion in rural areas.4

Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

56

2008, and a National Strategy for the Inclusion of the Roma, which was passed as long ago as 2005. It is an unfortunate and worrying habit of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina that they adopt such documents (policy, strategy, plans, etc) over easily, without planning or allocating resources for their implementation. A glance at the state and entity level budgets for 2009 shows that there has been no increased allocation for the implementation of these strategic documents. In this context one must also make mention of the Social Inclusion strategy Document. Although there has been talk for more than a year of its preparation, the public is still very poorly informed about it and the time frame within which it is to be adopted. What is known is that the document will serve efforts to remove key causes of exclusion amongst the most vulnerable groups, including the elderly, the young, individuals with disabilities, the displaced, and the Roma. Such causes include poverty, unemployment, poor access to health care and education, and attention to gender and ethnic issues.

2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the economy When we look at expectations regarding prices, our surveys indicate that in late 2008 a large section of the public still expected prices to rise (Table II). If we compare the data from November 2008 with the data for November 2007, we notice that there has been a reduction, however, in that percentage for both the majority and minority samples in all three majority areas. As for the percentage who expect prices to fall, comparing the data for late 2008 and late 2007 shows an increase in Croat and Serb majority areas, but a decrease in Bosniak majority areas. One should note that the views of the minority samples in all three majority areas are in line with those of the majority samples.

Table II

Expect prices over next six months toâ&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA

Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

6,1 90,0 1,8 2,1 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

6,0 78,8 10,2 5,1 100,0

Nov 07.

7,8 87,9 3,1 1,3 100,0

Nov 08.

2,0 88,4 8,9 0,8 100,0

Nov 07.

3,8 87,2 5,6 3,4 100,0

Minority in BMA Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

3,7 92,5 3,9 100,0

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

13,0 75,4 5,9 5,7 100,0

Nov 07.

7,5 83,9 6,6 2,0 100,0

Nov 08.

22,9 65,5 8,5 3,1 100,0

Nov 07.

2,5 85,7 6,3 5,5 100,0

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

8,9 74,9 11,7 4,5 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

13,6 75,4 5,7 5,3 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

In late 2008, some 78.8% of the sample in Bosniak majority areas, 75.4% in Croat majority areas, and 74.9% in Serb majority areas said they expected prices to rise. Our surveys continue to suggest that the minority sample in Bosniak majority areas is more pessimistic regarding price rises than the majority -88.4% expect price rises. This compares to 75.4% of the minority sample in Serb majority areas and 65.5% of the minority sample in Croat majority areas.

Our sampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views on the prospect of household income increasing in future are in line with the results already presented regarding their assessment of current economic conditions. Thus, in November 2008, we find that the sample in Croat majority areas was most likely to expect positive change (33.3%). This compares to 25.6% in Serb majority areas and 14.6% in Bosniak majority areas. Comparing this data with the data from November 2007, we find that there has been an increase in Croat majority areas in the percentage who expect household income to increase, but a reduction in Bosniak majority areas. Similar patterns are present for the minority samples in the various ethnic majority areas. Comparison of the results for late 2007 and late 2008 related to the percentages who expect household income to fall shows a

When it comes to their expectations regarding ability to save, people in Bosnia and Herzegovina do appear to be more pessimistic in late 2008 than they were in late 2007, which is reasonable given the general assessment of the country's economic prospects. Comparing the attitudes of the various minority and majority ethnic samples for November 2007 and November 2008, however, we find that the percentage of the minority samples in the various ethnic majority areas who expect to save has increased, as has the Croat majority areas sample percentage. There has, by contrast, been a reduction in the percentage of the overall samples in Bosniak and Serb majority area who expect to be able to save. In November 2008, it was members of the Croat ethnic group in Croat majority areas who showed the greatest optimism over their potential to save (15.1%), while projections were least good in Bosniak majority areas (only 4.1% of the majority sample). The percentage in Serb majority areas was 7.5%.

Table III

Expect household income over next six months to â&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA

Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

19,8 15,1 56,0 9,2 100,0

Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

8,1 5,3 72,7 13,9 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

13,6 14,6 67,7 4,1 100,0

Nov 07.

16,3 20,1 58,9 4,7 100,0

Nov 08.

11,7 3,8 80,0 4,5 100,0

Nov 07.

12,8 25,8 48,3 13,1 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

16,6 33,3 43,4 6,8 100,0

Nov 07.

14,4 20,5 58,7 6,3 100,0

Nov 08.

6,2 37,4 55,2 1,2 100,0

Nov 07.

5,3 10,5 83,3 0,9 100,0

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

8,9 25,6 60,6 4,9 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

10,0 19,6 61,8 8,7 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Finally we must point out that the minority samples in the various majority ethnic areas do actually find themselves economically worse-off than the majority samples in those areas. This can be seen most easily from reported levels of household income and possession of consumer durables. Thus, if we look at the number of low-income households (monthly income of less than 500 KM) through 2008, we find that the percentage was consistently higher for the minority sample than for the general population in the various majority areas (see table XIII). An exception to this rule was the first quarter of 2008 (March 2008) in Croat majority areas, when there were fewer minority sample than majority sample low income households.

The picture of minority deprivation relative to the majority population is confirmed when we look at the data on possession of consumer durables. In November 2008, we find that a smaller percentage of the minority sample were in possession of mobile phones, just as they were less likely to have a landline connection or a car (see Table IX). The reasons are no doubt to be sought in the difficulties facing returnees Table IIIa

Total fall Total increase No change DK/NA Total

Expect household income over next six months to â&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Bosniak majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

19,8 13,6 15,1 14,6 56,0 67,7 9,2 4,1 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Croat majority areas Nov 07.

16,3 20,1 58,9 4,7 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 08.

16,6 33,3 43,4 6,8 100,0

Nov 07.

14,4 20,5 58,7 6,3 100,0

Nov 08.

8,9 25,6 60,6 4,9 100,0

57 Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

moderate increase in Croat majority areas as well as a moderate increase for the minority samples in Bosniak and Serb majority areas (see Table III in annex). It would appear that the impact of the coming crisis has not yet been felt by these groups and they do not expect it to have a significant impact on their income.

Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

58

Table IV

Expect to save over next half year (%) Majority in BMA

Yes No NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

11,3 83,8 4,8 100,0

Yes No NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

1,7 92,7 5,6 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

4,1 91,5 4,3 100,0

Nov 07.

14,0 79,0 7,1 100,0

Nov 08.

4,2 92,6 3,2 100,0

Nov 07.

3,0 89,4 7,6 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

15,1 75,1 9,9 100,0

Nov 07.

12,8 85,1 2,2 100,0

Nov 08.

8,5 89,2 2,3 100,0

Nov 07.

5,3 92,2 2,5 100,0

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

7,5 89,1 3,4 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

8,8 89,2 2,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

attempting to reintegrate, the social ostracism they are subjected to by members of the majority population, and the greater difficulties they face finding employment or sources of income.

3. Pessimism over the political situation Political events during 2008 significantly affected the sampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views regarding the direction political life has taken (see Table Va). In 2008, there was a clear deterioration of political life, following attempts to change the rulebook of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Parliamentary Assembly in order to abolish entity-based voting.

The situation was made worse by the declaration of independence by Kosovo, which led to organized protests and demonstrations in the Republika Srpska, as well as a number of calls for a referendum on secession.

These events made a strong impression on public opinion in Bosniak majority areas, where as many as 78.8% of the sample said they thought the political situation was set to deteriorate. The minority sample in Bosniak majority areas was even more pessimistic, with 88.3% expecting deterioration. During the second quarter of 2008, the situation calmed down somewhat, particularly following the signing of the SAA with the European Union. This positive trend, however, was not evident in the opinion of the minority samples in Croat and Serb majority areas. There was an increase during the third quarter in the number of pessimists in both Bosniak and Croat majority areas, as well as amongst the minority samples in Bosniak and Serb majority areas. The reasons for this no doubt lie with the holding of local elections and the election campaign itself, which was considered to be particularly negative. The end of the year (the fourth quarter) again provided reason for concern over the worsening political situation in Bosniak and Serb majority areas, particularly following the signing of the Prud agreement by the leaders of three political parties (the SDA, the SNSD, and the HDZ BiH). While the agreement was welcomed by the international community, it proved rather controversial on the domestic political scene, dividing the parties into those for and those against it.

Table V

Think political situation in BiH isâ&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA

Deteriorating Improving NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

79,4 15,1 5,5 100,0

Deteriorating Improving NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

90,7 4,7 4,6 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

79,7 13,5 6,8 100,0

Nov 07.

80,2 11,5 8,3 100,0

Nov 08.

82,1 14,7 3,1 100,0

Nov 07.

60,3 19,1 20,6 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

52,9 24,7 22,4 100,0

Nov 07.

82,4 12,1 5,5 100,0

Nov 08.

47,4 48,2 4,4 100,0

Nov 07.

82,5 9,5 8,1 100,0

Minority in CMA

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 08.

50,3 34,6 15,1 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

41,2 51,7 7,1 100,0

Table Va

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 79,7 82,1 57,2 60,6 54,4 55,6 78,8 88,3

Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 52,9 47,4 61,5 64,5 57,5 71,5 57,7 65,7

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 50,3 41,2 42,5 43,2 42,5 39,2 57,3 37,6

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

According to the November 2008 survey, 79.7% of the Bosniak majority areas sample, 57.9% of the Croat majority areas sample, and 50.3% of the Serb majority areas sample said they expected political life to deteriorate further over the coming months. Moreover, the minority sample in Bosniak majority areas were the most pessimistic, with the greatest percentage saying they expected political conditions to deteriorate (82.1%), followed by the minority sample in Croat majority areas. Least pessimistic were the minority sample in Serb majority areas (41.2%).

4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most Research into ethnic identity and citizenship continues to indicate very large differences of opinion and attitude between different sectors of the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, for the past number of years, our surveys have found the levels of pride in belonging to a given ethnic group or people to be relatively stable and that the percentage of the three constitutive peoples who express very considerable pride in their ethnic identity has actually increased. For example, comparing the data for 2008 with data for 2004, we find that the percentage of the sample who are very proud of their ethnic identity has increased in all three ethnic groups, with the largest increase in the Serb ethnic group.6 A similar pattern is found if one looks at the figures for the minority samples of each of the majority areas, and the trend is confirmed if one simply compares the data from November 2008 with the data for November 2007 (see Table VI).

In late 2008, Bosniaks were the majority sample most likely to express pride in their ethnicity (84.7%).

A slightly smaller percentage of Croats (80.7%) and Serbs (79.3%) also expressed strong pride in their Table VI

Pride in ethnic identity (%) Majority in BMA

Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

86,4 10,4 2,1

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

84,7 8,6 3,7 0,3 1,1 1,1 0,5 100,0

1,2

100,0

Nov 08.

80,7 10,2 2,3 0,5 6,0

0,1 100,0

0,3 100,0

Minority in BMA Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

82,8 8,0 1,0 5,0 2,0 1,3 100,0

Nov 07.

82,0 12,7 3,3

Nov 08.

90,9 4,9 2,7 0,7 0,8 100,0

Nov 07.

72,8 4,5 6,0 0,6 13,8 0,5 1,8 100,0

For more on this see the EWS quarterly reports from 2004 and 2008 at www.undp.ba

Nov 08.

79,3 13,7 2,5 1,9 2,2 0,2 0,2 100,0

2,0

100,0

Minority in CMA

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

6

Majority in SMA

Nov 07.

81,4 13,6 2,7 0,9 1,3

Minority in SMA Nov 08.

87,9 3,1 1,0

Nov 07.

74,1 14,6

Nov 08.

87,8 5,0

6,0

10,3

6,4

2,1 100,0

0,9 100,0

0,7 100,0

Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

Nov. Sept.

Jun. Mar.

59 Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion

60

ethnicity. When we look at the various ethnic minority samples on the ethnic majority areas, we find an even higher percentage expressing pride in their ethnic identity: 90.9% of the minority sample on Bosniak majority areas, 87.9% of the minority sample in Croat majority areas, and 87.8% in Serb majority areas said they were very proud of belonging to their ethnic group. This minority sample opinion suggests that a relatively stable security situation (the Security Stability Index was 88 in November 2008) and fairly good ethnic relations (the Ethnic Stability Index was 77) are key factors in the development of ethnic pride amongst the minority samples. The preceding period, during which the local election campaign took place, was not marred by problems of an ethnic nature, even though there was a certain polarisation of majority opinion on the various majority areas on the basis of particular political programmes.

When we turn to consider the sample’s attitudes to citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina during 2008, we continue to find that it is only amongst Bosniaks that there is a good fit between ethnic identity and citizenship, as both the Croat and Serb samples display rather lower levels of identification with the state (Table VII). Identification with the state based upon citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina and identity based on belonging to an ethnic group are at much the same level for Bosniaks, but not for Serbs and Croats who clearly feel considerably less pride in their citizenship than in their ethnic identity.

It is therefore worth noting, in comparing the results for late 2008 with those for late 2007, that there has been an increase in the percentage of both the majority and minority ethnic samples on both Serb and Croat majority areas who express strong degrees of pride in being citizens of this country. Of course, this still means that only 32.5% of the Croat majority areas sample and 23.7% of the Serb majority areas sample said they felt a strong degree of pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to our November 2008 poll. This situation is unlikely to be remedied, particularly given that citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not being offered the same advantages as citizens of Croatia or, if recent announcements

by Brussels are to be trusted, as Serbian citizens will soon be offered. We have in mind the fact that most Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina are also citizens of Croatia and can use their travel documents to travel freely throughout Western Europe without a visa and it would seem that Brussels intends offering the same facility to citizens of Serbia.

Looking at our poll results, there are clear differences between the ethnic groups in their attitudes regarding reducing or increasing the High Representative’s powers. In late November 2008, 10.9% of the Bosniak majority area sample, 28.9% of the Croat majority areas sample, and as many as 71.9% of the Serb majority areas sample were of the opinion that the High Representative’s powers should be reduced. It is interesting to note that there was a reduction between November 2007 and November 2008 in the overall percentage who think the High Representative’s powers should be reduced. The reduction was steepest in Croat majority areas and for the minority samples in Bosniak and Serb majority areas. The percentage who think that the High Representative’s powers should be increased was down in both Croat and Serb majority areas, as well as amongst the minority samples in Bosniak and Croat majority areas (see Table VIII).

Finally, when we come to confidence in the judicial system, we find that the Bosniak majority area group is the one most likely to express approval (57.75%), followed by the Serb and then the Croat majority area groups (57.30% and 32.02% respectively), according to our November 2008 poll. It is worth noting that the group most likely to express strong agreement with the idea that the legal system could be counted on to support or uphold their contractual and ownership rights was the minority sample in Serb majority areas (23.88%). One may also say, on the basis of our November 2008 results, that the minority sample in Serb majority areas also expressed the highest degree of confidence in the legal system (66.2%). For more, see Table X in annex.

VII ETHNIC RELATIONS 1. The Ethnic Stability Index 2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues 3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole 4. Support for refugee return recovers 5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve 6. Separatism and Nationalism

1. The Ethnic Stability Index At 77 points, the Ethnic Stability Index was at a relatively high level at the end of this year compared to the 72 points it ended last year with. The level of the index was highest during the middle of the year, after the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, falling in the final quarter following the elections. As may be seen from the following graph, which shows the annual averages and the trendline for the Ethnic Stability Index since the project began, the index began at 71 in 2000 and grew steadily over the next two to four years, since when it has fluctuated within a three point band, but with a generally upward trend, suggesting that time and distance from the war are having an impact. This period of fluctuation in the Ethnic Stability Index corresponds to a similar period of fluctuation in the political, economic, and social stability indices, the main differences in their cases it was preceded by a steep fall.

The Ethnic Stability Index is clearly responding to the same political and economic events, like the difficulties over constitutional negotiations, police and other reforms, the independence of Kosovo, the Stabilization and Association Agreement, the rise in the use of radical rhetoric in politics, the local elections in late 2008, rising prices in 2007 and early 2008, and so forth, but they have not yet managed to bring about a major decline in its underlying value.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

61

Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

62

2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues The beginning of the year saw less stable political and security conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with very divided public reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Protests were held on the streets of Banja Luka and other major towns of the Republika Srpska, while the RS National Assembly passed a resolution stating that it refused to recognize the declaration. In the Federation, the political establishment welcome the declaration of independence. RS politicians began to speculate openly again on holding a secession referendum. The turbulent political relations were calmed following the decision by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency not to recognise Kosovo as an independent state for the foreseeable future.

The year will be remembered for the signing and ratification of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union. This was preceded, however, by considerable debate and disagreement between the main political parties regarding the passage of a police reform bill. The European Union made signing the SAA conditional upon the passage of the legislation. After considerable political compromise, the agreement was signed on 16 June.

This year also saw the coming into force of the temporary Stabilisation and Association Agreement and implementation of the trade agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union.

In mid-July, the country was received into the Union of Mediterranean Countries.

Disagreement between politicians over how to implement the agreed census in Bosnia and Herzegovina was further complicated by the position of international community representatives that there was no need to ask for data on ethnic or religious identity. This position was poorly received in the Republika Srpska, whose Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, announced that the entity would organise its own census in 2011, if one were not agreed at the level of the country as a whole.

In the middle of the year, the RS Prime Minister announced the entity's exit from the Bosnian and Herzegovinian electricity transmission company, causing concern amongst the public and the international community. The Peace Implementation Council met and called on the RS government to void the Prime Minister’s decision, a call they soon complied with.

The year also saw an election campaign, which like previous election campaigns was marked by the use of nationalist rhetoric deployed to mobilise the electorate. The run-up to the elections and the elections themselves, which were held on 5 October 2008, took place without major problem or incident.

As in previous cases, the election campaign served its purpose, raising ethnic tensions amongst the public and proving yet again how deep divisions in this country run. The turnout was 55%.

The House of Representatives and the House of Peoples of the Bosnian parliament ratified the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union on 22 October 2008. The following day, the European Parliament in Brussels passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina warning political leaders in the country that unless there was major change the country has nothing to expect of the European Union.

Because the Bosnian Presidency failed to agree a common platform for the participation of the statelevel delegation at the UN General Assembly, the Presidency Chair, Haris Silajdžić, followed his own line in front of the General Assembly, using his speech to treat the behaviour of the governing structures in the Republika Srpska. He repeated this speech in front of the Council of Europe, after which the Council of Europe passed a resolution. This resolution put additional strain on political relations between Banja Luka and Sarajevo. RS politicians were unanimous in the view that his speech was an invitation to further division.

A further important event of the year was the declaration by the High Representative, Miroslav Lajcak, that the Office of the High Representative would remain in 2009, though it later emerged that he himself would no longer serve as High Representative.

In the small town of Prud, on 8 November, three party leaders, from the SDA, the SNSD, and the HDZ, reached agreement on further reforms in the country. They focused on constitutional reforms, state property, the census, and the status of Brčko district. The agreement was met with a range of reactions by the various political parties in the country.

The final act of the RS government in 2008 sent shock waves through international and local political circles. The government in Banja Luka initiated criminal proceedings against a representative of the

3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole Though 2008, an increasing percentage of the urban sample said they had not suffered harassment on the basis of their ethnicity, up from 88.7% in November 2007 to 96% in November this year. There was also a significant decrease in the percentage of the urban sample who said that they had experienced such harassment at least once, down from 5.8% in November 2007 to 1.8% in November 2008. In rural areas, the situation was reversed, with a minor reduction in the percentage who said they had never been suffered harassment based on their ethnicity, down from 96.5% in late 2007 to 94.5% at the end of 2008.

The percentage who said they had never had any such experience was up for men and women over the year. In November 2008, 94.7% of men and 95.5% of women said they had never had such an experience.

This compares to 91.8% of men and 94.5% of women in November the previous year (Table Ia).

Table IIa

Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during the past year solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?

Gender Urban Nov 2007 Jun. 2008

% No - never 88,7 Yes - once 5,8 Yes - more than once 3,1 Yes - frequently 1,8 DK/NA 0,6 TOTAL 100,0

% 93,6 1,3 1,3 1,9 1,8 100,0

Sep 2008

% 94,7 1,0 1,8 0,6 2,0 100,0

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

% 96,0 1,8 1,3 0,4 0,6 100,0

% 96,5 1,9 1,1 0,4 0,1 100,0

% 95,1 1,5 1,1 1,8 0,5 100,0

% 96,7 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,8 100,0

% 94,5 1,2 1,6 1,7 0,9 100,0

% 91,8 4,0 2,4 1,4 0,4 100,0

% 94,8 1,5 1,5 1,1 1,2 100,0

% 94,5 1,1 1,5 1,3 1,6 100,0

% 94,7 1,9 1,6 1,3 0,5 100,0

% 94,5 3,1 1,5 0,7 0,2 100,0

% 94,1 1,4 0,9 2,6 0,9 100,0

% 97,2 0,7 1,0 0,1 1,0 100,0

% 95,5 1,1 1,4 1,0 1,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Taking age as our criterion, we find that the oldest age-group were least likely to have experienced frequent harassment on the basis of ethnicity, as was the case the previous year. Thus, 0.4% of the over 50s said they had suffered frequent harassment on ethnic grounds in November 2008, compared to 1.2% of the middle age group and 1.8% of the younger age group (Table Ib).

Our surveys also show an increase in the percentages of both the majority and minority samples in Bosniak majority areas who had not suffered such harassment. The majority sample percentage was up from 88.5% last November to 93.2% in November of 2008, while the minority sample percentage was up from 92.2% to 95.5%. There was a minor reduction in the percentage of the Croat majority areas minority sample who gave the same answer, from the 90.4% last year to 89.9% this November. The majority sample percentage went up from 92% to 94% over the same period. In Serb majority areas, there was a negative fall in the percentages of both majority and minority sample who said they had never suffered such discrimination. Thus, in November 2008 the majority sample percentage was 98.5%, while the minority sample percentage was 97.3% (down from 97.5% down to 97.5% and 95.8%, respectively) (Table Ic).

4. Support for refugee return recovers There was an increase against last year's relatively low percentage of both the urban and rural samples entirely or basically in agreement that people not of the local majority should return to their prewar homes in the community (i.e. minority return). The percentage of the urban sample was 90% in November 2008, up from 83.4% a year before. The rural sample percentage was up from 84.9% to 87.9%. This year, women were more likely to support the idea than men (89.9% compared to 88.1%), which was not the case the previous year. It is worth noting that the percentage of women who actively disagree with minority return fell from 11.8% in November 2007 to 6.9% in November 2008 (Table II a).

There was an increase during the final quarter of 2008 in the percentage of all age groups who support minority return. The greatest increase was for the youngest age group, up from 83.1% to 90.5% (Table II b).

63 Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The High Representative made a statement to the effect that raising such indictments constituted a direct threat to the international community.

Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

64

Comparing the polls for the last quarters of 2007 and 2008, we find that Croats in Croat majority areas are least supportive of minority return. In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage in complete or general agreement with minority return was higher than a year ago, up from 87.4% to 92.1%.

The minority sample percentage was also up on last year, from 87.9% to 94.7%. The percentages of both the majority and minority samples in Serb majority areas who support minority return was up in the final quarter of 2008, at 87.6% and 90.8% respectively (Table II c).

5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve There was a reduction in the percentage of the sample in Croat majority areas entirely or generally happy to live in the same country as Bosniaks, compared to the end of last year (down from 85.7% in November 2007 to 81.6% in November 2008). The percentage who consider it acceptable to have a Bosniak neighbour was down from 80.5% to 76.7%. The percentage willing to accept co-schooling with Bosniak children was by contrast up on last year (from 21% to 24.6%). The percentage of the Croat majority areas sample who find it acceptable that a family member marry a Bosniak was down from 31.6% to 28.1% (Table IV).

In Serb majority areas, there was a rise over the end of last year in the percentage of the sample willing to live in the same country as Bosniaks: from 67% in November 2007 to 76% in November 2008. There was also an increase in the percentage happy to have a Bosniak neighbour, up from 65% to 74.3%. The percentage willing to accept co-schooling with Bosniak children fluctuated over the year, rising in the first quarter but falling again in the second, to recover by the end of the year, when it stood at 74.1%. There was also an increase in the percentage of the Serb majority areas sample for whom intermarriage with a Bosniak is acceptable, up from 26.5% in November 2007 to 35.1% in November 2008 (Table IV). The percentage of the Bosniak majority areas sample happy to live in the same country as Croats was down from 97.9% in November 2007 to 95.3% at the end of 2008. There was also a gradual decline in the percentage of the sample entirely or generally happy to see their children go to the same school as Croat children. This percentage was down from 97.3% in November 2007 to 94.8% in November 2008. The percentage willing to see a member of their family marry a Croat was also down on last year (from 50.8% to 33.2%) (Table V).

In Serb majority areas, the percentage entirely or generally willing to live in the same country as Croats was up (from 69.4% in November 2007 to 77.6% in November 2008). There was a positive reduction in the percentage who consider it unacceptable to have a Croat neighbour (down from 28.7% to 21.7% over the year). There was also a reduction in the percentage of the Serb majority areas sample entirely or generally happy to see their children go to the same school as Croat children, from 28.5% at the end of last year to 22.8% at the end of this year.

The percentage happy to see a member of their family marry a Bosniak also increased from 33.2% to 39.9% (Table V).

There was a reduction in the percentage of the sample in Bosniak majority areas who find it entirely acceptable to live in the same country as Serbs (92.6%), just as there was in the percentage of the Croat sample, down from 83% to 79.7% (Table V).

Compared to the end of last year, there was a reduction in the percentage of the Bosniak majority areas sample entirely or generally happy to live in the same country as Serbs (down from 95.9% to 92.9%), as there was a reduction in the percentage happy to see their children go to the same school (down from Table VIIa

Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work?

Gender Urban Nov 2007 Jun. 2008

Yes No DK/NA Total

% 36,0 57,4 6,6 100,0

% 34,6 50,5 14,9 100,0

Sep 2008

% 36,1 52,5 11,4 100,0

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

% 31,7 60,9 7,4 100,0

% 34,8 55,4 9,8 100,0

% 34,5 54,5 11,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

% 29,6 60,4 10,0 100,0

% 33,6 56,4 10,0 100,0

% 36,7 55,3 8,0 100,0

% 38,0 47,8 14,3 100,0

% 37,1 53,5 9,4 100,0

% 34,7 57,0 8,3 100,0

% 34,0 57,2 8,8 100,0

% 31,2 57,6 11,2 100,0

% 27,9 60,4 11,7 100,0

% 31,0 59,6 9,5 100,0

There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample willing to move to another town, where they would not belong to the majority ethnicity, in order to get a better job: down from 36% in the last quarter of 2007 to 31.7% in the last quarter of 2008. There was a similar reduction for the rural sample, down from 34.8% to 33.6%. We also find that men are more willing to consider such a move than women (34% compared to 31%) (Table VII a).

When we come to age group, we find that only the youngest age group show an increase in willingness to move to another city, where they would be in the minority: up from 48% in November 2007 to 49.9% in November 2008. The percentages for the other two age groups are down compared to last year (Table VII b).

In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample was less willing to make such a move than a year ago, down from 43.1% to 39.4%. In Croat majority areas, there was a similar reduction from 36% to 32.1%.

There was a less clear reduction in the Serb majority areas, down from 25.4% of the majority sample to 25.1% (Table VII c).

Table VIIc

Area Population Yes No DK/NA Total

Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work?

BMA Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % % % 43,1 55,2 36,7 45,6 39,0 42,9 49,0 27,3 52,3 45,6 53,2 48,6 7,9 17,5 11,0 8,8 7,9 8,5 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

CMA SMA Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 39,4 39,0 36,0 39,5 42,8 36,8 30,9 15,9 32,1 45,3 25,4 35,8 29,0 57,1 26,7 43,3 25,1 28,8 53,9 58,8 55,0 46,5 42,6 51,9 58,3 65,2 51,8 44,9 65,5 47,6 56,4 34,8 59,2 38,5 65,1 58,9 6,8 2,2 9,0 14,0 14,6 11,3 10,9 18,9 16,1 9,8 9,1 16,6 14,5 8,1 14,1 18,2 9,8 12,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

6. Separatism and Nationalism The percentage of the sample expressing a strong degree of pride in their ethnic identity was down on last year in urban areas, from 82.6% in November 2007 to 81% in November 2008. There was a similar reduction in rural areas, from 85% to 83.3%. While last year women were considerably more likely to express such pride than men, this year there is little difference between the sexes (men 82.2% and women 82.5%) (Table VIII a).

The two older age groups expressed greater levels of ethnic pride than previously, while the younger age group was less likely to express such pride than last year (down from 83.2% to 80.7%) (Table VIII b).

The percentage of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas expressing a strong degree of ethnic pride was down slightly on last year, from 86.4% to 84.7%. The minority sample percentage was up. The Table VIIIb

Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

How proud are you of your ethnicity?

Nov 2007 % 83,2 13,6 2,4 0,1 0,7 0,0 100,0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 81,6 80,0 11,1 13,8 3,1 4,1 0,5 0,0 2,6 1,3 0,4 1,2 0,3 100,0 100,0

Nov 2008 % 80,7 13,9 3,2 0,3 1,3 0,5 0,2 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 2007 % 82,4 13,3 2,0 0,3 2,1

100,0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 81,8 84,3 12,9 13,0 1,7 1,7 0,3 0,1 3,2 0,8 0,1 100,0

100,0

Nov 2008 % 84,9 8,2 3,6 1,0 2,3

100,0

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 % % 85,8 81,3 8,4 12,6 3,5 3,0 0,4 1,3 1,8 1,3 0,3 0,3 100,0 100,0

50 + Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % 84,5 82,2 8,8 9,2 3,0 2,3 1,2 1,6 1,5 2,8 0,4 1,1 0,7 0,8 100,0 100,0

65 Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

95.1% to 92.9%). It is worth noting that the Croat majority areas sample was generally less happy to coexist with Serbs, except for one aspect -- the percentage of Croats happy to see a member of their family marry a Serb increased from 22% to 24.6% (Table VI).

Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

66

situation in Croat majority areas was similar, with a reduction in the majority sample percentage and an increase in the minority sample percentage. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage expressing a strong degree of pride in their ethnic identity was down from 82% to 79.3%, while the minority sample percentage was up rather more considerably, from 74.1% 84.8% (Table VIII c).

Turning to pride in being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we find an increase in the percentage of the rural sample expressing a strong degree of pride (up from 50.6% to 54.4%), but a reduction in the urban sample (from 52.9% to 51.5%). The percentage of the female sample was up, from 49.4% 52.6%, while there was little change in the percentage of men expressing such pride (Table IX a).

There was a significant reduction in the percentage of the Bosniak majority areas sample expressing pride in their citizenship, down from 86.3% to 80.7% over the year. The minority sample percentage was up from 78.4% to 87%. The majority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was also up, albeit still in the low 30s. The minority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was up considerably, from 49.9% to 75.4%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage expressing such pride was 23.7%, while the minority sample percentage was 72.9% (Table IX c).

There was a significant reduction in the percentage of the overall sample who said withdrawal by the European Union security forces would increase the likelihood of renewed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This held for all categories. For example, in urban areas the percentage fell from 26.2% to 21.9%, while it fell from 33.3% to 23.8% in rural areas, and from 32.3% 23.9% for men (Table X a).

When we look at our age groups, we find that the middle age group is most likely to believe that a withdrawal of international forces would increase the likelihood of war, currently at 24.8% (Table X b).

In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of both the majority and minority sample who share this pessimistic view fell, from 44.7% to 29.5% for the majority sample and from 33.1% to 13.9% for the minority sample. The majority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was down from 21.3% to 18.6%, while the minority sample percentage was down from 33.1% to 27.2%. Only in Serb majority areas did the percentage increase, up from 15.3% to 17.8% for the majority and from 25.4% to 27% for the minority sample (Table X c).

The percentage of the sample who felt that the religious communities have a major impact on politics and political life in Bosnia was up in urban areas, from 27.2% to 31.1% over the year. There was a similar increase in rural areas, up from 25.6% to 28.1%. Men and women are equally likely to hold this opinion, at 29.5% and 29.3% respectively (Table XII a).

In Bosniak majority areas, there was an increase in the percentage who feel that the religious communities have a strong impact on politics, with the majority sample percentage rising from 33.2% last year to 45.6% this November. There was also an increase in the minority sample percentage in Bosniak majority areas.

In Croat majority areas, there was an increase in both the minority and majority sample percentages who share this view. Only in Serb majority areas did this percentage fall compared to last year, down from Table XIIa

None Little A certain amount A lot DK/NA Total Total LITTLE Total MUCH DK/NA Total

How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics?

Gender Urban Rural Male Female Nov 2007Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 9,0 11,2 11,4 11,2 11,6 14,7 18,4 15,9 10,3 14,2 14,2 14,7 10,7 12,2 16,5 13,1 19,3 20,3 17,8 19,6 21,5 24,3 24,5 20,8 18,9 22,4 23,9 21,4 22,1 22,8 19,4 19,2 37,7 30,0 30,5 32,9 33,5 30,5 28,3 27,3 34,5 29,3 26,0 28,9 36,1 31,2 32,3 30,5 27,2 26,2 32,9 31,1 25,6 20,0 23,1 28,1 31,2 26,4 30,9 29,5 21,6 19,0 23,8 29,3 6,8 12,3 7,3 5,2 7,8 10,6 5,8 7,8 5,1 7,7 5,0 5,5 9,6 14,8 7,9 7,9 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 28,3 31,5 29,3 30,7 33,1 39,0 42,8 36,7 29,2 36,6 38,1 36,2 32,7 35,0 36,0 32,3 64,9 56,2 63,4 64,0 59,1 50,5 51,4 55,5 65,6 55,7 56,9 58,4 57,7 50,2 56,1 59,8 6,8 12,3 7,3 5,2 7,8 10,6 5,8 7,8 5,1 7,7 5,0 5,5 9,6 14,8 7,9 7,9 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XIIIa

Gender Urban Rural Male Female Nov 2007Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 72,5 63,8 63,0 74,9 67,8 62,4 56,9 72,2 73,9 64,3 60,3 72,7 65,8 62,1 59,6 73,9 19,5 22,4 26,4 16,2 21,2 23,8 28,1 18,0 20,5 24,1 27,2 19,3 20,5 22,4 27,3 15,3 8,0 13,8 10,7 8,9 11,0 13,8 15,0 9,9 5,6 11,7 12,5 8,0 13,7 15,5 13,1 10,8 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

20.1% of the majority sample to 13%. There was an increase in the percentage of the minority sample (Table XII c).

Both the urban and rural samples were less likely than previously to agree that parties with an explicit ethnic orientation are best able to protect vital ethnic or national interests: down from 19.5% to 16.2% in towns and from 21.2% to 18% in village areas. Support for this view has been declining steadily over the last number of years (Table XIII a).

In Bosniak majority areas, there was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample who agreed with this view, down from 8.6% to 8% over the year. The minority sample was also less likely to express agreement with the claim, down from 10.9% in November 2007 to 5.1% in November 2008. By contrast, the majority sample in Croat majority areas was more likely to agree with the statement than last year, up from 39.6% to 45.7%. As was the minority sample in these areas, up from 21.5% to 32.6%. In Serb majority areas, there was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample who thought ethnic parties are best able to protect the vital interests of the ethnic group they represent, down from 27% to 20.5%, but an increase in the percentage of the minority sample, up from 12.5% to 23.3% (Table XIII c).

67 Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations

TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea?

VIII PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY 1. The Security Stability Index 2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year fades as year goes on 3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the population

1. The Security Stability Index From this year’s results, it would again appear that the security index is largely determined by the public’s everyday experiences and their attitudes to questions like security of property, security of movement in their local communities, and confidence in contact with local institutions responsible for public safety and security. Thus, the murder of a teenager on a tram in Sarajevo at the beginning of the year was followed by a decline in the index to its lowest measure to date. Towards the end of the year, the index recovered to approximately its initial position. The elections had no direct impact on the index, confirming that the public’s sense of safety is related to concrete events in their local communities. As the following graph, with annual averages and the trendline for the Security Stability Index since 2000, the index has remained within a fairly narrow 3 point band, between its initial high of 89 and its low of 86.5 in 2006, suggesting that there have been no major problems with public safety and security more generally over the past 8 years. On the other hand, the trend has clearly been downward, with a moderate recovery in 2007. As the discussion above makes clear the results for 2008 were mixed. It would seem rash to rule out the possibility of further deterioration in this area, if longer term trends continue, particularly given the increasing attention given to public safety related concerns in the media.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

69

Annual Report 2008 - Public and Personal Security

70

2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year fades as year goes on This year, security issues were at the centre of political life, inspiring a series of civil actions, the most prominent being the escalation of juvenile delinquency in Sarajevo, which shocked the public.

In spite of the fact that the meeting of the six ruling party leaders in early February made clear that there was no political consensus regarding police reform, by the middle of the month, the Council of Ministers had passed a draft Police Coordination Bodies Bill and the Independent Police Supervisory Bodies Bill. The bills were enacted by the BiH Parliament at the end of the month.

The public was shocked at the beginning of the year by a terrible crime involving the abuse and murder of a 17-year old Denis Mrnjavac by a group of youths on public transport in Sarajevo.

Unprecedented public protests, involving thousands of people, were held to condemn the crime. After a number of peaceful protests, at which the public expressed its disaffection with public safety, a further meeting in front of the Cantonal government buildings in Sarajevo resulted in stones being thrown at the building, for which the authorities blamed a number of non-governmental organisations. As the situation became more complicated, regular Saturday demonstrations were held in Sarajevo calling for the resignation of the cantonal Prime Minister Samir SilajdĹžiÄ&#x2021; and the Mayor Semiha Borovac. In the meantime, the authorities initiated a belated dialogue with the public on issues of security and public safety and both cantonal and federal parliaments held extraordinary sessions to discuss to juvenile delinquency and passing preventative strategies. The issue of security consequently became a matter of political and social debate both in Sarajevo Canton and in the rest of the country.

After much political debate and with international committee support, the Parliamentary assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina passed on 11 April two draft laws related to police reform, meeting international community criteria and filling the conditions for signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement to go ahead.

At a NATO summit in April, it was announced that BiH could expect an invitation to join as early as the following year (2009). An invitation was issued for closer talks.

In mid-May, the President of the Hague tribunal visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, when he announced that the UN Security Council would be requested to defer closing the court until all indictees had been arrested.

Talks on relaxing visa conditions followed immediately on the signing of SAA in June. The Bosnian government was presented with a Roadmap, including tasks and guidelines as to what needed to be done to make this possible.

The election campaign had no major impact on security, even though it did produce dirty electioneering, mudslinging against political opponents, etc. The most disturbing event took place in Doboj, where 17 SDS activists were taken into custody by the police on suspicion of vote buying.

In September, an event of considerable importance for public safety did take place, which succeeded in presenting Bosnia-Herzegovina in a particularly bad light internationally. This was the poorly organised and inadequate police protection provided to participants of the first queer festival in BiH. The result was to send a clear message to the world that Bosnia and Herzegovina could not function properly as a state and was unprepared to ensure the basic safety of its citizens, regardless of orientation. Even though certain religious groups and sports fans had announced their intention in advance of lynching participants in the event, this was not considered by the police sufficient cause to provide adequate resources to prevent possible attacks. In spite of the police presence, a number of people were physically attacked and the festival was discontinued.

At the end of September, Transparency International announced that BiH is the most corrupt country in the region, ranking 93rd out of 180 countries worldwide.

Towards the end of the year, there were attacks on federal government buildings. Anonymous groups expressed their dissatisfaction with economic and security conditions in the Federation by daubing the government buildings with messages, breaking windows, and leaving messages to the effect that such disturbances would continue.

Comparing the last quarters of 2008 and 2007, we find there was little change in the urban crime rate. In certain categories, like car theft, there was no change at all (at 0.2%), while others like burglary at home saw an insignificant increase (from 1.3% to 1.5%). The incidence of burglary at the workplace was down from 0.8% to 0.2%. The incidence of burglary at home was also down in rural areas (to 0.5% from 0.9%), as was car theft (from 0.6% to 0.2%). The rate of pickpocketing rose from 0.7% to 1.4%. In rural areas, the percentage reporting some form of extortion was down from 0.5% to 0.3%. Men were more likely to report burglaries or pickpocketing than women. There was no change in the percentage of men reporting car theft (0.3%), while there was a decrease amongst women from 0.5% to 0.2% (Table I a).

Both younger age groups reported a reduction compared to late 2007 in the incidence of burglary at home, (from 0.6% to 0.2% for the youngest, and from 0.1% to 0.4% for the middle-aged), while the oldest age-group reported an increase, from 0.4% to 1.7% (Table I b).

In Bosniak majority areas, there was an insignificant change in the percentage of the majority sample reporting a break in at home, from 1.6% to 1.5%. The minority sample percentage was up, from 1.3% to 2.3%. The pickpocketing rate was up for both majority and minority samples, from 1.5% to 2% and from 1.3% to 1.5%, respectively.

In Croat majority areas, the majority sample burglary at home rate was the same at the end of the year as it had been a year before (1.1%), while the minority sample percentage was up significantly, from 0.2% to 3.5%. The majority pickpocketing rate was up, however, from 2.6% to 3.6%, as was the majority sample percentage reporting car theft, from 0.8% to 1.6%. There was an increase in the percentage of the minority sample who said they had been extorted, from 0.7% a year ago to 5.5% in the final quarter of 2008. The Serb majority areas minority sample reported fewer break-ins at home than in late 2007, down from 0.8% to 0.5%. The majority sample percentage reporting pickpocketing was up, however, from 0.2% to 1%, as was the percentage reporting extortion, from 0.2% to 0.5% (Table I c).

Fewer people in urban areas said they had sought police assistance than last year. The figure was down from 9.5% in late 2007 to 4.4% in the first quarter, 6.6% mid year, and 5% at year end. In rural areas, the percentage was up from 4.5% to 4.7%. There was a reduction in the percentages of both men and women who said they sought police assistance, to 5.5% and 4.2% respectively, (Table II a).

Table IIa

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason?

Urban Rural Male Female Nov 2007Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 9,5 4,4 6,6 5,0 4,5 5,5 3,7 4,7 6,7 5,9 6,5 5,5 6,6 4,2 3,5 90,1 95,3 90,7 94,0 95,1 93,8 95,2 94,5 92,9 93,8 91,3 93,7 92,9 95,1 95,2 94,8 0,4 0,3 2,6 1,0 0,4 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,4 0,3 2,2 0,8 0,5 0,7 1,3 1,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

While fewer young people requested police help than a year ago (7.1%, down from 8.9% last November), they are still the age group most likely to ask for it (Table II b).

In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage who requested police help declined steadily through 2008, from 10.9% in late 2007 to 6.6% in the first and 5.9% in the second quarter, ending the year at 5.8%. The Croat majority areas majority sample percentage was down from 4.9% to 4.6% over the same period. Only in Serb majority areas did the majority sample percentage rise, from 2.7% to 3.8% (Table II c).

Dissatisfaction with police assistance received was up in urban areas: up from 16.1% of the relevant sample in late 2007 to 27.2% in late 2008. There was a similar increase in rural areas, up from 19.6% in November 2007 to 26.3% in November 2008. Men are particularly likely to express such dissatisfaction, with an increase from 12.7% last year to 36.1% in November 2008. Only women seem immune to this

71 Annual Report 2008 - Public and Personal Security

3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the population

Annual Report 2008 - Public and Personal Security

72

trend, as there was in fact a decrease in the percentage of the sample expressing dissatisfaction, down from 22.1% to 14.9% (Table III a).

In Bosniak majority areas, there was a considerable increase in dissatisfaction with police assistance amongst the majority sample, up from 16% to 42.7%. There was a considerable increase amongst the majority sample in the Croat majority areas, however, in the percentage expressing overall satisfaction with police assistance, up from 16.5% to 45.1% over the year. In the Serb majority areas, the majority sample was less satisfied than a year ago, with the percentage entirely satisfied down from 38.4% to 13.9% (Table III c).

There was a reduction in the percentage in urban areas who said that they or somebody in their family had been arrested without warrant: down from 3% in November 2007 to 1.1% in November 2008.

The percentage was also down in rural areas, from 2.1% to 1.5% over the same period (Table IVa).

Table IVa

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant?

Gender Urban Rural Male Female Nov 2007Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 3,0 1,8 0,9 1,1 2,1 2,1 0,7 1,5 3,6 1,1 1,9 1,4 1,9 0,6 0,8 96,2 97,6 98,6 96,4 96,9 96,8 98,2 95,0 95,9 97,7 94,2 97,2 96,9 99,0 97,0 0,9 0,6 0,4 2,4 1,1 1,1 1,1 3,4 0,5 1,3 3,9 1,4 1,2 0,4 2,1 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

It is interesting that there was a general decline in the percentage of all categories reporting an experience of arrest without warrant during 2008. All three age groups reported a lower incidence than in the previous year (Table IV b).

There was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas reporting arrest without warrant, down from 4.3% in late 2007 to 1.8% in November 2008. The majority sample percentage increased marginally from 1.3% to 1.5%. Croat majority areas saw an increase in the percentage of the majority sample from 2.3% and 4.3%. In Serb majority areas, similarly, there was a decrease in the percentage of the majority sample who reported no negative experience of arrest without warrant, down from 98.6% to 98%. The reduction was more significant for the minority sample, where it was from 98.2% to 92.3% (Table IV c).

The percentage of the urban sample who said they had witnessed the police clearly abusing their authorities was a little better than at the end of last year, down to 12.8% from 13.2% in November 2007.

There was also a reduction in the percentage in rural areas, from 8.8% to 6.2%. As in previous years, men were more likely to witness such incidents than women (10.7% compared to 7.4%) (Table V a).

In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of the majority sample who witnessed the clear abuse of police powers was down on last year -- from 10.6% to 9.6%. The minority sample percentage was up from 2.3% to 6.1%. In Croat majority areas, the percentages of both the majority and minority samples who witnessed such abuses were down: from 15.3% to 2.7% for the minority sample. In Serb majority areas, there was also a decrease in the percentages of both samples, from 11.9% to 9% for the majority and from 4.6% to 2.2% for the minority sample (Table V c).

There was a reduction in the percentage of the urban sample who expressed approval of how the police and the courts are doing their job. The police approval rating was down from 68% to 64.1%, while the judiciary's approval rating was down from 63.5% to 58.6%. In rural areas, the police approval rating was down from 62.5% to 61.2%, while the courts approval rating was actually up, from 53.4% to 54.4%.

Some 66.2% of the male sample expressed their approval of how the police do their job. The figure was down in the first quarter to 50.1%, but after that gradually improved to reach its current level. The percentage of the female sample, however, was down on the end of last year, from 65.2% to 59%. We also note that men are more likely to express approval of the courts than women (58.9% compared to 53.6%) (Table VI a).

There was a marginal increase in the percentage of the urban sample who think corruption is widespread in the police force, up from 40.1% to 40.4% over the course of the year. The percentage had risen considerably during the first quarter of 2008, but then returned to a more moderate level in the following quarter. The rural sample percentage who think corruption is very widespread in the police was down over the year, from 40.9% to 36.8%. There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample who think corruption is very widespread in the courts, up from 43.3% to 44.6%. In rural areas, there was a reduction in the percentage who think corruption is very widespread in the courts, from 45.5% to 40.6% (Table VII a).

Table VIIa

How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions?

Gender Urban

Rural

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008

% Police Not at all 4,0 Slightly 19,6 To some degree 16,9 Quite 19,5 Very 40,1 TOTAL 100,0 Courts Not at all 4,0 Slightly 17,1 To some degree 15,5 Quite 20,2 Very 43,3 TOTAL 100,0

Sep 2008

Male

Female

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

2,8 9,2 20,9 21,6 45,4 100,0

1,1 18,0 19,2 20,2 41,4 100,0

3,8 16,5 17,1 22,2 40,4 100,0

4,9 11,6 15,4 27,2 40,9 100,0

2,0 12,4 17,4 20,9 47,3 100,0

3,3 16,1 18,6 22,0 40,0 100,0

1,5 15,2 16,6 30,0 36,8 100,0

6,3 15,0 14,5 22,0 42,2 100,0

3,0 11,9 19,6 18,2 47,2 100,0

1,8 16,2 19,7 19,2 43,0 100,0

2,8 16,5 15,9 27,1 37,7 100,0

2,7 15,3 17,6 25,6 38,9 100,0

1,7 10,1 18,2 24,3 45,7 100,0

3,0 17,6 17,9 23,2 38,2 100,0

2,2 15,0 17,6 26,2 38,9 100,0

1,7 6,8 16,0 25,2 50,3 100,0

1,0 15,7 16,7 20,3 46,4 100,0

2,4 16,7 13,3 22,8 44,6 100,0

3,0 12,6 12,7 26,2 45,5 100,0

2,8 10,1 12,9 20,8 53,5 100,0

2,4 12,9 18,6 24,3 41,8 100,0

1,1 12,3 16,3 29,7 40,6 100,0

4,4 14,7 13,9 20,6 46,4 100,0

2,7 9,9 14,9 19,9 52,6 100,0

1,2 11,8 19,2 21,5 46,2 100,0

1,9 13,5 16,0 27,4 41,2 100,0

2,4 14,5 14,0 26,5 42,6 100,0

1,9 7,4 13,7 25,5 51,5 100,0

2,4 16,3 16,4 23,6 41,4 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

At the end of the year, we find that fewer of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas thought corruption was widespread in the police force, down from 51.1% in November 2007 to 47.9% in November 2008. The minority sample percentage was up from 57.2% to 59.4%. In Croat majority areas, the percentage of the majority sample who think the police are highly corrupt was also down, but so was the percentage of the minority sample. In Serb majority areas, there was also an increase in the percentage of the majority sample who agree: up from 27.3% at the end of 2007 to 29.3%. That was a similar increase for the minority sample, up from 25.4% to 27.7% (Table VII c).

73 Annual Report 2008 - Public and Personal Security

In Bosniak majority areas, there was a decrease in the percentages of the majority sample expressing approval of the police and the courts, compared to the end of last year, but an increase in the percentages of the minority sample. In Croat majority areas, there was a decline in both the majority and minority sample percentages in approval. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage was up, from 73.5% to 77.2% (Table VI c).

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

ANNEX

Annual Report 2008

2

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH The Political Stability Index of BiH

Table I Politics in BiH are getting...?

Gender Sample

Worse Better DK/NA Total

All March 08. % 67,0 23,8 9,2 100,0

June 08. % 50,0 35,9 14,1 100,0

Sept 08. % 50,9 36,0 13,1 100,0

Nov 08. % 63,4 25,0 11,7 100,0

March 08. % 70,3 21,8 7,8 100,0

Male June 08. Sept 08. % % 48,3 51,8 40,4 36,3 11,3 11,9 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 63,8 26,9 9,3 100,0

March 08. % 63,8 25,8 10,5 100,0

Female June 08. Sept 08. % % 51,7 50,1 31,5 35,7 16,8 14,3 100,0 100,0

March 08. % 57,7 26,5 15,8 100,0

Croat majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08. % % % 57,5 61,5 52,9 27,9 23,3 24,7 14,6 15,1 22,4 100,0 100,0 100,0

March 08. % 57,3 30,6 12,2 100,0

Serb majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08. % % % 42,5 42,5 50,3 43,0 42,0 34,6 14,5 15,5 15,1 100,0 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 63,0 23,1 13,9 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table II Politics in BiH are getting...?

Ispitanici

Worse Better DK/NA Total

March 08. % 78,8 16,1 5,1 100,0

Bosniak majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08. % % % 54,4 57,2 79,7 31,7 31,8 13,5 13,9 11,0 6,8 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

3

Table III

All March 08.June 08. Sept 08. % % % Very bad 32,1 27,3 24,2 Generally bad 35,7 36,4 38,4 Neither bad nor good 25,9 31,4 32,2 Generally good 3,2 2,8 3,6 Very good 0,1 0,2 DK/NA 3,0 1,9 1,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL BAD 67,8 63,7 62,5 Neither bad nor good 25,9 31,4 32,2 TOTAL GOOD 3,3 3,0 3,6 DK/NA 3,0 1,9 1,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. % % % % % % % % % % 29,1 45,1 31,6 32,7 37,3 13,2 15,2 16,0 12,0 21,5 36,6 37,2 30,6 35,1 40,3 15,4 30,1 26,2 23,1 40,6 29,8 14,5 32,1 27,7 21,3 56,6 47,4 50,0 46,8 30,3 2,9 1,4 3,2 3,2 10,9 5,5 7,3 16,2 2,9 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,7 0,4 1,3 1,7 2,3 1,4 0,9 3,2 1,9 0,5 1,6 4,6 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 65,7 82,4 62,2 67,8 77,6 28,7 45,3 42,2 35,0 62,2 29,8 14,5 32,1 27,7 21,3 56,6 47,4 50,0 46,8 30,3 3,3 1,4 3,3 3,2 0,2 11,5 5,5 7,3 16,6 2,9 1,3 1,7 2,3 1,4 0,9 3,2 1,9 0,5 1,6 4,6 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Serb majority areas June 08. Sept 08. % % 25,2 14,6 45,7 46,8 25,9 32,9 1,2 3,1 0,4 1,6 2,5 100,0 100,0 70,9 61,4 25,9 32,9 1,7 3,1 1,6 2,5 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 24,4 37,9 35,4 0,6 1,6 100,0 62,3 35,4 0,6 1,6 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IIIa

Table IIIb

Economic circumstances in the RS are currently....

March 08. % 19,6 39,2 32,7 7,0 0,2 1,4 100,0 58,7 32,7 7,2 1,4 100,0

Very bad Generally bad Neither bad nor good Generally good Very good DK/NA Total TOTAL BAD Neither bad nor good TOTAL GOOD DK/NA Total

Republika Srpska June 08.

Sept 08. % % 21,9 16,5 39,5 38,5 31,8 36,0 5,7 6,6 1,1 100,0 61,4 31,8 5,7 1,1 100,0

2,4 100,0 55,0 36,0 6,6 2,4 100,0

Nov 08. % 19,6 34,2 37,0 6,7 1,1 1,4 100,0 53,8 37,0 7,8 1,4 100,0

Over the next year economic conditions in the RS will.... (%)

Deteriorate significantly Deteriorate generally Stay the same Improve generally Improve significantly DK/NA Total TOTAL WORSE Stay the same TOTAL IMPROVE DK/NA Total

March 08.

5,6 20,7 37,9 28,7 1,8 5,3 100,0 26,3 37,9 30,5 5,3 100,0

Republika Srpska June 08. Sept 08.

4,5 2,7 19,1 19,0 53,7 44,7 17,2 24,9 0,3 1,2 5,2 7,4 100,0 100,0 23,6 21,7 53,7 44,7 17,5 26,1 5,2 7,4 100,0 100,0

Nov 08.

3,6 22,5 48,2 20,9 0,4 4,5 100,0 26,1 48,2 21,3 4,5 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IV Would emigrate if they could Age 18 - 35 36 - 50 Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept 41.6 40.4 64.7 61.3 64.5 63.3 51.1 46.1 45.6 47.9 46.3 23.6 27.7 24.3 19.2 35.9 39.7 41.6 10.6 13.3 11.7 11.0 11.2 17.5 13.0 14.3 12.7 100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

All 2008 Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

March June 42.2 38.2 47.5 50.3 10.3 11.4 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 39.4 48.9 11.7 100.0

51 + March June Sept 18.6 14.9 17.4 73.7 76.3 73.9 7.7 8.8 8.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 17.6 72.2 10.2 100.0

March 42.5 45.8 11.7 100.0

Male June Sept 37.2 43.4 49.7 46.3 13.1 10.3 100.0 100.0

Nov 43.3 45.9 10.8 100.0

March 41.9 49.1 9.0 100.0

Female June Sept 39.2 39.9 51.0 49.3 9.9 10.8 100.0 100.0

Nov 37.6 46.7 15.7 100.0

Annual Report 2008

Economic circumstances in BiH are currently....

Annual Report 2008

4

Table V Would emigrate if they could

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

March 08. % 48,7 44,2 7,2 100,0

Bosniak majority areas June 08. Sept 08. % % 36,8 48,2 52,4 41,2 10,8 10,6 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. March 08. % % 39,2 41,4 44,8 44,7 15,9 14,0 100,0 100,0

Croat majority areas June 08. Sept 08. % % 43,5 48,8 40,4 44,0 16,2 7,2 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 43,4 43,2 13,5 100,0

March 08. % 34,7 52,0 13,3 100,0

Serb majority areas June 08. Sept 08. % % 38,0 31,5 50,8 56,3 11,2 12,1 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 41,6 47,6 10,8 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VI You look at the process of BiH joining the EU with....

Hope Concern DK/NA Total

All March 08.June 08. Sept 08. % % % 73,0 74,8 67,4 18,2 16,9 22,8 8,8 8,3 9,8 100,0 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. % 63,9 26,3 9,8 100,0

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08.Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. % % % % % % % 85,8 86,0 78,3 75,0 61,8 69,9 66,4 9,5 7,3 15,9 18,8 27,3 24,4 27,0 4,7 6,6 5,8 6,1 10,9 5,8 6,6 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % % % 62,2 62,1 63,2 56,6 49,3 28,8 24,7 25,4 27,3 35,6 9,0 13,1 11,4 16,0 15,2 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VII How important do you think EU membership is for BiH?

Very Somewhat Neither important nor unimportant Fairly unimportant Not at all important DK/NA Total TOTAL IMPORTANT Neither important nor unimportant TOTAL UNIMPORTANT DK/NA Total

All Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 57,8 52,6 45,2 48,8 80,6 77,9 60,9 73,9 45,5 43,8 51,5 36,4 35,0 25,9 26,5 21,7 22,5 26,4 32,0 28,4 11,7 9,5 28,1 15,2 21,3 32,9 22,7 43,9 35,2 43,5 37,8 39,0 11,1 2,2 2,5 4,0 100,0 80,3

11,4 1,6 2,5 5,4 100,0 79,0

13,8 1,1 3,9 3,9 100,0 77,3

12,9 3,6 2,4 0,1 3,9 0,4 3,6 3,6 100,0 100,0 77,2 92,3

3,6 0,2

7,6

6,7

8,7 100,0 87,4

3,5 100,0 88,9

11,1 4,6 4,0 100,0

11,4 4,1 5,4 100,0

13,8 5,0 3,9 100,0

12,9 3,6 6,2 0,5 3,6 3,6 100,0 100,0

3,6 0,2 8,7 100,0

7,6

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

3,5 100,0

0,4 3,8 100,0 89,1

19,1 16,2 4,8 1,9 2,0 1,4 7,4 3,8 100,0 100,0 66,7 76,7

20,9 0,7 1,2 3,0 100,0 74,2

14,6 0,5 1,2 3,5 100,0 80,3

17,4 3,8 5,1 3,6 100,0 70,2

19,3 3,0 5,9 2,5 100,0 69,3

18,9 2,6 9,3 4,9 100,0 64,4

20,5 5,9 9,1 3,8 100,0 60,7

6,7 0,4 3,8 100,0

19,1 16,2 6,9 3,3 7,4 3,8 100,0 100,0

20,9 1,9 3,0 100,0

14,6 1,6 3,5 100,0

17,4 8,9 3,6 100,0

19,3 8,9 2,5 100,0

18,9 11,9 4,9 100,0

20,5 15,0 3,8 100,0

5

Table VIII

Annual Report 2008

To what extend to you support BiH joining the EU? (%) All March 08.June 08. Sept 08.

Strongly support 61,1 52,6 50,9 Somewhat support 18,8 24,6 24,7 Neither for nor against 11,3 12,9 14,4 Somewhat against 2,7 2,3 2,5 Strongly against 2,8 2,5 3,9 DK/NA 3,3 5,1 3,6 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL FOR 79,9 77,2 75,6 Neither for nor against 11,3 12,9 14,4 TOTAL AGAINST 5,5 4,8 6,4 DK/NA 3,3 5,1 3,6 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0

Bosniak majority areas Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

48,5 86,5 78,7 72,2 27,4 7,5 9,2 15,8 13,8 3,2 4,2 7,6 1,9 0,1 1,0 5,0 0,6 0,2 0,1 3,4 2,3 7,5 3,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 75,9 94,0 87,9 88,0 13,8 3,2 4,2 7,6 7,0 0,6 0,4 1,2 3,4 2,3 7,5 3,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Croat majority areas Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08.

74,5 47,7 43,6 45,6 15,2 18,8 32,7 19,4 6,0 19,5 16,8 27,4 0,4 3,7 1,4 1,4 0,7 2,6 0,7 1,9 3,1 7,7 4,8 4,2 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 89,7 66,5 76,4 65,0 6,0 19,5 16,8 27,4 1,1 6,3 2,1 3,4 3,1 7,7 4,8 4,2 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

34,3 35,4 25,1 29,3 20,2 44,0 31,6 39,4 34,9 36,7 13,3 18,4 22,0 18,3 24,1 1,9 5,6 5,1 4,7 4,0 1,1 5,7 5,7 8,8 11,7 5,4 3,2 2,7 4,0 3,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 78,3 67,1 64,5 64,2 56,9 13,3 18,4 22,0 18,3 24,1 3,0 11,3 10,8 13,5 15,7 5,4 3,2 2,7 4,0 3,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IX Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours? (%) Gender Male

All DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH SDP-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati Liberalno demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine Penzionerska stranka RS DNS-Demokratski narodni savez SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Šešelj PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa RS Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik Socijalistička partija Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak" HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH Naša stranka Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine BSP-Bosansko-hercegovačka stranka prava Demokratska stanka invalida BiH-DSI BiH DSS-Demokratska stranka Srpske Zeleni BiH Evropska ekološka stranka E-5 Hrvatska stranka prava Bosne i Hercegovine-Ðapić dr. Jurišić Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 Nezavisna demokratska stranka Narodna bošnjačka stranka Pokret mladih BiH HNZ-Hrvatska narodna zajednica BOSS-Bosanska stranka SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska Unija Bosne i Hercegovine BPS-Sefer Halilović Some other Won't vote None of the above DK NA TOTAL

Female

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

0,1 3,4 7,9 1,0 10,7 0,2 0,1 0,9 3,4 0,2 1,4 9,7

0,1 4,0 7,8 1,1 12,2 0,4

3,3 5,5 0,8 7,6 0,1 0,1 0,5 3,6 0,9 0,4 12,9 0,3 0,5 3,8 0,4

5,1 9,1 0,7 9,2 0,0 1,5 5,4 0,5 0,8 14,1 0,8 0,5 4,9

1,1 4,1 0,8

0,1 0,1

3,2 6,4 0,8 6,8 0,3 0,2 0,7 3,7 1,0 0,6 13,5 0,5 0,4 3,8

4,0 9,9 1,3 10,8

2,2 5,7 0,2 0,9 13,7 1,0 0,8 5,4

1,3 3,5 0,4 1,5 9,0 0,7 4,5 1,1

0,2

3,4 4,6 0,7 8,4

6,2 8,3 0,1 7,8 0,1

0,3 3,6 0,8 0,1 12,4 0,2 0,6 3,7

0,9 5,1 0,8 0,7 14,4 0,6 0,2 4,5

0,6

0,2 0,3

0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7

0,3 0,8 0,0 0,1

0,3 0,4 0,5

0,3 0,5

0,7 0,8

0,5 0,6

0,7

0,0 0,1

0,2

0,1 1,4

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

8,7 15,5 1,1 14,5 0,1

0,8 6,5

0,9 8,4

1,2 10,4

0,1 0,2

0,2 5,7 0,2 13,2 1,7 17,2 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,2 1,2 3,6 2,4 0,4 9,1 13,0 8,2 2,3 1,2 0,5 0,9 2,0 3,5 32,7 35,3 23,9 0,9 1,9 1,9 6,4 0,2 1,4 0,9 0,2 0,1

0,1 0,3

0,3 0,7

0,4 0,7

0,1 1,0 0,1 0,1

0,1

0,3 0,4

0,3 0,4

1,0 1,2

0,2 0,0 0,3

5,3 8,9 1,3 12,4 0,2

0,1 0,6 3,3

1,6 3,6 0,6

RS

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.June 08.Sept 08.Nov 08.

0,1

0,0

0,0 0,3 0,2 16,1 34,3 25,5 8,6 11,8 10,4 8,4 9,5 8,1 20,3 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,9 0,3

0,2 2,8 7,9 0,9 9,3

0,1

0,1 0,4

FBiH

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

0,9 0,3

2,0

34,3 10,9 8,2 100,0

24,8 7,8 8,2 100,0

0,3 0,0 0,6 0,1 14,6 8,6 8,6 18,5 100,0

0,1

0,9 0,3 34,3 12,7 10,7 100,0

0,1

0,5 1,4 0,1 0,1

0,5 0,8

0,2 0,5

0,1

0,3 0,9

26,1 12,8 8,0 100,0

0,2 17,5 8,5 8,2 22,0 100,0

0,7

1,5 0,5

0,0 0,6

0,4

0,3 2,5

0,5 0,3 18,4 35,4 25,9 8,7 14,2 13,3 7,8 9,0 5,7 14,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

32,4 8,4 9,8 100,0

24,6 6,1 11,8 100,0

11,0 9,0 9,8 31,1 100,0

Annual Report 2008

6

Table X Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours?

DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH SPD-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati Liberalno demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine Penzionerska stranka RS DNS-Demokratski narodni savez SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Šešelj PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa Republike Srpske Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik Socijalistička partija Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak" HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH Naša stranka Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine BSP-Bosansko-hercegovačka stranka prava Demokratska stanka invalida BiH-DSI BiH DSS-Demokratska stranka Srpske Zeleni BiH Evropska ekološka stranka E-5 Hrvatska stranka prava Bosne i Hercegovine-Ðapić dr. Jurišić Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 Nezavisna demokratska stranka Narodna bošnjačka stranka Pokret mladih BiH HNZ-Hrvatska narodna zajednica BOSS-Bosanska stranka SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska Unija Bosne i Hercegovine BPS-Sefer Halilović Some other Won't vote None of the above DK NA TOTAL Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Bosniak majority areas Juni 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. % % % 0,2 6,6 11,3 7,2 11,3 19,9 15,7 1,7 1,4 2,1 15,7 18,4 21,4 0,3 0,1 0,4

Croat majority areas Serb majority areas Juni 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Juni 08. Sept 08. % % % % % 0,2 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,3 3,5 0,2 1,0 1,0 0,7 0,5 0,2 0,3 1,2 9,1 2,3 0,9 32,7 0,9

0,4

0,3

0,8

1,7

2,5 29,3

1,1 37,8

1,6

3,6 13,0 1,2 2,0 35,3 1,9

3,1 31,3 0,8

0,1 0,3

Nov 08. %

0,2 0,2 2,4 8,2 0,5 3,5 23,9

0,2 0,9

0,2

0,1 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,6

0,4 4,5 5,5

2,1 6,3

2,5 3,8

0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,9 2,0

0,8 0,3 3,2

0,5 0,7 2,3

35,1 15,3 9,6 100,0

23,2 14,8 5,3 100,0

18,1 6,7 7,8 15,5 100,0

36,5 10,7 6,9 100,0

35,5 8,1 7,4 100,0

1,4 19,8 16,3 8,0 8,4 100,0

32,4 8,4 9,8 100,0

24,6 6,1 11,8 100,0

11,0 9,0 9,8 31,1 100,0

7

Table XI

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

The parties currently in government are fairly successful in defining and implementing key reforms Strongly agree 0,1 2,9 3,5 2,6 3,0 4,7 1,3 1,3 15,7 5,8 11,4 Agree to some degree 9,1 12,4 6,7 2,7 13,3 8,5 7,0 9,8 25,5 28,0 28,9 Neither agree nor disagree 21,2 15,0 19,9 18,9 39,5 30,5 42,5 36,4 29,9 36,3 28,7 Disagree strongly 58,9 54,4 61,2 68,3 27,7 50,6 35,3 24,8 20,9 20,7 21,7 DK/NA 10,6 15,2 8,7 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 8,0 9,1 9,4 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL AGREE 9,3 15,3 10,2 5,3 16,4 13,2 8,3 11,1 41,2 33,9 40,3 Neither agree nor disagree 21,2 15,0 19,9 18,9 39,5 30,5 42,5 36,4 29,9 36,3 28,7 TOTAL DISAGREE 58,9 54,4 61,2 68,3 27,7 50,6 35,3 24,8 20,9 20,7 21,7 DK/NA 10,6 15,2 8,7 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 8,0 9,1 9,4 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 The parties currently in govermment show sufficient responsibility to the public Strongly agree 0,1 2,8 2,3 1,3 5,4 4,5 1,1 1,9 11,7 5,1 9,3 Agree to some degree 8,7 6,0 5,9 3,3 10,8 4,7 6,8 8,1 23,2 18,2 22,3 Neither agree nor disagree 21,1 12,3 22,3 20,3 39,8 31,1 38,4 34,5 29,0 31,6 29,1 Disagree strongly 60,5 63,6 61,2 67,6 27,7 54,1 39,8 27,8 29,0 36,4 30,0 DK/NA 9,6 15,2 8,3 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 7,1 8,8 9,4 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL AGREE 8,8 8,8 8,2 4,6 16,1 9,2 7,8 9,9 34,9 23,3 31,5 Neither agree nor disagree 21,1 12,3 22,3 20,3 39,8 31,1 38,4 34,5 29,0 31,6 29,1 TOTAL DISAGREE 60,5 63,6 61,2 67,6 27,7 54,1 39,8 27,8 29,0 36,4 30,0 DK/NA 9,6 15,2 8,3 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 7,1 8,8 9,4 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 The parties currently in government are capable of meeting the conditions for progress towards integration with Europe within a reasonable timeframe Strongly agree 0,1 1,9 3,2 1,0 3,1 4,2 0,4 1,3 13,4 4,6 10,6 Agree to some degree 7,5 9,5 5,6 3,2 12,9 5,0 5,0 8,7 22,2 24,6 25,3 Neither agree nor disagree 23,3 17,7 20,3 21,2 39,4 35,9 41,3 35,1 33,4 38,5 30,4 Disagree strongly 58,1 55,4 62,5 67,2 28,3 49,0 39,3 26,8 21,0 21,8 23,8 DK/NA 10,9 15,5 8,4 7,5 16,4 5,9 14,0 28,0 9,9 10,5 10,0 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL AGREE 7,7 11,4 8,7 4,1 16,0 9,2 5,4 10,1 35,6 29,1 35,9 Neither agree nor disagree 23,3 17,7 20,3 21,2 39,4 35,9 41,3 35,1 33,4 38,5 30,4 TOTAL DISAGREE 58,1 55,4 62,5 67,2 28,3 49,0 39,3 26,8 21,0 21,8 23,8 DK/NA 10,9 15,5 8,4 7,5 16,4 5,9 14,0 28,0 9,9 10,5 10,0 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 The parties currently in government deserve to remain in power Strongly agree 0,7 2,9 3,3 1,4 3,5 4,2 1,2 1,3 15,7 6,5 12,4 Agree to some degree 6,5 7,1 4,3 1,4 11,7 4,6 5,4 9,4 20,6 22,0 21,3 Neither agree nor disagree 22,6 15,5 22,8 20,1 36,4 35,4 39,0 34,4 32,6 39,0 31,6 Disagree strongly 59,8 58,8 61,3 68,8 30,1 48,2 40,4 27,2 23,3 23,2 24,0 DK/NA 10,4 15,7 8,2 8,3 18,3 7,6 14,0 27,7 7,9 9,3 10,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL AGREE 7,2 10,0 7,6 2,8 15,3 8,8 6,6 10,7 36,2 28,5 33,7 Neither agree nor disagree 22,6 15,5 22,8 20,1 36,4 35,4 39,0 34,4 32,6 39,0 31,6 TOTAL DISAGREE 59,8 58,8 61,3 68,8 30,1 48,2 40,4 27,2 23,3 23,2 24,0 DK/NA 10,4 15,7 8,2 8,3 18,3 7,6 14,0 27,7 7,9 9,3 10,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Changing the composition of the government would help accelerate implementation of key reforms and economic recovery Strongly agree 27,5 37,9 34,2 45,7 12,5 20,0 19,8 12,4 10,8 7,8 9,3 Agree to some degree 27,2 15,5 21,4 14,1 20,1 20,3 15,8 14,3 15,6 14,7 15,9 Neither agree nor disagree 21,3 13,2 18,4 15,9 40,6 36,7 35,5 33,4 36,6 38,4 40,6 Disagree strongly 9,6 16,5 16,6 15,6 10,0 15,4 13,8 9,5 24,9 21,0 20,7 DK/NA 14,4 16,8 9,3 8,6 16,8 7,5 15,2 30,4 12,1 18,1 13,5 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL AGREE 54,7 53,4 55,6 59,8 32,7 40,3 35,5 26,7 26,4 22,5 25,1 Neither agree nor disagree 21,3 13,2 18,4 15,9 40,6 36,7 35,5 33,4 36,6 38,4 40,6 TOTAL DISAGREE 9,6 16,5 16,6 15,6 10,0 15,4 13,8 9,5 24,9 21,0 20,7 DK/NA 14,4 16,8 9,3 8,6 16,8 7,5 15,2 30,4 12,1 18,1 13,5 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 08.

9,3 33,1 30,1 19,1 8,3 100,0 42,4 30,1 19,1 8,3 100,0 7,0 22,8 31,7 28,9 9,5 100,0 29,8 31,7 28,9 9,5 100,0 8,6 24,7 36,7 20,7 9,4 100,0 33,2 36,7 20,7 9,4 100,0 9,3 25,9 35,8 19,8 9,3 100,0 35,2 35,8 19,8 9,3 100,0 6,5 15,0 41,8 25,3 11,4 100,0 21,5 41,8 25,3 11,4 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Do you agree with the following? (%)

Annual Report 2008

8

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH Table Ia Do you approve of the work ofâ&#x20AC;Ś.? (%) Gender Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

All

BiH Presidency Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total BiH Parliament Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Council of Ministers Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total FBiH Parliament Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total FBiH Government Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total RS National Assembly Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total RS Government Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Municipal authorities Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

41,5 34,9 1,0 14,2 8,4 100,0

38,4 39,8 3,3 9,5 9,0 100,0

38,5 39,7 1,4 12,1 8,3 100,0

41,3 35,0 1,1 14,1 8,6 100,0

37,4 41,1 3,2 9,2 9,1 100,0

37,6 40,0 1,5 11,8 9,0 100,0

41,3 34,7 1,0 14,4 8,6 100,0

37,0 41,3 3,4 9,2 9,1 100,0

38,4 39,9 1,4 11,7 8,6 100,0

40,5 35,1 1,4 14,4 8,5 100,0

35,3 42,8 3,1 9,5 9,3 100,0

37,3 39,9 2,0 11,9 9,0 100,0

40,9 34,7 1,4 14,2 8,8 100,0

35,3 42,5 3,1 9,8 9,3 100,0

36,3 40,8 2,1 11,6 9,2 100,0

41,2 36,3 0,4 12,6 9,6 100,0

36,5 41,3 3,2 9,8 9,2 100,0

37,8 38,7 1,5 11,3 10,7 100,0

41,4 36,0 0,3 12,7 9,6 100,0

37,1 41,2 3,1 9,2 9,3 100,0

38,1 39,1 1,6 11,4 9,9 100,0

53,4 25,1 0,3 12,4 8,8 100,0

47,2 31,7 3,0 9,2 8,9 100,0

46,5 32,2 1,6 11,0 8,7 100,0

40,4 39,1 8,4 12,0 100,0 41,2 38,1 8,5 12,2 100,0 41,3 38,2 8,5 12,0 100,0 37,8 41,0 9,0 12,2 100,0 39,1 40,2 8,7 12,0 100,0 40,2 39,7 8,2 11,9 100,0 40,3 39,6 8,1 11,9 100,0 55,5 25,0 7,2 12,3 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

41,9 36,8 1,0 13,4 6,9 100,0

40,6 42,0 4,2 8,1 5,2 100,0

35,0 45,1 1,9 9,7 8,3 100,0

41,9 36,5 1,2 13,0 7,3 100,0

39,0 44,2 3,9 7,7 5,2 100,0

34,4 45,2 2,0 9,4 8,9 100,0

41,3 36,8 1,1 13,5 7,3 100,0

39,2 44,1 4,4 7,2 5,2 100,0

35,8 44,4 2,0 9,3 8,4 100,0

40,7 37,1 1,3 13,7 7,2 100,0

37,2 46,0 4,0 7,6 5,3 100,0

33,5 45,5 2,5 9,8 8,8 100,0

40,8 37,2 1,3 13,4 7,3 100,0

37,0 45,4 4,0 8,4 5,3 100,0

32,9 46,3 2,7 9,3 8,8 100,0

41,0 39,3 0,5 11,2 8,0 100,0

36,9 45,3 3,9 8,1 5,8 100,0

36,2 41,8 2,2 9,4 10,4 100,0

42,1 37,7 0,3 11,9 7,9 100,0

37,7 44,9 3,7 7,6 6,0 100,0

36,5 42,4 2,4 9,3 9,3 100,0

53,2 26,8 0,5 12,0 7,6 100,0

51,0 33,1 3,9 6,6 5,4 100,0

43,5 36,7 2,4 8,8 8,6 100,0

Female Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

42,7 36,7 8,9 11,6 100,0 42,8 36,4 8,8 12,0 100,0 43,6 36,0 8,7 11,7 100,0 39,8 39,4 9,1 11,7 100,0 42,1 37,6 8,8 11,6 100,0 44,6 35,0 9,7 10,7 100,0 44,5 34,7 9,7 11,1 100,0 59,0 21,1 7,7 12,2 100,0

41,1 33,1 0,9 15,0 9,8 100,0

36,2 37,7 2,5 11,0 12,6 100,0

41,9 34,5 1,0 14,3 8,3 100,0

40,7 33,5 0,9 15,1 9,7 100,0

35,9 38,1 2,5 10,7 12,9 100,0

40,7 35,1 0,9 14,2 9,1 100,0

41,4 32,7 0,9 15,3 9,7 100,0

34,9 38,6 2,4 11,2 12,9 100,0

40,9 35,6 0,7 14,0 8,8 100,0

40,3 33,3 1,5 15,1 9,8 100,0

33,5 39,7 2,3 11,3 13,2 100,0

41,0 34,6 1,5 13,9 9,1 100,0

41,1 32,2 1,5 15,1 10,1 100,0

33,6 39,7 2,3 11,2 13,2 100,0

39,6 35,5 1,5 13,9 9,6 100,0

41,4 33,4 0,4 13,8 11,0 100,0

36,2 37,4 2,5 11,3 12,5 100,0

39,4 35,7 0,9 13,1 11,0 100,0

40,7 34,3 0,4 13,4 11,3 100,0

36,5 37,7 2,5 10,8 12,5 100,0

39,6 35,9 0,9 13,3 10,4 100,0

53,6 23,5 0,1 12,9 9,9 100,0

43,6 30,2 2,2 11,8 12,2 100,0

49,4 27,8 0,9 13,0 8,9 100,0

Nov 08.

38,2 41,4 8,0 12,4 100,0 39,7 39,7 8,2 12,4 100,0 39,1 40,3 8,2 12,3 100,0 35,9 42,5 8,9 12,7 100,0 36,2 42,6 8,7 12,4 100,0 36,1 44,1 6,8 13,0 100,0 36,3 44,3 6,7 12,7 100,0 52,2 28,7 6,7 12,4 100,0

9

Table Ib Gender Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

All

Cantonal Authorities Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total OSCE Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total OHR Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total UNDP Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total EUFOR Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total EU Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total US Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total European Integration Directorate Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

39,4 36,0 0,6 12,4 11,6 100,0

29,5 45,3 3,7 9,7 11,8 100,0

34,6 43,5 1,2 10,7 10,0 100,0

49,4 24,7 1,3 11,9 12,7 100,0

40,4 33,4 2,8 11,0 12,4 100,0

44,1 32,4 1,6 11,2 10,7 100,0

46,8 26,5 1,5 13,0 12,1 100,0

40,3 33,1 2,7 11,7 12,2 100,0

42,9 33,4 1,5 11,2 11,0 100,0

48,5 22,5 1,4 13,3 14,3 100,0

42,4 29,7 3,0 11,9 13,0 100,0

43,8 29,5 1,5 11,6 13,5 100,0

46,1 25,1 1,4 14,1 13,4 100,0

39,9 32,9 2,9 12,1 12,3 100,0

42,1 32,9 1,4 11,1 12,5 100,0

45,2 23,0 1,3 14,2 16,2 100,0

41,7 29,6 3,3 11,8 13,7 100,0

42,3 29,4 1,7 11,6 15,1 100,0

40,5 30,6 2,2 13,2 13,6 100,0

36,4 36,2 3,3 11,5 12,6 100,0

36,7 37,1 2,2 11,5 12,4 100,0

45,6 22,9 1,1 13,9 16,5 100,0

41,7 29,3 2,9 12,5 13,7 100,0

42,1 30,1 1,6 11,2 14,9 100,0

38,6 38,3 6,1 17,0 100,0 48,0 26,3 10,4 15,4 100,0 45,6 29,6 11,2 13,6 100,0 50,5 22,9 10,7 15,9 100,0 47,2 27,5 10,7 14,6 100,0 47,7 24,5 10,4 17,4 100,0 38,7 35,2 11,2 14,9 100,0 47,7 23,4 10,8 18,0 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

40,0 37,5 0,7 12,1 9,7 100,0

31,1 49,4 5,8 5,9 7,8 100,0

31,8 48,9 1,8 9,1 8,4 100,0

50,3 25,5 1,0 11,8 11,5 100,0

41,9 36,1 3,7 10,0 8,2 100,0

41,8 36,3 1,7 9,4 10,8 100,0

47,7 27,1 1,2 12,4 11,5 100,0

41,4 36,3 3,5 10,9 8,0 100,0

40,5 37,2 1,7 9,8 10,8 100,0

48,2 24,7 1,5 12,1 13,5 100,0

44,6 32,2 3,4 11,0 8,8 100,0

41,9 32,8 1,7 9,7 13,9 100,0

46,6 25,9 1,5 13,4 12,6 100,0

42,3 36,1 3,4 11,3 6,9 100,0

39,9 35,9 1,7 9,7 12,8 100,0

45,5 24,9 1,3 13,6 14,8 100,0

43,7 33,2 4,1 10,4 8,6 100,0

40,1 33,1 1,7 10,0 15,1 100,0

41,1 32,2 2,0 11,9 12,9 100,0

37,3 40,8 4,3 9,6 7,9 100,0

33,3 41,4 2,8 9,8 12,7 100,0

46,1 24,6 1,1 13,1 15,1 100,0

44,5 31,7 3,4 11,3 9,0 100,0

40,0 34,0 1,7 9,3 15,0 100,0

Female Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

42,0 35,0 6,7 16,3 100,0 52,2 24,3 9,8 13,7 100,0 47,7 28,9 10,4 13,0 100,0 55,0 21,2 9,5 14,3 100,0 49,8 27,1 9,9 13,3 100,0 53,3 22,5 9,5 14,7 100,0 41,9 35,2 9,7 13,2 100,0 53,2 21,3 9,8 15,7 100,0

38,8 34,6 0,5 12,6 13,4 100,0

27,9 41,4 1,6 13,3 15,7 100,0

37,3 38,3 0,7 12,2 11,5 100,0

48,6 23,9 1,6 12,0 13,9 100,0

39,0 30,8 2,0 11,9 16,4 100,0

46,3 28,7 1,5 13,0 10,5 100,0

45,9 26,0 1,8 13,6 12,7 100,0

39,3 30,0 1,9 12,5 16,2 100,0

45,2 29,8 1,3 12,5 11,1 100,0

48,7 20,5 1,3 14,5 15,0 100,0

40,3 27,3 2,7 12,7 17,1 100,0

45,7 26,3 1,4 13,4 13,2 100,0

45,5 24,3 1,3 14,6 14,1 100,0

37,6 29,8 2,4 12,8 17,4 100,0

44,2 30,0 1,1 12,6 12,1 100,0

45,0 21,3 1,3 14,8 17,6 100,0

39,8 26,1 2,6 13,1 18,5 100,0

44,3 25,9 1,6 13,2 15,1 100,0

39,9 29,1 2,4 14,4 14,2 100,0

35,4 31,9 2,3 13,3 17,1 100,0

40,0 33,1 1,7 13,1 12,2 100,0

45,0 21,3 1,2 14,6 17,9 100,0

39,0 27,0 2,3 13,6 18,2 100,0

44,1 26,4 1,5 13,1 14,8 100,0

Nov 08.

35,4 41,3 5,6 17,7 100,0 43,9 28,1 11,0 16,9 100,0 43,6 30,4 11,9 14,1 100,0 46,2 24,5 11,9 17,4 100,0 44,7 28,0 11,5 15,9 100,0 42,4 26,5 11,2 19,9 100,0 35,7 35,1 12,8 16,5 100,0 42,5 25,4 11,9 20,2 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Do you approve of the work ofâ&#x20AC;Ś.? (%)

Annual Report 2008

10

Table IIa Do you approve of the work ofâ&#x20AC;Ś.? (%) Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

BiH Presidency Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total BiH Parliament Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Council of Ministers Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total FBiH Parliament Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total FBiH Government Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total RS National Assembly Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total RS Government Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Municipal authorities Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

28,2 47,8 0,8 11,7 11,4 100,0

25,3 49,4 4,7 7,2 13,5 100,0

31,8 50,7 1,0 8,7 7,8 100,0

28,1 47,6 0,8 11,8 11,6 100,0

23,6 51,3 4,7 6,9 13,5 100,0

30,5 50,7 0,9 8,8 9,1 100,0

27,7 47,5 0,8 12,3 11,6 100,0

22,9 50,9 5,1 7,5 13,7 100,0

30,8 51,8 0,9 8,8 7,8 100,0

28,0 47,6 0,8 11,9 11,6 100,0

23,1 51,2 4,6 7,6 13,5 100,0

31,5 50,8 0,9 8,5 8,4 100,0

28,1 47,9 0,7 11,5 11,7 100,0

22,2 51,2 4,6 8,5 13,5 100,0

29,8 53,1 0,9 8,2 8,1 100,0

16,9 57,4

15,1 57,4 4,9 8,5 14,1 100,0

22,2 56,9 0,9 7,5 12,5 100,0

15,3 57,8 4,9 7,5 14,4 100,0

23,2 57,7 0,9 7,5 10,7 100,0

31,7 42,8 4,5 7,4 13,6 100,0

37,9 45,2 1,0 7,7 8,2 100,0

12,2 13,5 100,0 17,1 56,6 12,9 13,5 100,0 40,3 36,5 12,3 10,9 100,0

31,4 52,1 5,0 11,5 100,0 32,1 51,7 4,4 11,8 100,0 31,4 52,5 4,3 11,8 100,0 28,9 55,3 4,4 11,4 100,0 30,5 54,2 3,9 11,4 100,0 19,1 62,4 4,6 13,9 100,0 18,9 63,0 4,6 13,4 100,0 47,1 36,3 3,8 12,8 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

46,6 21,7 1,9 17,6 12,2 100,0

31,4 48,3 1,9 13,6 4,8 100,0

32,4 33,4 3,2 18,2 12,8 100,0

46,3 22,2 1,7 17,2 12,6 100,0

31,1 50,1 0,8 13,1 4,8 100,0

33,4 33,6 2,0 17,5 13,5 100,0

45,8 22,6 1,5 17,5 12,6 100,0

30,7 51,8 0,6 12,4 4,5 100,0

35,0 32,0 2,0 17,5 13,5 100,0

45,7 21,9 1,4 18,4 12,6 100,0

30,4 51,7

33,9 32,6 2,2 17,8 13,5 100,0

13,4 4,5 100,0

45,9 22,2 1,4 17,9 12,6 100,0

30,8 52,0 12,7 4,5 100,0

33,4 33,1 2,2 17,8 13,5 100,0

30,0 36,5 0,6 17,9 15,0 100,0

23,6 56,0 0,8 13,7 5,9 100,0

18,3 38,3 3,7 23,7 16,0 100,0

29,5 36,8 0,6 17,7 15,4 100,0

24,4 54,8 0,8 13,7 6,2 100,0

16,9 39,7 3,7 23,7 16,0 100,0

48,7 19,6 1,0 16,9 13,7 100,0

42,5 36,5 0,6 15,6 4,8 100,0

34,1 28,0 2,6 20,7 14,7 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

34,5 22,6 16,7 26,2 100,0 33,5 23,7 17,4 25,4 100,0 33,2 23,8 18,2 24,7 100,0 31,8 25,2 18,3 24,7 100,0 32,4 25,0 19,0 23,6 100,0 16,9 38,1 20,8 24,3 100,0 17,3 37,4 19,8 25,5 100,0 35,6 21,6 18,5 24,4 100,0

52,9 26,0 0,6 16,6 4,0 100,0

53,9 27,3 2,4 10,8 5,6 100,0

45,7 30,3 1,4 14,6 7,9 100,0

52,9 25,9 1,0 16,2 4,0 100,0

53,6 27,6 2,4 10,6 5,9 100,0

44,7 31,2 2,1 14,1 7,9 100,0

53,5 25,2 0,8 16,4 4,0 100,0

53,6 28,0 2,4 10,1 5,9 100,0

45,9 30,1 1,8 13,8 8,4 100,0

50,9 26,7 2,0 16,6 3,9 100,0

49,1 31,4 2,6 10,3 6,6 100,0

42,6 31,1 3,3 14,4 8,6 100,0

51,9 25,0 2,0 16,8 4,3 100,0

49,9 30,6 2,6 10,3 6,6 100,0

42,0 30,6 3,6 14,2 9,5 100,0

72,7 12,4 0,4 11,2 3,4 100,0

65,0 17,8 2,2 9,7 5,3 100,0

61,6 17,1 1,6 12,3 7,4 100,0

73,3 12,2 0,2 10,7 3,5 100,0

65,8 17,6 2,0 9,6 5,0 100,0

61,6 16,7 1,9 12,4 7,4 100,0

69,8 14,1 0,2 11,2 4,7 100,0

65,5 18,0 2,3 9,1 5,1 100,0

58,6 19,4 2,1 12,1 7,8 100,0

Nov 08.

49,5 30,8 10,6 9,1 100,0 51,2 28,3 11,1 9,4 100,0 52,4 27,4 11,1 9,1 100,0 47,8 29,9 12,2 10,1 100,0 48,8 29,2 12,0 9,9 100,0 71,6 12,8 9,2 6,4 100,0 71,9 12,1 9,3 6,7 100,0 69,0 13,9 8,2 8,8 100,0

11

Table IIb

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Cantonal Authorities Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total OSCE Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total OHR Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total UNDP Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total EUFOR Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total EU Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total US Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total European Integration Directorate Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

37,0 40,8 0,3 10,7 11,3 100,0

25,9 47,8 4,5 8,0 13,9 100,0

34,4 47,8 1,0 8,2 8,6 100,0

52,2 21,3 1,9 10,8 13,8 100,0

36,3 31,8 5,6 10,5 15,8 100,0

49,7 31,1 1,3 7,0 10,9 100,0

55,4 17,9 1,9 10,9 13,8 100,0

38,6 27,5 5,4 12,2 16,3 100,0

51,4 28,8 1,3 7,7 10,8 100,0

52,1 17,2 2,2 11,7 16,8 100,0

38,2 27,6 5,6 12,1 16,4 100,0

49,9 26,1 1,3 7,4 15,4 100,0

51,2 19,8 2,2 12,0 14,8 100,0

37,8 27,8 5,8 12,2 16,4 100,0

50,4 27,9 1,3 7,2 13,1 100,0

47,9 18,6 2,2 12,8 18,5 100,0

37,3 27,8 6,2 11,5 17,1 100,0

46,7 27,4 1,4 7,4 17,1 100,0

44,6 22,5 4,1 12,7 16,1 100,0

33,6 30,9 7,0 11,4 17,1 100,0

42,7 33,6 2,9 7,9 12,9 100,0

47,6 19,6 1,9 12,7 18,2 100,0

37,0 28,3 5,3 11,9 17,5 100,0

47,4 27,4 1,4 7,0 16,8 100,0

40,1 42,2 3,2 14,5 100,0 54,7 23,1 7,2 15,0 100,0 56,5 20,8 9,0 13,7 100,0 58,4 17,9 7,4 16,3 100,0 56,6 20,5 7,5 15,4 100,0 53,8 19,0 7,5 19,8 100,0 46,7 29,3 7,9 16,1 100,0 53,5 18,9 7,5 20,1 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

47,9 19,4 1,8 18,1 12,9 100,0

42,3 36,6 0,9 15,7 4,5 100,0

35,3 28,1 2,1 19,6 14,9 100,0

49,1 17,6 1,7 16,5 15,2 100,0

45,7 32,8 0,4 15,5 5,5 100,0

32,5 30,2 2,3 20,3 14,7 100,0

48,0 18,5 2,5 16,0 15,0 100,0

46,1 31,6 0,6 15,6 6,1 100,0

31,5 30,0 2,2 21,6 14,7 100,0

49,2 16,1 2,1 17,0 15,5 100,0

48,0 28,4 1,4 15,9 6,3 100,0

35,1 26,3 2,0 21,4 15,1 100,0

48,8 15,3 2,6 17,4 15,7 100,0

47,1 30,3 1,3 15,5 5,7 100,0

32,3 29,8 1,7 21,6 14,7 100,0

49,4 15,6 1,8 17,0 16,1 100,0

47,0 29,2 1,6 15,9 6,3 100,0

35,9 24,7 2,0 20,3 17,1 100,0

45,3 19,7 1,5 17,4 16,1 100,0

48,7 27,8 0,5 17,0 6,0 100,0

32,2 27,9 1,4 21,7 16,8 100,0

48,0 16,6 1,5 17,5 16,3 100,0

44,6 31,4 1,1 17,2 5,6 100,0

35,0 24,7 2,4 20,7 17,2 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

32,7 23,0 17,4 26,8 100,0 38,2 18,1 20,6 23,1 100,0 35,0 19,6 21,5 23,8 100,0 37,8 17,8 19,0 25,3 100,0 36,4 18,8 20,9 23,8 100,0 37,1 17,8 19,4 25,7 100,0 34,4 19,0 21,6 25,0 100,0 35,7 17,7 20,8 25,8 100,0

44,1 32,1 0,6 12,2 11,0 100,0

41,3 36,6 0,6 10,2 11,3 100,0

39,8 35,7 1,6 13,3 9,7 100,0

34,2 40,4 0,6 15,2 9,6 100,0

38,3 41,0 0,4 10,2 10,0 100,0

35,2 41,0 1,4 11,8 10,6 100,0

41,9 31,9 0,2 14,6 11,4 100,0

43,3 33,5 0,7 10,5 11,9 100,0

38,2 35,4 1,6 13,3 11,6 100,0

37,0 35,4 0,2 16,0 11,4 100,0

37,9 40,6 0,2 11,1 10,2 100,0

34,2 40,8 1,2 12,2 11,6 100,0

38,5 31,5 0,2 15,6 14,2 100,0

43,0 32,7 0,7 10,9 12,8 100,0

37,6 34,2 1,8 13,6 12,9 100,0

31,6 45,0 0,2 13,0 10,2 100,0

33,3 46,4 0,2 10,0 10,1 100,0

29,4 45,6 1,6 12,3 11,1 100,0

40,1 29,7 0,2 14,8 15,2 100,0

44,1 30,6 0,7 11,9 12,7 100,0

36,6 36,1 1,6 13,0 12,8 100,0

39,8 34,2 11,9 14,1 100,0 32,5 45,1 11,4 11,0 100,0 41,8 31,9 12,9 13,4 100,0 36,0 40,3 12,1 11,6 100,0 40,6 34,7 11,8 12,9 100,0 27,2 48,9 12,8 11,1 100,0 41,6 31,8 12,5 14,1 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Do you approve of the work ofâ&#x20AC;Ś.? (%)

Annual Report 2008

12

Table IIIa How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%) All Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

Central Bank of BiH Very well 10,4 Fairly well 37,8 Fairly poorly 19,6 Very poorly 5,5 DK/NA 26,7 Total 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 48,2 TOTAL BAD 25,1 DK/NA 26,7 Total 100,0 Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH Very well 5,4 Fairly well 34,0 Fairly poorly 28,0 Very poorly 7,6 DK/NA 25,0 Total 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 39,4 TOTAL BAD 35,6 DK/NA 25,0 Total 100,0 Entity Tax Authorities Very well 5,4 Fairly well 32,3 Fairly poorly 30,8 Very poorly 8,6 DK/NA 23,0 Total 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 37,7 TOTAL BAD 39,4 DK/NA 23,0 Total 100,0 The Judicial System Very well 4,3 Fairly well 28,2 Fairly poorly 29,9 Very poorly 17,6 DK/NA 20,0 Total 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 32,5 TOTAL BAD 47,5 DK/NA 20,0 Total 100,0 European Integration Directorate Very well 4,3 Fairly well 28,7 Fairly poorly 27,7 Very poorly 8,5 DK/NA 30,8 Total 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 33,0 TOTAL BAD 36,2 DK/NA 30,8 Total 100,0

9,5 38,3 19,7 6,6 25,9 100,0 47,8 26,2 25,9 100,0

12,8 37,6 19,2 7,2 23,2 100,0 50,4 26,3 23,2 100,0

7,4 14,8 33,1 37,4 29,5 14,1 9,8 6,1 20,2 27,5 100,0 100,0 40,5 52,2 39,3 20,2 20,2 27,5 100,0 100,0

14,7 39,2 13,6 5,0 27,5 100,0 54,0 18,6 27,5 100,0

20,8 32,9 19,4 4,9 21,9 100,0 53,7 24,3 21,9 100,0

8,7 25,2 34,3 12,1 19,8 100,0 33,8 46,4 19,8 100,0

6,6 4,2 32,1 44,1 27,0 34,6 7,2 7,3 27,1 9,9 100,0 100,0 38,7 48,2 34,2 41,8 27,1 9,9 100,0 100,0

5,8 34,7 19,9 9,8 29,7 100,0 40,5 29,8 29,7 100,0

3,1 26,8 32,1 6,7 31,3 100,0 29,9 38,9 31,3 100,0

4,5 39,8 24,4 4,1 27,2 100,0 44,3 28,5 27,2 100,0

4,7 35,7 20,7 8,4 30,5 100,0 40,4 29,1 30,5 100,0

5,6 43,1 18,6 9,0 23,8 100,0 48,6 27,6 23,8 100,0

6,8 42,7 23,5 8,5 18,5 100,0 49,5 32,0 18,5 100,0

7,0 32,8 26,6 9,5 24,1 100,0 39,8 36,1 24,1 100,0

7,2 32,4 29,2 9,5 21,7 100,0 39,6 38,7 21,7 100,0

6,6 6,1 32,6 32,1 28,8 24,7 13,3 9,0 18,7 28,1 100,0 100,0 39,3 38,2 42,0 33,7 18,7 28,1 100,0 100,0

12,0 31,8 23,5 6,4 26,3 100,0 43,8 29,9 26,3 100,0

10,0 24,0 35,0 8,2 22,7 100,0 34,0 43,2 22,7 100,0

8,5 23,4 33,1 18,5 16,6 100,0 31,9 51,6 16,6 100,0

2,5 1,8 28,0 37,7 34,9 38,6 8,8 12,1 25,7 9,8 100,0 100,0 30,5 39,5 43,8 50,6 25,7 9,8 100,0 100,0

3,7 29,2 26,2 12,7 28,2 100,0 32,9 38,9 28,2 100,0

2,4 25,8 32,1 8,8 30,9 100,0 28,2 40,8 30,9 100,0

3,9 37,7 30,3 5,9 22,2 100,0 41,6 36,1 22,2 100,0

3,3 32,4 24,7 12,3 27,2 100,0 35,7 37,0 27,2 100,0

5,6 42,6 22,3 10,1 19,4 100,0 48,2 32,4 19,4 100,0

4,8 44,9 23,1 8,4 18,7 100,0 49,7 31,5 18,7 100,0

6,7 30,2 28,1 11,6 23,5 100,0 36,9 39,6 23,5 100,0

5,7 31,6 30,1 12,2 20,4 100,0 37,3 42,3 20,4 100,0

3,5 6,1 29,5 30,0 31,8 27,7 17,6 11,0 17,6 25,2 100,0 100,0 33,0 36,1 49,4 38,6 17,6 25,2 100,0 100,0

11,4 28,3 24,7 8,8 26,8 100,0 39,7 33,5 26,8 100,0

6,7 24,1 35,9 12,4 21,0 100,0 30,8 48,2 21,0 100,0

3,1 23,4 34,4 23,1 16,0 100,0 26,5 57,5 16,0 100,0

3,1 1,3 22,4 35,4 39,2 38,9 10,3 15,4 25,1 9,0 100,0 100,0 25,5 36,7 49,4 54,3 25,1 9,0 100,0 100,0

3,3 26,7 27,7 16,9 25,5 100,0 30,0 44,5 25,5 100,0

3,0 23,7 31,5 11,6 30,2 100,0 26,7 43,1 30,2 100,0

4,1 38,3 31,0 5,7 20,9 100,0 42,4 36,7 20,9 100,0

3,4 30,1 27,4 13,6 25,5 100,0 33,5 41,0 25,5 100,0

5,6 41,6 23,8 9,8 19,2 100,0 47,2 33,6 19,2 100,0

2,9 37,3 29,8 13,1 16,9 100,0 40,2 42,9 16,9 100,0

5,7 28,1 30,8 14,4 20,9 100,0 33,9 45,2 20,9 100,0

5,1 27,3 35,1 15,1 17,4 100,0 32,4 50,2 17,4 100,0

5,3 3,7 28,1 25,7 25,4 26,6 10,9 22,2 30,2 21,9 100,0 100,0 33,4 29,4 36,3 48,7 30,2 21,9 100,0 100,0

9,5 27,4 26,1 13,1 23,9 100,0 36,9 39,2 23,9 100,0

6,6 20,2 39,8 15,4 18,0 100,0 26,8 55,2 18,0 100,0

6,1 23,1 27,1 15,4 28,3 100,0 29,2 42,5 28,3 100,0

3,0 1,6 22,6 29,4 34,1 41,0 15,5 18,9 24,7 9,0 100,0 100,0 25,6 31,0 49,6 60,0 24,7 9,0 100,0 100,0

2,5 25,2 24,5 23,1 24,6 100,0 27,7 47,7 24,6 100,0

2,3 28,5 26,1 5,3 37,8 100,0 30,8 31,4 37,8 100,0

4,2 32,5 32,2 13,8 17,3 100,0 36,7 46,0 17,3 100,0

2,9 27,6 32,3 14,9 22,2 100,0 30,5 47,2 22,2 100,0

4,5 36,1 32,8 11,2 15,4 100,0 40,6 44,1 15,4 100,0

4,1 32,8 23,6 7,3 32,2 100,0 36,9 30,9 32,2 100,0

6,6 32,7 24,3 7,6 28,7 100,0 39,3 32,0 28,7 100,0

5,1 28,6 30,2 11,0 25,1 100,0 33,7 41,2 25,1 100,0

4,4 5,3 25,7 28,0 24,7 25,2 12,4 10,5 32,8 31,0 100,0 100,0 30,0 33,3 37,2 35,8 32,8 31,0 100,0 100,0

10,8 31,1 23,0 5,7 29,3 100,0 42,0 28,7 29,3 100,0

7,9 20,4 35,7 9,2 26,9 100,0 28,3 44,8 26,9 100,0

5,1 21,0 25,5 18,6 29,9 100,0 26,0 44,0 29,9 100,0

3,3 0,8 24,9 33,6 33,7 40,3 9,1 12,4 29,0 12,9 100,0 100,0 28,2 34,4 42,8 52,6 29,0 12,9 100,0 100,0

2,9 30,7 22,9 14,8 28,8 100,0 33,5 37,7 28,8 100,0

2,5 25,4 24,0 6,6 41,5 100,0 27,9 30,5 41,5 100,0

2,3 30,2 28,5 6,3 32,7 100,0 32,5 34,7 32,7 100,0

3,9 34,2 19,3 8,1 34,6 100,0 38,0 27,4 34,6 100,0

3,1 37,6 25,3 10,9 23,2 100,0 40,6 36,2 23,2 100,0

3,0 30,5 24,2 7,1 35,3 100,0 33,4 31,3 35,3 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

13

Table IIIb

All March 08.June 08. Sept 08.

Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA) Very well 4,0 6,0 5,7 Fairly well 29,8 30,1 26,2 Fairly poorly 25,0 23,5 27,0 Very poorly 8,7 9,5 12,3 DK/NA 32,5 30,9 28,8 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 33,8 36,1 31,9 TOTAL BAD 33,7 32,9 39,3 DK/NA 32,5 30,9 28,8 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 Privatization Agency Very well 2,3 3,8 4,1 Fairly well 24,6 19,1 18,1 Fairly poorly 33,8 31,2 33,0 Very poorly 19,0 22,1 25,9 DK/NA 20,4 23,9 18,9 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 26,9 22,9 22,2 TOTAL BAD 52,8 53,3 59,0 DK/NA 20,4 23,9 18,9 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 Employment Bureaus Very well 1,5 4,0 2,3 Fairly well 18,8 15,0 15,1 Fairly poorly 30,0 26,1 24,0 Very poorly 34,1 36,9 42,8 DK/NA 15,7 18,0 15,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 TOTAL GOOD 20,2 19,0 17,4 TOTAL BAD 64,0 63,0 66,9 DK/NA 15,7 18,0 15,7 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0

Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas Serb majority areas Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

2,3 3,8 15,7 27,8 31,5 24,7 30,7 10,7 19,8 33,0 100,0 100,0 18,0 31,6 62,2 35,4 19,8 33,0 100,0 100,0

10,4 26,7 24,5 8,6 29,8 100,0 37,1 33,1 29,8 100,0

9,6 18,9 32,2 9,8 29,5 100,0 28,5 42,0 29,5 100,0

2,0 11,4 30,2 39,2 17,2 100,0 13,4 69,4 17,2 100,0

3,7 1,7 28,6 35,5 27,1 37,0 9,7 12,7 30,9 13,1 100,0 100,0 32,3 37,2 36,8 49,7 30,9 13,1 100,0 100,0

2,3 29,9 22,7 12,6 32,5 100,0 32,1 35,3 32,5 100,0

2,3 17,0 31,1 14,3 35,4 100,0 19,3 45,3 35,4 100,0

3,0 31,6 24,7 6,4 34,2 100,0 34,6 31,1 34,2 100,0

2,7 31,8 17,0 9,1 39,4 100,0 34,6 26,1 39,4 100,0

2,6 33,3 22,1 13,5 28,4 100,0 35,9 35,7 28,4 100,0

2,0 19,2 34,1 25,4 19,3 100,0 21,3 59,4 19,3 100,0

1,6 1,9 14,2 20,9 26,3 32,5 42,7 21,8 15,2 22,9 100,0 100,0 15,8 22,8 69,1 54,3 15,2 22,9 100,0 100,0

5,6 20,3 26,7 19,5 27,8 100,0 25,9 46,2 27,8 100,0

6,9 13,5 34,8 26,6 18,2 100,0 20,4 61,4 18,2 100,0

1,0 8,7 27,6 49,4 13,3 100,0 9,8 76,9 13,3 100,0

2,4 1,2 17,0 25,4 38,6 39,7 14,6 24,0 27,3 9,6 100,0 100,0 19,5 26,6 53,2 63,7 27,3 9,6 100,0 100,0

2,0 19,1 28,8 23,3 26,7 100,0 21,1 52,1 26,7 100,0

2,8 14,5 30,7 20,9 31,0 100,0 17,3 51,7 31,0 100,0

1,5 29,8 34,7 18,0 16,0 100,0 31,4 52,6 16,0 100,0

2,7 15,0 33,7 23,8 24,8 100,0 17,7 57,5 24,8 100,0

1,7 23,4 32,0 24,9 18,0 100,0 25,1 56,9 18,0 100,0

1,8 20,5 24,1 40,3 13,4 100,0 22,2 64,4 13,4 100,0

2,5 1,1 12,6 15,4 28,3 30,6 38,2 36,2 18,3 16,7 100,0 100,0 15,1 16,5 66,5 66,8 18,3 16,7 100,0 100,0

7,2 16,9 22,3 32,3 21,4 100,0 24,1 54,5 21,4 100,0

4,1 8,1 20,2 52,2 15,3 100,0 12,2 72,4 15,3 100,0

2,9 11,7 26,5 36,8 22,0 100,0 14,6 63,3 22,0 100,0

2,6 0,7 16,0 14,4 28,5 44,2 28,4 31,5 24,6 9,3 100,0 100,0 18,6 15,0 56,8 75,7 24,6 9,3 100,0 100,0

2,0 18,8 28,2 25,4 25,6 100,0 20,8 53,6 25,6 100,0

2,8 24,0 24,4 38,1 10,7 100,0 26,8 62,5 10,7 100,0

1,5 24,0 31,3 30,5 12,6 100,0 25,5 61,8 12,6 100,0

1,6 13,0 24,5 43,1 17,8 100,0 14,6 67,6 17,8 100,0

0,6 22,0 26,2 37,5 13,7 100,0 22,6 63,7 13,7 100,0

2,0 10,4 31,6 39,6 16,6 100,0 12,3 71,1 16,6 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Annual Report 2008

How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%)

Annual Report 2008

14

Table IVa How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%) Gender Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

All

BiH Presidency Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total BiH Parliament Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total Council of Ministers Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total FBiH Parliament Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total FBiH Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS National Assembly Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total Municipal authorities Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total

Female Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

3,5 18,9 13,5 22,6 41,6 100,0

2,4 13,0 14,6 21,7 48,3 100,0

2,5 22,0 16,6 19,7 39,1 100,0

2,2 17,2 14,6 25,5 40,6 100,0

3,1 19,9 12,6 18,3 46,0 100,0

3,1 14,6 15,5 19,0 47,9 100,0

2,3 20,8 17,6 17,9 41,4 100,0

2,3 18,2 14,8 25,0 39,6 100,0

3,8 17,8 14,3 26,8 37,3 100,0

1,6 11,5 13,7 24,5 48,8 100,0

2,7 23,1 15,6 21,6 36,9 100,0

2,2 16,1 14,3 25,9 41,5 100,0

2,3 15,4 14,1 26,1 42,1 100,0

2,2 11,8 14,5 23,1 48,4 100,0

1,5 19,8 17,0 19,9 41,9 100,0

1,2 14,3 15,6 26,9 41,9 100,0

2,3 15,8 11,8 23,5 46,6 100,0

3,1 13,0 14,7 21,1 48,2 100,0

1,4 18,2 17,8 18,4 44,2 100,0

1,3 15,6 15,9 26,2 41,1 100,0

2,3 15,0 16,3 28,7 37,6 100,0

1,3 10,5 14,2 25,2 48,7 100,0

1,6 21,3 16,2 21,3 39,6 100,0

1,2 13,1 15,3 27,6 42,8 100,0

2,2 14,7 13,5 26,2 43,4 100,0

2,0 11,8 13,4 23,6 49,2 100,0

1,4 19,3 16,1 21,2 42,0 100,0

1,2 13,3 15,0 27,3 43,2 100,0

1,7 15,1 11,8 22,6 48,8 100,0

2,8 13,7 13,6 21,6 48,4 100,0

1,2 19,1 15,9 19,7 44,0 100,0

1,8 13,5 16,2 25,7 42,9 100,0

2,7 14,3 15,2 29,9 37,8 100,0

1,2 10,0 13,3 25,6 50,0 100,0

1,6 19,5 16,3 22,6 40,0 100,0

0,6 13,2 13,8 28,9 43,5 100,0

2,4 14,5 13,0 27,1 42,9 100,0

1,9 12,3 12,7 24,2 48,9 100,0

1,6 19,0 15,8 21,1 42,4 100,0

0,7 13,1 14,4 26,3 45,6 100,0

2,2 14,6 12,2 23,0 48,0 100,0

2,9 13,8 13,3 21,1 48,8 100,0

2,1 17,8 16,3 19,6 44,2 100,0

0,7 13,3 14,9 25,9 45,1 100,0

2,6 14,4 13,8 31,3 37,9 100,0

0,9 10,7 12,0 27,4 49,1 100,0

1,2 20,2 15,3 22,7 40,6 100,0

0,6 12,8 13,8 26,6 46,2 100,0

2,6 14,2 13,0 27,4 42,8 100,0

2,0 11,9 12,4 24,0 49,7 100,0

1,5 17,6 16,3 20,5 44,0 100,0

0,8 12,1 15,3 25,5 46,3 100,0

2,2 13,8 12,4 23,4 48,2 100,0

3,2 13,0 12,9 21,5 49,4 100,0

1,7 16,7 17,6 18,0 46,0 100,0

1,1 12,1 16,7 24,3 45,8 100,0

3,0 14,6 13,7 31,3 37,4 100,0

0,8 10,7 11,8 26,6 50,1 100,0

1,4 18,5 15,1 23,0 42,0 100,0

0,6 12,1 13,9 26,6 46,8 100,0

3,1 13,6 12,9 25,8 44,6 100,0

2,2 10,9 12,8 24,2 49,9 100,0

2,4 17,2 14,6 20,9 44,9 100,0

1,2 11,8 14,5 26,0 46,5 100,0

3,0 12,1 12,6 23,2 49,2 100,0

3,6 12,1 12,0 22,9 49,4 100,0

2,5 16,5 16,5 18,3 46,3 100,0

1,8 11,8 15,3 25,3 45,7 100,0

3,2 15,1 13,3 28,4 39,9 100,0

0,8 9,7 13,6 25,4 50,5 100,0

2,3 17,9 12,7 23,5 43,6 100,0

0,6 11,7 13,8 26,6 47,3 100,0

3,0 13,1 13,5 26,3 44,2 100,0

2,4 10,9 12,7 23,7 50,3 100,0

2,4 16,8 13,1 21,4 46,3 100,0

0,9 12,5 14,0 26,1 46,5 100,0

2,6 12,5 12,6 24,3 48,0 100,0

3,9 11,6 11,8 22,9 49,8 100,0

2,8 15,3 14,0 19,2 48,8 100,0

1,5 13,1 13,8 26,0 45,7 100,0

3,4 13,6 14,4 28,3 40,3 100,0

0,8 10,2 13,5 24,5 50,9 100,0

2,0 18,3 12,3 23,5 43,9 100,0

0,3 12,0 14,1 26,2 47,3 100,0

2,1 13,9 18,0 25,8 40,2 100,0

2,0 11,8 15,9 21,9 48,4 100,0

2,8 16,1 16,8 22,1 42,3 100,0

1,2 15,0 17,3 26,8 39,8 100,0

2,1 13,0 18,0 23,8 43,0 100,0

2,8 12,1 15,0 20,8 49,3 100,0

2,3 14,4 19,0 19,5 44,7 100,0

1,3 16,2 16,9 27,2 38,4 100,0

2,0 14,8 18,0 27,8 37,4 100,0

1,3 11,4 16,9 22,9 47,5 100,0

3,2 17,8 14,5 24,6 39,8 100,0

1,1 13,8 17,7 26,3 41,1 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

15

Table IVb

Gender Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

All

Female Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

OSCE Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

12,1 18,0 24,9 17,6 27,4 100,0

8,9 14,5 24,0 17,0 35,6 100,0

8,7 21,2 24,2 19,5 26,4 100,0

9,1 19,6 24,9 21,4 25,0 100,0

12,1 18,5 25,7 14,6 29,1 100,0

10,5 15,4 24,6 16,6 32,9 100,0

7,8 20,1 26,2 17,0 29,0 100,0

8,4 19,6 25,4 22,4 24,2 100,0

12,1 17,6 24,2 20,5 25,6 100,0

7,4 13,5 23,5 17,4 38,2 100,0

9,5 22,3 22,3 21,8 24,0 100,0

9,9 19,5 24,3 20,5 25,8 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

13,8 19,4 25,2 16,3 25,4 100,0

9,9 13,6 23,9 18,7 33,9 100,0

9,2 21,6 23,9 19,8 25,4 100,0

10,3 19,6 24,6 21,8 23,8 100,0

13,4 19,4 24,1 14,1 29,0 100,0

11,6 14,5 23,2 19,9 30,8 100,0

7,4 21,0 25,4 18,4 27,8 100,0

9,2 19,2 26,5 21,9 23,2 100,0

14,2 19,3 26,3 18,5 21,7 100,0

8,2 12,8 24,7 17,4 36,9 100,0

11,0 22,3 22,4 21,2 23,2 100,0

11,3 20,0 22,6 21,7 24,3 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

13,5 21,6 25,6 15,1 24,3 100,0

10,2 13,9 23,5 19,3 33,2 100,0

8,8 22,9 23,2 19,0 26,1 100,0

10,8 21,7 23,1 21,9 22,4 100,0

13,1 21,1 24,2 13,5 28,1 100,0

11,5 15,0 22,9 21,0 29,5 100,0

6,7 21,0 25,3 17,6 29,6 100,0

10,4 22,5 23,2 22,2 21,7 100,0

13,8 22,0 27,0 16,7 20,5 100,0

8,9 12,8 24,0 17,5 36,7 100,0

10,8 24,8 21,3 20,3 22,8 100,0

11,3 21,0 22,9 21,7 23,2 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

13,5 20,9 25,5 15,2 24,9 100,0

10,7 13,8 24,8 17,7 33,1 100,0

9,0 23,1 23,4 18,6 25,9 100,0

9,7 22,4 24,0 21,5 22,4 100,0

12,9 21,7 23,5 13,2 28,6 100,0

12,8 14,9 23,6 19,0 29,7 100,0

7,3 21,7 24,0 17,3 29,7 100,0

10,2 22,1 24,6 21,7 21,3 100,0

14,0 20,1 27,4 17,1 21,4 100,0

8,7 12,8 25,9 16,4 36,3 100,0

10,6 24,4 22,9 19,8 22,4 100,0

9,2 22,7 23,3 21,3 23,4 100,0

13,6 21,0 25,1 15,7 24,6 100,0

10,3 14,9 24,2 17,5 33,0 100,0

9,1 23,5 22,5 19,1 25,7 100,0

14,1 48,5 29,1 8,3

13,2 21,6 23,0 14,2 27,9 100,0

11,5 17,3 23,0 18,7 29,4 100,0

7,2 21,8 23,6 17,6 29,8 100,0

15,3 46,9 29,3 8,5

13,9 20,3 27,1 17,2 21,4 100,0

9,2 12,6 25,4 16,4 36,4 100,0

10,9 25,2 21,5 20,5 21,8 100,0

12,9 50,2 28,8 8,1

Total OHR

Total UNDP

Total EU

Total European Integration Directorate Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total

100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

100,0

100,0

Annual Report 2008

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%)

Annual Report 2008

16

Table Va How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%) Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

BiH Presidency Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total BiH Parliament Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total Council of Ministers Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total FBiH Parliament Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total FBiH Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS National Assembly Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total RS Government Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total Municipal authorities Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

3,1 15,2 11,2 16,9 53,6 100,0

2,6 9,1 13,9 14,7 59,7 100,0

4,1 15,6 11,6 15,7 53,0 100,0

4,0 12,6 12,8 20,9 49,7 100,0

3,3 18,5 25,2 24,4 28,6 100,0

1,0 12,3 20,5 45,5 20,7 100,0

2,9 20,8 27,2 28,0 21,2 100,0

0,4 18,3 14,8 34,5 32,1 100,0

3,9 23,0 11,2 27,9 34,0 100,0

2,4 16,5 12,9 21,2 46,9 100,0

0,8 28,7 17,0 22,2 31,3 100,0

0,9 20,7 15,1 28,7 34,7 100,0

0,8 8,6 11,0 23,2 56,4 100,0

2,6 7,2 12,3 17,8 60,2 100,0

2,2 12,9 11,8 16,4 56,8 100,0

1,8 9,3 13,4 22,6 52,8 100,0

2,4 17,8 26,8 24,5 28,4 100,0

1,3 9,8 21,8 46,3 20,8 100,0

1,3 17,2 30,7 24,2 26,6 100,0

1,1 16,3 16,2 35,6 30,7 100,0

3,7 22,4 11,7 29,6 32,6 100,0

2,0 17,0 13,2 21,1 46,6 100,0

0,8 27,9 16,4 22,8 32,1 100,0

0,7 19,2 15,6 29,9 34,7 100,0

0,6 8,0 8,8 24,5 58,1 100,0

2,6 7,2 11,5 16,5 62,3 100,0

1,9 12,5 10,4 18,4 56,8 100,0

1,8 7,6 12,6 22,8 55,2 100,0

3,2 15,2 28,5 25,4 27,7 100,0

1,0 9,3 21,6 46,3 21,8 100,0

1,9 15,0 30,2 28,1 24,8 100,0

0,4 11,3 21,6 34,2 32,6 100,0

3,5 21,4 12,5 28,3 34,4 100,0

1,7 16,9 12,0 23,8 45,6 100,0

0,8 27,6 16,4 22,4 32,9 100,0

0,7 19,5 14,7 30,6 34,5 100,0

0,6 8,0 8,1 25,6 57,7 100,0

2,3 7,0 11,0 16,7 63,0 100,0

2,7 11,1 11,0 17,4 57,8 100,0

0,9 7,8 10,7 21,1 59,5 100,0

2,7 18,3 26,4 26,4 26,1 100,0

1,3 11,0 19,1 47,3 21,2 100,0

1,3 15,7 27,3 28,4 27,3 100,0

0,8 12,2 19,9 33,5 33,7 100,0

3,9 20,5 12,5 29,3 33,8 100,0

1,7 17,4 11,5 24,8 44,6 100,0

0,6 28,4 16,7 22,3 31,9 100,0

0,4 18,3 16,5 29,8 35,0 100,0

0,6 8,6 7,9 25,5 57,4 100,0

2,0 7,3 10,2 16,4 64,1 100,0

2,5 9,1 11,3 16,4 60,8 100,0

0,9 7,5 11,1 19,6 60,9 100,0

2,5 16,5 26,9 26,4 27,7 100,0

2,1 8,6 19,1 47,9 22,3 100,0

1,4 14,5 28,0 30,2 25,9 100,0

1,2 10,8 22,3 32,5 33,2 100,0

4,9 20,0 12,3 29,6 33,2 100,0

1,9 16,7 12,0 24,5 44,9 100,0

0,6 27,5 17,3 21,6 33,0 100,0

0,7 17,3 17,4 29,6 35,0 100,0

0,6 5,5 6,7 23,2 64,1 100,0

2,5 5,7 9,9 15,4 66,5 100,0

2,3 5,1 11,6 18,0 63,0 100,0

0,5 6,6 9,9 18,4 64,6 100,0

2,4 13,7 24,5 25,1 34,3 100,0

1,0 5,9 17,5 50,1 25,6 100,0

1,4 14,2 21,8 31,3 31,4 100,0

0,8 6,3 16,5 34,9 41,5 100,0

5,7 22,7 14,5 28,7 28,4 100,0

2,3 17,9 14,2 25,0 40,6 100,0

3,0 30,3 14,9 20,6 31,3 100,0

2,2 19,3 17,5 31,3 29,7 100,0

0,6 5,0 6,5 23,2 64,6 100,0

2,5 5,8 9,6 15,2 66,9 100,0

1,9 5,1 9,1 19,1 64,8 100,0

0,5 7,2 9,6 18,6 64,1 100,0

2,3 12,3 24,3 26,5 34,6 100,0

0,5 5,3 20,7 48,7 24,8 100,0

1,4 13,7 23,9 29,6 31,4 100,0

0,8 6,8 15,1 34,3 43,0 100,0

5,5 22,3 16,1 29,2 26,9 100,0

2,9 17,9 13,2 24,7 41,3 100,0

3,3 29,5 13,7 21,1 32,5 100,0

1,5 20,2 16,8 32,0 29,5 100,0

0,6 8,8 13,3 23,2 54,1 100,0

2,4 7,1 11,6 16,5 62,5 100,0

3,5 8,9 13,3 17,6 56,7 100,0

1,0 10,6 16,4 21,4 50,6 100,0

2,8 12,3 29,0 27,1 28,7 100,0

0,8 12,1 26,4 37,8 22,8 100,0

2,2 14,1 23,5 29,0 31,1 100,0

0,4 8,6 21,8 36,1 33,1 100,0

3,3 20,2 19,0 27,7 29,8 100,0

1,8 16,0 16,9 22,2 43,1 100,0

2,3 23,9 17,6 25,0 31,2 100,0

1,8 19,7 16,6 30,5 31,4 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research

17

Table Vb

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

OSCE Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

16,1 14,1 25,7 11,9 32,2 100,0

6,5 12,6 26,1 10,8 44,1 100,0

14,0 14,4 28,5 16,1 26,9 100,0

13,3 17,6 33,4 14,6 21,0 100,0

7,3 21,5 30,4 20,0 20,8 100,0

7,7 23,0 29,7 26,3 13,3 100,0

3,2 25,4 24,0 21,4 25,9 100,0

7,5 18,5 18,5 30,0 25,5 100,0

7,4 20,3 22,0 24,3 25,9 100,0

11,4 12,7 19,0 20,9 36,1 100,0

5,0 24,9 19,9 23,0 27,2 100,0

3,8 19,0 17,9 28,0 31,3 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

17,5 15,9 27,2 10,3 29,0 100,0

7,3 12,7 25,1 14,2 40,7 100,0

14,9 16,2 27,5 17,5 24,0 100,0

15,1 19,4 32,2 15,0 18,4 100,0

9,9 24,9 26,7 19,9 18,6 100,0

8,1 21,8 30,4 27,4 12,3 100,0

3,8 25,5 22,5 22,5 25,7 100,0

8,9 17,1 16,2 32,7 25,2 100,0

9,0 20,7 22,4 22,9 25,2 100,0

13,1 10,6 19,2 20,7 36,4 100,0

5,2 23,9 20,6 22,3 27,9 100,0

4,3 17,5 19,6 27,6 31,1 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

16,8 19,6 26,2 8,6 28,8 100,0

7,2 12,0 23,6 16,7 40,6 100,0

13,2 18,2 28,0 15,4 25,2 100,0

15,9 21,2 30,6 15,7 16,6 100,0

9,6 24,5 28,1 19,4 18,5 100,0

8,6 22,7 31,7 25,8 11,2 100,0

4,7 27,8 22,8 21,3 23,3 100,0

8,2 20,3 15,1 32,2 24,2 100,0

9,0 22,3 24,0 21,9 22,9 100,0

13,7 11,8 19,4 20,0 35,1 100,0

5,6 24,1 18,4 22,8 29,2 100,0

4,9 20,0 17,8 27,1 30,2 100,0

Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very

16,8 19,2 25,9 8,5 29,6 100,0

8,6 11,4 26,4 13,2 40,5 100,0

14,2 16,4 29,6 15,2 24,7 100,0

12,7 23,0 32,3 15,9 16,1 100,0

10,4 20,7 30,5 19,5 18,9 100,0

6,1 24,3 32,9 24,8 11,9 100,0

4,8 29,9 21,3 21,0 23,1 100,0

8,8 20,2 14,5 31,4 25,2 100,0

8,7 22,3 23,3 22,3 23,4 100,0

14,3 11,7 19,1 20,3 34,6 100,0

5,1 25,5 17,8 22,1 29,5 100,0

6,0 21,0 18,0 25,1 29,9 100,0

16,8 19,2 25,8 8,2 29,9 100,0

7,8 12,6 26,0 13,0 40,6 100,0

14,6 17,5 27,3 15,7 24,9 100,0

15,7 44,5 30,3 9,5

10,4 23,6 27,9 19,9 18,2 100,0

6,5 25,0 31,5 24,8 12,2 100,0

4,8 30,1 22,0 21,1 22,1 100,0

15,8 36,4 42,9 4,8

9,0 21,5 23,3 23,7 22,6 100,0

14,0 13,0 18,7 20,2 34,1 100,0

5,1 25,3 17,8 22,9 29,0 100,0

7,3 58,1 26,2 8,4

Total OHR

Total UNDP

Total EU

Total European Integration Directorate Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total

100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research

100,0

100,0

Annual Report 2008

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%)

Annual Report 2008

18

Table VI How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas? (%) Gender Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

All

Political reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Economic reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Anti-corruption Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Civil service reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Civil service reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total

Female Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

10,1 36,2 24,6 15,0 14,1 100,0

8,7 32,8 29,1 13,0 16,4 100,0

4,7 32,1 29,5 16,9 16,8 100,0

4,9 35,8 28,9 11,8 18,7 100,0

12,3 33,0 28,0 15,9 10,8 100,0

9,8 34,4 31,2 14,6 9,9 100,0

5,5 31,2 30,9 17,2 15,3 100,0

4,1 38,9 26,5 13,0 17,5 100,0

8,0 39,3 21,4 14,1 17,3 100,0

7,7 31,2 27,1 11,5 22,5 100,0

3,9 32,9 28,2 16,7 18,3 100,0

5,7 32,8 31,1 10,5 19,9 100,0

46,3 39,6 14,1 100,0

41,5 42,1 16,4 100,0

36,7 46,4 16,8 100,0

40,6 40,6 18,7 100,0

45,3 43,9 10,8 100,0

44,3 45,8 9,9 100,0

36,7 48,0 15,3 100,0

42,9 39,5 17,5 100,0

47,3 35,5 17,3 100,0

38,9 38,6 22,5 100,0

36,8 44,9 18,3 100,0

38,4 41,6 19,9 100,0

9,9 34,6 27,5 13,7 14,3 100,0

7,9 33,2 30,7 12,0 16,2 100,0

4,5 29,6 32,8 16,9 16,2 100,0

4,1 32,8 31,8 12,3 19,1 100,0

11,3 32,1 31,3 14,7 10,5 100,0

9,0 33,6 34,2 13,2 10,0 100,0

4,8 28,6 34,4 17,5 14,7 100,0

3,5 34,1 30,6 13,8 17,9 100,0

8,5 36,9 23,9 12,7 17,9 100,0

6,9 32,9 27,3 10,8 22,2 100,0

4,2 30,5 31,4 16,4 17,6 100,0

4,7 31,5 32,8 10,8 20,1 100,0

44,5 41,2 14,3 100,0

41,2 42,6 16,2 100,0

34,0 49,8 16,2 100,0

36,9 44,0 19,1 100,0

43,4 46,0 10,5 100,0

42,6 47,5 10,0 100,0

33,4 51,9 14,7 100,0

37,6 44,5 17,9 100,0

45,5 36,6 17,9 100,0

39,8 38,0 22,2 100,0

34,7 47,8 17,6 100,0

36,2 43,7 20,1 100,0

10,1 32,8 26,4 17,1 13,6 100,0

8,2 29,0 31,5 15,7 15,6 100,0

4,8 27,1 33,0 19,9 15,3 100,0

4,1 29,6 29,0 19,0 18,4 100,0

11,9 31,4 27,9 18,4 10,4 100,0

8,9 29,0 34,8 17,8 9,4 100,0

5,1 26,5 34,6 19,6 14,1 100,0

4,3 30,2 29,4 18,6 17,4 100,0

8,3 34,2 25,1 15,9 16,6 100,0

7,4 29,1 28,3 13,8 21,5 100,0

4,4 27,6 31,4 20,1 16,4 100,0

4,0 29,0 28,5 19,2 19,3 100,0

42,9 43,5 13,6 100,0

37,2 47,2 15,6 100,0

31,8 52,9 15,3 100,0

33,7 47,9 18,4 100,0

43,3 46,2 10,4 100,0

38,0 52,6 9,4 100,0

31,6 54,3 14,1 100,0

34,5 48,1 17,4 100,0

42,5 40,9 16,6 100,0

36,5 42,1 21,5 100,0

32,0 51,5 16,4 100,0

33,0 47,7 19,3 100,0

10,0 36,7 24,4 14,0 14,9 100,0

8,3 36,2 27,3 11,3 16,9 100,0

3,7 32,9 28,8 17,1 17,5 100,0

4,9 36,9 26,7 12,5 19,0 100,0

11,9 35,0 26,7 15,2 11,3 100,0

8,3 38,3 29,5 13,1 10,8 100,0

3,6 31,1 31,0 18,3 16,1 100,0

4,5 36,8 26,2 14,6 17,9 100,0

8,2 38,3 22,3 12,9 18,3 100,0

8,3 34,2 25,2 9,5 22,8 100,0

3,9 34,7 26,7 16,0 18,7 100,0

5,2 36,9 27,3 10,6 20,0 100,0

46,7 38,4 14,9 100,0

44,5 38,6 16,9 100,0

36,7 45,9 17,5 100,0

41,7 39,3 19,0 100,0

46,9 41,8 11,3 100,0

46,6 42,6 10,8 100,0

34,7 49,2 16,1 100,0

41,3 40,8 17,9 100,0

46,6 35,2 18,3 100,0

42,5 34,8 22,8 100,0

38,6 42,7 18,7 100,0

42,2 37,9 20,0 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

19

Table VII

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % % % % % Political reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Economic reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Anti-corruption Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total Civil service reforms Very positive Generally positive Generally negative Very negative DK/NA Total Civil service reforms TOTAL POSITIVE TOTAL NEGATIVE DK/NA Total

Serb majority areas Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % %

Nov 08. %

18,5 43,7 17,0 7,3 13,6 100,0

16,4 38,9 16,6 8,2 19,8 100,0

9,2 38,9 24,3 12,4 15,2 100,0

8,2 48,1 22,2 8,4 13,1 100,0

7,7 33,1 20,2 11,5 27,4 100,0

37,6 37,4 13,2 11,8 100,0

0,7 29,5 33,1 14,0 22,7 100,0

3,4 30,0 28,7 5,0 32,9 100,0

1,7 27,5 36,1 23,5 11,2 100,0

3,2 24,4 40,6 17,3 14,4 100,0

1,1 25,6 31,9 23,7 17,7 100,0

0,6 21,1 37,4 18,4 22,4 100,0

62,2 24,3 13,6 100,0

55,3 24,8 19,8 100,0

48,1 36,7 15,2 100,0

56,3 30,6 13,1 100,0

40,8 31,8 27,4 100,0

37,6 50,6 11,8 100,0

30,2 47,1 22,7 100,0

33,4 33,6 32,9 100,0

29,3 59,6 11,2 100,0

27,7 57,9 14,4 100,0

26,7 55,6 17,7 100,0

21,7 55,9 22,4 100,0

17,5 39,6 20,7 8,4 13,8 100,0

14,6 34,8 22,1 8,6 20,0 100,0

8,9 35,1 28,1 12,7 15,2 100,0

6,7 42,9 27,0 9,3 14,1 100,0

6,9 30,6 24,5 10,0 28,0 100,0

38,3 34,6 15,3 11,8 100,0

0,7 29,9 33,5 14,6 21,2 100,0

3,0 27,5 30,0 6,6 32,9 100,0

2,5 29,7 37,0 19,9 11,0 100,0

3,3 30,1 39,3 13,4 13,9 100,0

0,9 24,0 36,6 22,0 16,6 100,0

0,9 21,4 37,8 17,9 22,1 100,0

57,1 29,1 13,8 100,0

49,4 30,6 20,0 100,0

44,1 40,8 15,2 100,0

49,6 36,3 14,1 100,0

37,5 34,5 28,0 100,0

38,3 49,9 11,8 100,0

30,6 48,1 21,2 100,0

30,5 36,6 32,9 100,0

32,2 56,8 11,0 100,0

33,3 52,8 13,9 100,0

24,8 58,6 16,6 100,0

22,3 55,7 22,1 100,0

17,6 38,6 19,5 10,8 13,6 100,0

14,9 32,7 21,5 11,3 19,6 100,0

6,8 29,8 34,2 14,0 15,3 100,0

6,7 37,1 27,2 15,9 13,1 100,0

8,2 27,1 21,0 16,2 27,5 100,0

21,1 42,8 25,7 10,5 100,0

1,5 24,9 30,6 24,0 19,0 100,0

2,8 24,5 25,2 15,0 32,4 100,0

2,6 29,4 34,6 23,6 9,7 100,0

3,6 27,5 39,3 16,5 13,1 100,0

3,7 26,0 30,9 24,4 15,0 100,0

0,9 22,0 31,9 23,5 21,6 100,0

56,1 30,3 13,6 100,0

47,6 32,8 19,6 100,0

36,6 48,1 15,3 100,0

43,8 43,1 13,1 100,0

35,3 37,2 27,5 100,0

21,1 68,4 10,5 100,0

26,5 54,6 19,0 100,0

27,3 40,3 32,4 100,0

32,0 58,2 9,7 100,0

31,1 55,8 13,1 100,0

29,7 55,3 15,0 100,0

23,0 55,4 21,6 100,0

17,1 42,1 16,9 10,1 13,8 100,0

13,5 40,3 17,6 8,8 19,8 100,0

6,9 37,5 26,0 14,1 15,4 100,0

7,4 49,0 21,2 9,0 13,4 100,0

8,0 27,8 22,0 13,9 28,2 100,0

0,3 34,0 38,4 14,5 12,9 100,0

0,9 27,2 34,3 16,1 21,6 100,0

3,3 24,5 31,1 8,2 32,9 100,0

3,0 33,4 34,1 17,1 12,4 100,0

5,4 32,7 34,9 11,6 15,5 100,0

1,2 31,1 28,3 20,0 19,4 100,0

1,6 26,4 32,5 16,9 22,7 100,0

59,2 26,9 13,8 100,0

53,8 26,4 19,8 100,0

44,5 40,1 15,4 100,0

56,4 30,2 13,4 100,0

35,8 36,0 28,2 100,0

34,3 52,9 12,9 100,0

28,0 50,4 21,6 100,0

27,8 39,3 32,9 100,0

36,4 51,2 12,4 100,0

38,1 46,5 15,5 100,0

32,3 48,3 19,4 100,0

28,0 49,4 22,7 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Annual Report 2008

How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas?

Annual Report 2008

20

Table VIII In your view, should the High Representative’s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)

Reduced Increased Stay the same DK/NA Total

March 08.

38,3 29,5 21,8 10,3 100,0

All June 08. Sept 08.

43,5 43,9 15,4 18,9 30,8 26,7 10,3 10,6 100,0 100,0

Nov 08. March 08.

37,6 41,3 23,1 31,8 30,7 19,5 8,5 7,4 100,0 100,0

Gender Male June 08. Sept 08.

42,9 45,7 19,7 21,8 30,2 24,7 7,2 7,8 100,0 100,0

Nov 08.

39,6 23,1 30,5 6,8 100,0

March 08.

35,5 27,3 24,1 13,2 100,0

Female June 08. Sept 08.

44,2 42,2 11,2 16,0 31,3 28,6 13,3 13,2 100,0 100,0

Nov 08.

35,7 23,2 30,9 10,1 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Table IX In your view, should the High Representative’s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)

Reduced Increased Stay the same DK/NA Total

March 08.

13,9 49,2 24,2 12,7 100,0

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

23,3 22,6 10,9 29,0 40,2 42,2 25,9 33,1 41,9 32,6 15,5 16,2 33,8 29,7 40,0 22,7 39,8 36,1 17,0 14,5 7,2 15,7 4,5 5,4 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Nov 08.

28,9 18,9 31,9 20,2 100,0

March 08.

71,2 4,3 18,3 6,2 100,0

Serb majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

69,9 69,9 1,7 2,8 23,5 20,0 5,0 7,3 100,0 100,0

Nov 08.

71,6 2,9 19,1 6,4 100,0

21

ECONOMIC STABILITY

Annual Report 2008

Economic Stability Index

Table I Index of the physical volume of industrial production in BiH VIII 2008 VIII 2007 98,2 100,2

VIII 2008 VIII 2007 109,6 109,4

I-VIII 2008 I-VIII 2007 105,4 107,8

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Table II Total number of registered unemployed by entity

FBiH REPUBLIKA SRPSKA BiH

Jan-05 328.225 144.823 473.048

Jan-06 349.137 142.754 491.891

Mar-06 Jan-07 351.867 367.449 145.331 146.180 497.198 513.629

Mar-07 371.156 146.517 517.673

Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Apr-07 Jun-07 370.961 370.410 144.306 140.189 515.267 510.599

Aug-07 369.886 136.520 506.406

Sep-07 371.342 134.197 505.539

Jan-08 367.449 136.108 503.557

Mar-08 357.281 138.497 495.778

Aug-08 340809 133.827 474636

Women 173,837 64,069 237,906

Annual Report 2008

22

Table IV

Table III Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices

FBiH RS

VIII 2008 VII 2008 98.2 100.2

VIII 2008 VIII 2007 109.6 109.4

Central Bank of BiH Foreign Reserves (millions of KM)

I- VIII 2008 I- VIII 2007 105.4 107.8

Month XII '03 I '04 XII '04 I '05 XII '05 I '06 XII '06 I 2007 II III IV V VI VII

Sources: Entity Statistics Agencies websites

Table V Balance of Trade of BIH

Exports Imports Total volum Balance Ratio

IX 2008

I – IX 2008

617 1,476 2,093 -859

5.147 12,337 17,484 -7,19

41.80%

41.70%

I – IX 2008 I – IX 2007 + 16,7 % + 22,3 % -

Reserves 2,781 2,785 3,458 3,451 4,196 4,233 5,400 5,137 5,519 5,289 5,699 5,751 5,899 6,203

Month VIII IX X XI I 2008 V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Reserves 6,298 6,475 6,518 6413 6637 6,480 6531 6699 6805 6834 6403 6228 6296

Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priopćenje statistike vanjske trgovine, no. 9, Year IV, October 2008

Table VI Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?

BiH Got better Stayed the same Got worse N.A. TOTAL

April 2006 % 9,2 55,1 35,1 0,6 100,0

Jun. 2006 % 10,8 54,1 34,7 0,4 100,0

Sept. 2006 % 11,4 57,6 30,7 0,4 100,0

Dec. 2006 % 15,3 61,4 23,1 0,1 100,0

April 2007 % 14,1 61,0 23,1 1,8 100,0

Sept. 2007 % 18,1 55,8 24,0 2,2 100,0

Nov. 2007 % 12,5 47,7 38,9 1,0 100,0

Mar. 2008 % 13,5 51,5 34,3 0,7 100,0

Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008 % % % 14,0 15,5 10,8 51,5 57,1 53,8 33,7 27,0 34,5 0,7 0,3 1,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

Table VII Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how? (%) FBH Better The same Worse N.A. Total RS Better The same Worse N.A. Total DB Better The same Worse N.A. Total

April 2006 11,6 52,7 35,1 0,7 100,1 April 2006 5,9 58,9 34,8 0,4 100,0 April 2006 5,8 52,2 42,0 0,0 100,0

Jun. 2006 13,0 53,7 32,6 0,6 99,9 Jun. 2006 7,1 54,6 38,3 0,0 100,0 Jun. 2006 21,9 54,4 23,7 0,0 100,0

Sept. 2006 11,5 59,5 28,9 0,2 100,0 Sept. 2006 11,3 54,5 33,6 0,6 100,0 Sept. 2006 9,6 64,3 26,1 0,0 100,0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research

Dec. 2006 17,0 59,2 23,7 0,1 100,0 Dec. 2006 13,2 64,6 22,1 0,2 100,0 Dec. 2006 8,8 62,9 28,3 0,0 100,0

April 2007 14,6 63,7 20,0 1,7 100,0 April 2007 13,3 56,8 27,9 2,0 100,0 April 2007 15,3 65,5 19,2 0,0 100,0

Sept. 2007 15,0 58,3 23,5 3,1 100,0 Sept. 2007 22,3 52,2 24,9 0,7 100,0 Sept. 2007 22,4 52,5 20,1 4,9 100,0

Nov. 2007 12,1 44,2 42,2 1,4 100,0 Nov. 2007 13,4 53,2 33,0 0,4 100,0 Nov. 2007 3,9 38,1 57,9

Mar. 2008 12,2 49,2 37,5 1,1 100,0 Mar. 2008 15,6 54,8 29,3 0,2 100,0 Mar. 2008 9,7 49,9 40,4

Jun. 2008 16,3 52,1 30,7 0,9 100,0 Jun. 2008 11,2 51,4 37,0 0,5 100,0 Jun. 2008 6,6 37,8 55,7

100,0

100,0

100,0

Sept. 2008 14,6 56,8 28,5 0,2 100,0 Sept. 2008 17,5 59,7 22,2 0,6 100,0 Sept. 2008 17,5 59,7 22,2 0,6 100,0

Nov. 2008 10,2 51,9 36,7 1,1 100,0 Nov. 2008 9,4 58,2 31,6 0,7 100,0 Nov. 2008 43,8 28,0 25,4 2,8 100,0

23

Table VIII

Bosniaks Better The same Worse N.A. Total Croats Better The same Worse N.A. Total Serbs Better The same Worse N.A. Total

April 2006 10.2 53.6 35.5 0.8 100.0 April 2006 16.7 49.6 33.6 0.2 100.1 April 2006 5.9 58.9 34.8 0.4 100.0

Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 11.9 10.6 52.2 58.1 35.3 31.1 0.6 0.2 100.0 100.0 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 16.7 14.6 59.1 64.2 23.4 20.9 0.8 0.3 100.0 100.0 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 7.1 11.3 54.6 54.5 38.3 33.6 0.0 0.6 100.0 100.0

Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 16.4 13.7 14.1 60.3 64.7 59.0 23.2 19.5 24.5 0.1 2.2 2.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 18.7 18.1 18.3 55.6 60.3 55.9 25.5 21.7 20.2 0.2 5.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 13.2 13.3 22.3 64.6 56.8 52.2 22.1 27.9 24.9 0.2 2.0 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 11.9 10.3 44.5 47.3 41.7 41.5 1.9 0.9 100.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 12.7 18.6 43.4 56.1 43.9 23.6 1.8 100.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 13.4 15.6 53.2 54.8 33.0 29.3 0.4 0.2 100.0 100.0

Jun. 2008 17.8 48.3 33.0 0.9 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.0 65.5 22.6 1.0 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.2 51.4 37.0 0.5 100.0

Sept. 2008 13.1 54.8 32.1 100.0 Sept. 2008 19.9 63.7 15.6 0.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 17.5 59.7 22.2 0.6 100.0

Nov. 2008 8.7 49.7 40.5 1.1 100.0 Nov. 2008 16.3 60.8 22.0 0.9 100.0 Nov. 2008 9.4 58.2 31.6 0.7 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research

Table IX How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year? (%) BiH Get worse Stay the same Get better N.A. Total FBH Get worse Stay the same Get better N.A. Total RS Get worse Stay the same Get better N.A. Total DB Get worse Stay the same Get better N.A. Total

April 2006 18,8 56,4 20,8 4,1 100,0 Mar. 2006 18,2 59,1 17,8 4,8 100,0 Mar. 2006 17,6 53,3 26,2 2,9 100,0 Mar. 2006 54,4 37,7 2,4 5,5 100,0

Jun. 2006 23,4 50,0 21,1 5,5 100,0 Jun. 2006 22,3 49,1 20,7 7,9 100,0 Jun. 2006 25,5 50,9 21,5 2,2 100,0 Jun. 2006 16,2 57,5 25,7 0,7 100,0

Sept. 2006 20,4 52,4 23,4 3,8 100,0 Sept. 2006 17,0 55,1 23,4 4,5 100,0 Sept. 2006 25,4 48,6 23,5 2,5 100,0 Sept. 2006 21,4 50,4 20,7 7,5 100,0

Dec. 2006 15,9 52,0 29,4 2,7 100,0 Dec. 2006 18,0 51,8 26,8 3,5 100,0 Dec. 2006 11,9 52,5 34,0 1,5 100,0 Dec. 2006 33,7 48,9 16,7 0,8 100,0

April 2007 12,2 56,5 24,3 7,0 100,0 April 2007 10,4 59,3 21,3 9,0 100,0 April 2007 14,3 52,5 28,8 4,4 100,0 April 2007 25,2 52,3 21,3 1,2 100,0

Sept. 2007 18,0 54,1 21,5 6,4 100,0 Sept. 2007 16,7 54,1 21,4 7,8 100,0 Sept. 2007 20,5 52,4 22,3 4,7 100,0 Sept. 2007 6,5 86,0 7,5

Nov. 2007 35,2 45,7 14,4 4,7 100,0 Nov. 2007 41,5 42,2 12,3 4,0 100,0 Nov. 2007 25,3 50,9 17,7 6,1 100,0 Nov. 2007 46,1 46,0 7,9

Mar. 2008 20,2 56,2 20,0 3,6 100,0 Mar. 2008 19,0 59,9 17,5 3,5 100,0 Mar. 2008 20,7 51,0 24,4 3,9 100,0 Mar. 2008 41,3 50,7 8,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Jun. 2008 22,5 56,1 17,2 4,3 100,0 Jun. 2008 21,1 56,6 16,8 5,5 100,0 Jun. 2008 23,6 55,5 18,3 2,6 100,0 Jun. 2008 39,4 51,1 4,6 4,8 100,0

Sept. 2008 16,1 62,0 17,2 4,7 100,0 Sept. 2008 16,4 66,2 13,3 4,1 100,0 Sept. 2008 15,3 55,0 23,8 6,0 100,0 Sept. 2008 24,2 75,8 100,0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research

Table X Expect prices over the next six months to...I? (%) Bosnia and Herzegovina Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Rise significantly No Change N.A. Total fall Total rise No Change NZ/BO Total

Sep 2006 1,1 3,9 37,8 16,9 33,7 6,7 5,0 54,7 33,7 6,7 100,0

Dec 2006 0,8 6,0 42,3 20,5 25,5 4,9 6,8 62,8 25,5 4,9 100,0

April 2007 0,2 2,0 37,8 22,4 26,0 11,6 2,2 60,2 26,0 11,6 100,0

Sep 2007 0,5 3,6 37,1 50,6 2,9 5,4 4,1 87,6 2,9 5,4 100,0

Nov. 2007 1,4 5,4 22,3 65,2 3,8 1,9 6,7 87,5 3,8 1,9 100,0

Mar. 2008 0,7 4,0 35,2 48,6 7,9 3,6 4,7 83,8 7,9 3,6 100,0

Jun. 2008 0,6 1,8 29,7 51,4 11,5 4,9 2,5 81,1 11,5 4,9 100,0

Sept. 2008 2,2 7,6 33,4 38,4 13,1 5,2 9,8 71,8 13,1 5,2 100,0

Nov. 2008 0,6 8,1 36,5 38,4 11,6 4,9 8,7 74,9 11,6 4,9 100,0

Nov. 2008 24,5 55,4 15,0 5,1 100,0 Nov. 2008 27,1 58,6 9,6 4,8 100,0 Nov. 2008 21,8 52,2 20,2 5,8 100,0 Nov. 2008 4,5 31,2 61,4 2,8 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how? (%)

Annual Report 2008

24

Table XI Expect household income over the next six months to...?

Bosnia and Herzegovina Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Fall modestly No change DK/NA Total Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total FBiH Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Fall modestly No change DK/NA Total Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Fall modestly No change DK/NA Total Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total BRÄ&#x152;KO Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Fall modestly No change DK/NA Total Total fall Total rise No change DK/NA Total

Sep 2006 4.9 9.5 15.8 2.5 59.7 7.5 100.0 14.4 18.3 59.7 7.5 100.0 Sep 2006 5.9 8.5 15.0 2.8 60.2 7.6 100.0 14.4 17.8 60.2 7.6 100.0 Sep 2006 3.3 11.2 17.4 2.3 58.1 7.6 100.0 14.6 19.8 58.1 7.6 100.0 Sep 2006 8.4 3.4 5.6

Dec 2006 3.1 10.3 19.8 1.7 59.2 6.0 100.0 13.3 21.5 59.2 6.0 100.0 Dec 2006 3.2 12.3 18.0 1.0 58.0 7.5 100.0 15.5 19.0 58.0 7.5 100.0 Dec 2006 2.7 7.3 22.8 2.9 60.2 4.1 100.0 10.0 25.7 60.2 4.1 100.0 Dec 2006 6.7 8.7 11.9

78.5 4.2 100.0 11.8 5.6 78.5 4.2 100.0

72.7

(%)

April 2007 1.8 8.7 18.1 3.9 55.6 12.0 100.0 10.4 22.0 55.6 12.0 100.0 April 2007 2.4 8.6 16.0 4.2 52.9 15.9 100.0 11.0 20.2 52.9 15.9 100.0 April 2007 0.8 9.3 22.1 3.2 58.0 6.6 100.0 10.1 25.2 58.0 6.6 100.0 April 2007 0.8

Sep 2007 2.3 9.7 19.5 4.3 54.0 10.3 100.0 12.0 23.8 54.0 10.3 100.0 Sep 2007 2.2 9.5 18.8 4.2 50.2 15.0 100.0 11.7 23.1 50.2 15.0 100.0 Sep 2007 2.5 10.6 20.8 4.1 58.2 3.8 100.0 13.1 24.9 58.2 3.8 100.0 Sep 2007

Nov. 2007 7.1 9.8 15.1 2.8 58.0 7.3 100.0 16.9 17.9 58.0 7.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 8.3 10.7 13.1 3.2 56.6 8.2 100.0 19.0 16.2 56.6 8.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 5.4 9.0 18.2 2.3 58.7 6.3 100.0 14.4 20.5 58.7 6.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 4.6

4.6 8.4 82.8 3.4 100.0 0.8 13.0 82.8 3.4 100.0

11.7 10.8 77.5

13.9

100.0 15.4 11.9 72.7 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research

100.0

81.5

22.5 77.5

100.0 4.6 13.9 81.5

100.0

100.0

Mar. 2008 6.2 6.2 17.6 3.8 60.0 6.2 100.0 12.4 21.4 60.0 6.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 5.8 5.2 16.6 3.8 61.1 7.4 100.0 11.1 20.4 61.1 7.4 100.0 Mar. 2008 6.5 7.9 19.7 3.5 57.9 4.5 100.0 14.4 23.2 57.9 4.5 100.0 Mar. 2008 11.4 1.2 8.2 7.9 67.4 3.9 100.0 12.6 16.1 67.4 3.9 100.0

Jun. 2008 3.8 7.3 15.0 3.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 11.1 18.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 Jun. 2008 2.8 5.6 12.5 4.2 66.7 8.2 100.0 8.5 16.6 66.7 8.2 100.0 Jun. 2008 5.2 9.6 19.5 2.7 56.5 6.4 100.0 14.8 22.2 56.5 6.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 4.1 10.3

Sept. 2008 4.0 9.2 19.1 3.7 58.0 6.0 100.0 13.2 22.8 58.0 6.0 100.0 Sept. 2008 4.4 9.0 16.6 4.4 58.7 6.8 100.0 13.4 21.1 58.7 6.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 3.4 9.9 23.7 2.8 55.0 5.2 100.0 13.3 26.5 55.0 5.2 100.0 Sept. 2008 0.7 4.4

Nov. 2008

3.1 82.5

0.5 94.4

2.1 5.8 2.8 89.3

100.0 14.4 3.1 82.5

100.0 5.1 0.5 94.4

100.0 2.1 8.6 89.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

11.8 15.0 6.0 62.6 4.6 100.0 11.8 20.9 62.6 4.6 100.0 Nov. 2008 14.2 12.2 6.1 62.8 4.6 100.0 14.2 18.4 62.8 4.6 100.0 Nov. 2008 8.9 19.6 6.0 60.6 4.9 100.0 8.9 25.6 60.6 4.9 100.0 Nov. 2008

25

Table XII

BIH Yes No DK Total FBIH Yes No DK Total RS Yes No DK Total DB Yes No DK Total

Sep 2006 % 9.1 82.2 8.8 100.0 Sep 2006 11.1 78.3 10.6 100.0 Sep 2006 5.8 87.6 6.6 100.0 Sep 2006 15.2 84.8 100.0

Dec 2006 % 15.0 80.6 4.4 100.0 Dec 2006 14.5 80.0 5.5 100.0 Dec 2006 16.5 80.5 3.0 100.0 Dec 2006 1.5 96.9 1.6 100.0

April 2007 % 11.5 82.5 6.0 100.0 April 2007 10.0 82.5 7.5 100.0 April 2007 14.3 81.7 4.0 100.0 April 2007

Sep 2007 % 13.6 80.4 6.0 100.0 Sep 2007 14.9 78.2 6.9 100.0 Sep 2007 12.4 82.7 4.9 100.0 Sep 2007

96.6 3.4 100.0

100.0

Nov. 2007 % 12.1 84.0 4.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 11.9 82.7 5.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 12.8 85.1 2.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 3.9 96.1

100.0

100.0

Mar. 2008 % 11.8 83.3 4.9 100.0 Mar. 2008 11.2 85.6 3.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 12.7 79.8 7.4 100.0 Mar. 2008 8.1 87.8 4.1 100.0

Jun. 2008 % 9.6 83.8 6.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.3 81.2 7.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 6.9 87.7 5.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 15.1 82.7 2.2 100.0

Sept. 2008 % 8.0 85.3 6.6 100.0 Sept. 2008 7.1 85.0 7.9 100.0 Sept. 2008 9.7 85.4 4.9 100.0 Sept. 2008 2.1 94.7 3.3 100.0

Nov. 2008 % 6.6 88.8 4.5 100.0 Nov. 2008 6.3 88.2 5.5 100.0 Nov. 2008 7.5 89.1 3.4 100.0 Nov. 2008 0.4 99.6 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research

Table XIII How much does the current institutional framework in BiH (how public administration is organized and functions) affect your activities with regard to ...?

Jun. 08 % Money More than it should Less than it might DK Total Time More than it should Less than it might DK

54.4 22.3 23.4 100.0 53.2 22.5 24.3

BiH Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % 50.0 29.0 21.0 100.0 47.3 31.2 21.6

57.0 25.0 18.0 100.0 56.1 25.7 18.2

Jun. 08 % 46.6 25.8 27.5 100.0 46.2 25.9 27.9

FBiH Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % 50.8 28.4 20.7 100.0 47.9 30.8 21.3

59.0 20.1 20.8 100.0 59.9 19.5 20.6

RS Jun. 08 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % %

D Brcko Jun. 08 Sept. '08 % %

67.3 16.2 16.5 100.0 64.9 16.6 18.5

24.7 37.5 37.8 100.0 27.3 37.5 35.2

46.6 30.9 22.5 100.0 44.0 32.9 23.0

55.4 29.8 14.8 100.0 51.2 32.9 15.8

Nov. '08 %

91.2 8.8

35.9 64.1

100.0 91.4 8.6

100.0 41.0 59.0

Annual Report 2008

Do you expect to be able to save money over the coming year?

Annual Report 2008

26

Table XIV How good do you think the following institutions are at their job?

BiH VI 08 IX '08 % %

XI '08 %

FBiH VI 08 IX '08 XI '08 % % %

Central Bank of BiH Good 47.8 50.4 40.5 52.7 Bad 26.2 26.3 39.3 23.7 DK 25.9 23.2 20.2 23.6 Indirect Taxation Authority Good 39.8 39.6 39.3 42.9 Bad 36.1 38.7 42.0 34.5 DK 24.1 21.7 18.7 22.7 Entity Tax Administrations Bad 36.9 37.3 33.0 39.0 DK 39.6 42.3 49.4 38.1 Good 23.5 20.4 17.6 22.9 Judicial System DK 33.9 32.4 33.4 35.6 Good 45.2 50.2 36.3 43.8 Bad 20.9 17.4 30.2 20.6 Directorate for European Integration Good 39.3 33.7 30.0 40.3 Bad 32.0 41.2 37.2 34.0 DK 28.7 25.1 32.8 25.7 Foreign Investment Promotion Agency Bad 36.1 31.9 18.0 37.1 DK 32.9 39.3 62.2 36.8 Good 30.9 28.8 19.8 26.1 Privatisation Agency DK 22.9 22.2 15.8 26.1 Good 53.3 59.0 69.1 50.1 Bad 23.9 18.9 15.2 23.8 Employment Bureaux Good 19.0 17.4 15.1 22.1 Bad 63.0 66.9 66.5 59.2 DK 18.0 15.7 18.3 18.7 Source: public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

(%)

VI 08 %

RS IX '08 %

XI '08 %

D Brcko VI 08 IX '08 XI '08 % % %

50.8 25.6 23.7

33.0 44.8 22.1

40.4 29.1 30.5

48.6 27.6 23.8

49.5 32.0 18.5

53.5 41.6 4.8

73.2 24.1 2.7

75.1 24.9

33.8 42.3 24.0

31.1 49.4 19.5

35.7 37.0 27.2

48.2 32.4 19.4

49.7 31.5 18.7

32.0 63.1 4.8

37.1 60.1 2.7

67.4 32.6

30.6 47.4 22.0

26.5 54.6 18.9

33.5 41.0 25.5

47.2 33.6 19.2

40.2 42.9 16.9

41.7 55.9 2.4

33.9 64.1 2.1

72.3 27.7

27.0 53.5 19.5

29.5 40.2 30.2

30.5 47.2 22.2

40.6 44.1 15.4

36.9 30.9 32.2

49.4 48.2 2.4

27.6 72.4

70.9 29.1

29.5 43.2 27.3

26.4 41.3 32.3

38.0 27.4 34.6

40.6 36.2 23.2

33.4 31.3 35.3

36.6 60.5 2.9

20.3 79.7

62.1 30.9 6.9

29.3 40.5 30.1

14.6 64.5 20.9

34.6 26.1 39.4

35.9 35.7 28.4

21.3 59.4 19.3

37.7 56.8 5.5

27.2 72.2 0.5

46.1 50.7 3.3

20.6 59.3 20.1

11.3 71.8 16.9

17.7 57.5 24.8

25.1 56.9 18.0

22.2 64.4 13.4

30.7 62.0 7.3

11.1 88.9

21.3 75.9 2.8

14.1 68.2 17.6

17.1 63.2 19.7

14.6 67.6 17.8

22.6 63.7 13.7

12.3 71.1 16.6

16.0 81.6 2.4

10.4 89.6

12.2 74.2 13.5

Table XV To what extent do you use the following in dealing with various state, entity, cantonal, or municipal institutions? (%) BiH VI '08 IX '08 XI '08

FBiH VI '08 IX '08 XI '08

Informal connections and contacts Very much 23.5 20.2 12.9 23.3 Not much 65.7 71.1 78.3 60.7 DK 10.9 8.7 8.9 16.0 So-called informal rules Very much 22.4 18.0 12.7 22.5 Not much 66.2 72.6 77.8 61.0 DK 11.4 9.4 9.5 16.4 Source: public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

VI '08

RS IX '08

XI '08

VI '08

D Brcko IX '08 XI '08

21.4 66.4 12.2

11.9 76.5 11.5

23.2 73.5 3.2

17.9 77.8 4.2

13.6 81.0 5.4

31.1 55.0 13.9

27.9 72.1

23.2 76.8

16.6 70.3 13.0

10.2 77.3 12.5

22.0 74.2 3.8

19.6 75.8 4.6

15.9 78.6 5.5

28.6 57.5 13.9

25.2 74.8

23.2 76.8

27

Table XVI

0 - 5% 5 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% > 50% 10-30 % DK TOTAL

Bosniaks Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 8.3 8.6 16.5 18.6 21.6 22.5 16.0 13.7 2.2 5.2 3.3 5.6 3.4 4.9 37.6 36.2 28.7 20.9 100.0 100.0

Nov. '08 8.4 18.9 22.2 15.6 6.9 5.1 4.2 37.8 18.7 100.0

Croats Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 11.4 8.5 14.4 7.4 27.6 12.4 18.1 14.4 16.5 16.9 15.8 18.8 13.0 10.9 14.2 6.7 4.2 4.3 2.8 5.7 0.6 35.0 30.1 35.3 23.7 12.9 18.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serbs Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 12.9 12.5 14.8 16.6 23.6 13.3 15.3 13.3 18.5 13.3 10.2 10.9 4.7 4.2 5.0 7.5 1.4 6.3 9.7 3.7 5.7 28.6 23.5 29.4 20.0 31.1 25.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 36.9 30.2 7.8 13.4 23.1 26.5 16.0 19.3 56.6 1.4 14.3 9.1 9.9 3.8 0.6 1.3 7.7 17.3 33.7 65.7 20.6 1.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XVII Can you estimate how much greater your total household costs are because of indirect costs associated in dealing with official institutions (e.g. costs due to time spent on variosu procedures, ineffective implementation of the law, ineffective institutions)? (%)

0 - 5% 5 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% > 50% 10-30 % DK TOTAL

Bosniaks Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 8.2 10.0 15.0 17.9 24.8 17.4 16.0 25.9 19.6 16.8 9.7 19.2 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.6 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.4 32.9 35.5 38.8 32.8 22.7 20.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Croats Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 11.2 7.9 16.8 7.1 23.0 12.1 16.3 15.9 19.2 19.6 16.7 20.8 12.6 11.3 5.4 4.7 7.9 3.1 3.0 2.6 35.9 32.6 40.1 24.7 17.4 20.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serbs Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 16.9 13.8 18.2 12.8 21.5 18.7 12.8 16.6 14.1 10.7 8.9 8.7 12.1 3.5 5.0 1.9 4.5 6.3 3.1 8.8 23.5 25.5 22.8 23.4 30.8 27.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 42.1 19.9 31.6 7.9 30.3 40.8 16.9 22.9 21.0 1.1 13.5 6.6 7.9 4.1 0.0 2.1 1.3 5.6 18.0 36.4 27.6 22.8 1.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XVIII Looking at the performance of government institutions over the past five years, do you think they have become significantly more efficient, somewhat more efficient, not changed, somewhat less efficient, or significantly less efficient?

Bosniaks Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % Significantly more efficient 2.4 0.1 1.2 Somewhat more efficient 19.2 14.1 18.6 Unchanged 36.8 48.2 45.0 Somewhat less efficient 17.5 18.4 26.4 Significantly less efficient 6.7 5.4 3.2 DK 17.4 13.9 5.7 TOTAL 100 100.0 100.0

Croats Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 1.2 0.8 16.5 8.8 14.2 64.1 59.0 43.3 9.7 12.0 18.0 3.1 2.2 1.5 6.6 16.9 22.1 100 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Serbs Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 1.6 5.0 1.8 33.3 29.5 37.9 50.2 47.9 45.7 6.3 8.5 6.8 1.2 0.9 1.5 7.3 8.2 6.2 100 100.0 100.0

Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 2.2 1.9 9.0 42.6 52.3 31.3 30.2 24.1 6.3 100

100.0

Annual Report 2008

Can you estimate how much greater your and your family's costs are as a result of direct payments to government or official institutions in BiH, including organizations, government institutions, formal laws, rules, and their implementation (%)

Annual Report 2008

28

Table XIX To what degree to you agree with the following statement: 'I believe that the legal system will support my property and contractual rights as a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina'?

Strongly agree Basically agree Basically disagree Strongly disagree DK TOTAL

Bosniaks Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 11.6 8.0 13.6 42.7 38.6 44.1 6.3 15.3 11.0 17.7 21.0 21.6 21.7 17.1 9.6 100 100.0 100.0

Croats Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 11.7 7.6 7.8 20.2 25.9 24.2 20.5 13.6 22.1 33.8 31.0 19.7 13.7 21.9 26.2 100 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Serbs Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 14.4 4.0 10.4 51.6 51.1 46.9 8.3 9.1 12.7 14.4 18.8 22.0 11.3 17.0 7.9 100 100.0 100.0

Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 % % % 23.2 16.4 60.1 34.9 23.6 37.8 9.4 20.9 16.4 39.1 16.0 2.1 100 100.0 100.0

29

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT Table III

Compared to twelve months ago, the economic situation in BiH now is …? (%)

Exploitation of capacity (%)

Feb-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

Better 4 4 2 5 7 7 17 13 16 22 9 12 9 12 4

The same 31 39 42 51 41 39 38 40 51 34 29 35 35 35 28

Worse 66 57 56 44 53 54 45 47 33 43 62 53 55 53 68

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table II In your opinion, the economic situation in BiH in six months time will be…? (%)

Feb-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

Better 12 11 8 10 15 13 16 19 21 21 18 17 15 11 3

The same 46 52 48 36 52 60 62 54 55 52 29 47 58 52 35

Worse 42 36 44 54 33 26 21 25 23 24 62 36 26 37 62

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 FBiH Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 RS Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

Above

At

Below

2 31 5 7 7 9 6 9 8 10 10 5 2 3 32 4 7 8 11 6 11 8 12 10 4 1 29 7 13 6 29 6 3 10 9 0

42 39 51 57 47 42 49 53 42 43 43 56 53 46 42 50 59 49 42 51 54 47 42 46 61 53 35 32 54 38 38 42 44 48 24 45 21 36 58

56 29 43 35 46 48 45 38 51 48 47 39 45 51 25 45 34 43 45 43 35 45 46 44 35 46 65 39 39 50 62 58 50 35 71 52 47 55 42

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Annual Report 2008

Table I

Annual Report 2008

30

Table IV

Table V

With regard to your company’s overall operations, how would you characterize your financial status compared to the same period last year? (%)

You expect that your company's financial results in the next six months time will be… (%)

Better 23 20 31 19 35 36 38 43 62 46 50 35 28 27

Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

The same 43 49 39 43 34 38 36 36 24 34 32 41 46 44

Better

The same

Worse

Better

The same

Apr-07

55

41

4

17

Sep-07

54

38

7

BiH

Worse 34 31 29 38 28 26 26 21 14 20 17 24 26 29

Sep-05

30

52

Dec-05

25

45

31

Dec-07

27

47

26

Mar-06

39

42

19

Mar-08

49

32

18

Jun-06

55

30

15

Aug-08

46

46

9

Sep-06

45

39

15

Sep-08

31

47

22

Dec-06

49

36

15

Dec-08

18

36

46

Apr-07

60

34

6

RS

Sep-07

55

36

8

Sep-05

35

43

20

Dec-07

33

39

28

Dec-05

23

52

26

Mar-08

50

36

14

Mar-06

39

46

14

Aug-08

45

46

9

Jun-06

75

13

13

Sep-08

31

48

21

Sep-06

71

19

10

Dec-08

21

36

43

Dec-06

74

16

5

Apr-07

78

11

11

FBiH

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Worse

Sep-05

28

57

16

Sep-07

58

29

10

Dec-05

25

42

33

Dec-07

17

12

35

Mar-06

39

40

21

Mar-08

52

45

3

Jun-06

53

32

15

Aug-08

41

48

10

Sep-06

40

44

17

Sep-08

27

55

18

Dec-06

43

40

17

Dec-08

25

33

42

Table VI How would you compare your company's level of debt to the same period last year?

Higher (%) IV' 07

BiH FBiH RS

28 29 22

IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08

23 24 19

39 42 29

26 27 24

23 25 17

The same (%) IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07

34 37 31 35 41 42

46 42 62

Less (%)

35 34 31 34 48 35

46 47 42 43 47 43 52 48 41

35 25 38 28 33 17

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table VII During the past six months, your company has made a...

Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Dec-08

Profit (%) 72 65 76 77 79 81 79 79 77 78 72 63 69

N.A. (%)

IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08

Loss (%) 28 33 24 23 21 19 18 16 20 18 26 26 31

31 25 27 20 33 24 28 20 23 29 24 21

24 26 18

XII '08 IV' 07

28 27 25

1 1 0

IX '07

11 12 10

XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08

1 0 6

1 10 1 9 14

31

Table VIIIa

Annual Report 2008

To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH: Very helpful XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 2

XII IV' 07 IX State 1 Entity 2 Canton 1 Municipality 3

XII 10 9 10 14

Generally helpful IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 7 7 5 10 7 11 5 9 11 14 8 12 16 11 13 8 9 10 9 22 19 22 11 15 14 16 16 20

Neither helpful nor unhelpful XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 22 31 31 27 26 25 29 21 31 32 25 19 22 26 21 30 29 23 28 21 19 25 28 33 25 28 20 20

XII '08 26 20 13 15

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table VIIIb To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH: Generally unhelpful XII IV' 07 IX

28 Entity 31 Canton 23 Municipality 20 State

20 15 9 8

14 15 11 16

Not at all helpful

Cannot judge

XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX

XII

III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX

XII

24 27 22 15

30 23 24 28

28 29 28 29

3 0 1 0

17 17 14 10

19 26 20 14

22 21 22 23

27 26 26 28

15 13 14 15

22 21 22 22

38 34 34 30

32 24 26 30

19 19 19 23

29 28 25 24

3 4 3 4

6 6 3 3

5 2 3 3

N.A. III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX

5

2

3 2 2 3

5 6 5 4

2 3 3 1

15 15 23 15

6 5 14 5

XII III '08 VIII '08IX '08 XII '08

11 9 22 14

13 14 18 15

13 13 21 16

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table IX To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:

Customs procedures High taxes Unfair competition Corruption The performance of the courts Political instability Labour market regulation Tax administration Procedures for issuing work permits Environmental regulations Safety regulations and standards Lack of qualified staff

Very VIII '8 IX '08 19 21 50 39 48 34 46 37 47 43 36 26 14 24 23 20 39 36 17 17 16 11 19 17

XII '08 19 48 42 42 45 34 28 19 38 17 14 19

Somewhat VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 33 46 39 24 33 28 29 26 27 16 25 26 21 22 26 32 39 27 27 31 31 32 34 38 30 29 29 28 35 36 20 28 30 24 34 34

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Little VIII '8 IX '08 13 17 10 17 9 25 9 20 11 20 10 23 27 27 20 29 9 20 21 30 32 36 20 25

XII '08 25 17 16 12 16 24 21 29 20 23 31 26

Not at all VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 13 12 12 6 6 2 4 7 9 4 5 6 7 5 3 8 3 6 14 11 14 10 9 9 9 7 8 16 9 12 16 13 15 16 16 14

N.A. VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 21 6 10 5 10 6 26 15 14 11 14 9 18 6 14 6 13 5 19 13 17 11 21 7

9 10 12 10

Annual Report 2008

32

Table X To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations: Very well

Fairly well

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08

Central Bank of BiH Indirect Tax Authority Entity Tax Administrations The Judicial System European Integration Directorate FIPA Privatisation Agency Banking Agency Employment Bureaus Foreign-Trade Chamber Entity Chambers of Commerce Social Funds

34 23 14 5 3 2 7 10 2 2 5 2

45 28 20 7 5 7 8 13 11 14 13 7

24 15 11 4 7 4 1 7 3 7 9 20

Fairly poorly

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08

30 16 6 3 7 3 2 5 3 4 11 2

34 54 49 37 33 31 29 41 43 44 46 26

37 49 47 29 28 20 24 39 30 37 35 16

43 47 46 18 22 29 20 28 31 28 28 9

39 50 48 17 18 19 14 32 36 29 28 10

Very poorly

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08

3 10 16 13 8 8 14 7 15 13 17 11

3 8 13 22 9 11 21 7 14 13 18 7

7 23 25 39 26 18 28 29 34 32 31 33

4 18 25 36 20 18 22 20 24 30 27 26

N.A.

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08

3 5 7 34 8 18 23 6 14 10 10 8

0 5 7 33 9 18 22 7 20 14 12 19

6 8 13 30 11 20 25 8 16 20 20 33

6 9 17 35 10 19 28 7 17 18 19 37

IV' 07 IX

24 8 14 11 47 40 28 36 26 31 22 52

14 10 13 9 49 43 26 34 26 22 22 51

IX '08 XII '08

20 7 5 9 34 29 26 28 16 13 12 23

20 9 5 10 43 41 34 37 20 19 15 26

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XI

Table XII

To what extent do you use in your everyday operationsinformal collections and contacts, e.g. family, friends, colleagues...?

To what extent do you use in your everyday operations ''unwritten rules'', including customs, business practices, codes of behaviour, etc.?

Very Much Somewhat Little Not All No Answer

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 3 9 9 3 8 20 18 28 28 26 30 31 29 32 31 33 36 25 29 22 14 7 9 8 13

IX '08 XII '08 9 11 31 27 32 28 19 24 8 10

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Very Much Somewhat Little Not All No Answer

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 8 15 14 7 4 8 21 28 28 38 26 39 33 28 34 24 29 33 22 20 15 19 21 11 16 9 9 12 20 8

XII '08 9 37 26 17 12

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XIII

Table XIV

How much does the current institutional framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the way in which public administration is organised and functions, affect your business activities in terms of financial costs?

How much does the current institutional framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the way in which public administration is organised and functions, affect your business activities in terms time spent (lengthy and demanding procedures and activities...)

Much more than necessary Somewhat more than necessary About right Somewhat less than necessary Significantly less than necessary No answer

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 25 36 42 32 42 39 39 28 22 24 24 24 31 24 7 7 5 14 10 11 10 7 5 6 7 2 3 2 7 26

9 22

4 19

6 17

3 18

4 12

7 18

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Much more than necessary Somewhat more than necessary About right Somewhat less than necessary Significantly less than necessary No answer

IV' 07 33 18 10 6 5 28

IX '07 38 17 9 4 6 26

XII '07 37 30 6 4 4 19

III '08 VIII '08 IX' 08 36 42 44 26 21 19 7 9 16 6 5 5 4 4 20 3 12

XII '08 40 18 11 3 7 21

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

33

Table XVI

Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how much higher your total costs are because of direct cash payments made to government

Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how much higher your total costs are because of indirect payments caused by government

III '08 0-5 % 5-10 % 10-20 % 20-30 % 30-40 % 40-50 % 50-60 % > 60 % n.a.

III '08 BIH FBIH RS 12 9 17 20 22 17 25 27 21 8 5 14 4 4 3 4 5 0 3 3 3 1 1 0 23 23 24

IX '08 BIH FBIH 13 13 29 35 22 20 13 14 5 4 1 3 4 1 1 13 9

RS 14 9 32 5 3 5

27

BIH 14 20 28 13 4 0 4 5 13

XII '08 FBIH 17 21 26 14 4 0 4 7 7

RS 13 17 29 8 4 0 4 0 25

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

0-5 % 5-10 % 10-20 % 20-30 % 30-40 % 40-50 % 50-60 % > 60 % n.a.

III '08 BIH FBIH RS 19 19 21 22 23 21 17 14 24 7 8 3 2 3 0 1 1 0 6 5 7 3 4 0 23 23 24

IX '08 BIH FBIH RS 10 13 27 27 23 26 33 5 9 7 18 4 4 5 7 4 18 1 1 3 1 9 13 10 23

XII '08 BIH FBIH RS 15 18 13 25 21 29 21 24 13 10 10 13 3 4 0 3 3 4 2 3 0 7 6 8 14 13 21

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XVII How has the performance of the government institutions important for your business changed over the past five years?

BIH Significantly deteriorated Moderately deteriorated The same Moderately improved Significantly improved Don't know FBiH Significantly deteriorated Moderately deteriorated The same Moderately improved Significantly improved Don't know RS Significantly deteriorated Moderately deteriorated The same Moderately improved Significantly improved Don't know

State level III '08 14 18 37 13 6 13 101

Entity level III '08 7 21 34 22 3 13 100

State level IX '08 12 14 42 21 1 10

Entity level IX '08 9 13 43 25 1 9

State level XII '08 12 21 37 21 10

Entity level XII '08 8 18 36 30 1 8

12 20 36 14 7 11 100

5 22 35 23 3 12 100

13 17 42 17

9 14 44 22

14 24 35 22

8 21 31 35

12

10

6

6

17 14 38 10 3 17

10 21 31 21 3 14

9 5 41 36 5 5

9 9 36 36 5 5

4 21 33 21

4 13 42 25 4 13

21

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XVIII To what extent do you agree with the statement, "I am convinced the legal system will support my ownership and and contractual rights in business disputes"?

Strongly disagree Basically disagree Neither agree nor disagree Basically agree Strongly agree NA

III '08 21 14 40 17 7 2 101

BIH IX '08 25 17 37 15 6 100

XII '08

III '08 16 16 43 16 7 1 99

FBIH IX '08 26 14 40 14 5 99

XII '08

III '08 34 7 31 17 7 3 99

RS IX '08 18 27 27 18 9 99

XII '08

Annual Report 2008

Table XV

Annual Report 2008

34

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

The Social Stability Index

Table Ia Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)

June 08.

No income < 100 KM 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 601 - 700 701 - 800 801 - 900 901 - 1000 1001 - 1100 1101 - 1200 1201 - 1300 1301 - 1400 1401 - 1500 1501 - 1600 1601 - 1700 1701 - 1800 1801-1900 1901 - 2000 > 2000 KM/DM NA

3.5 1.1 16.7 14.7 12.1 7.8 6.0 5.0 4.6 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.4

FBiH Sept 08.

1.0 1.0 2.2 15.4 15.8 11.7 9.5 6.7 5.5 5.9 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.2

Nov 08.

June 08.

2.4 1.3 10.1 14.4 12.2 10.8 8.3 5.9 5.7 3.3 1.3 0.2 0.5

7.6 5.6 12.6 9.8 11.4 8.8 8.1 4.3 2.5 2.4 1.6 0.3 0.5

23.7 100.0

24.6 100.0

RS Sept 08.

0.8 5.6 6.7 15.4 17.7 13.2 6.7 4.6 2.3 2.7 1.6

Nov 08.

June 08.

4.5 3.1 16.0 14.4 11.4 10.1 7.4 4.4 2.2 2.0 0.4

17.1 6.9 25.4 8.6 9.0 2.9 7.3 2.2

24.0 100.0

20.8 100.0

Brcko District Sept 08.

4.3 7.9 13.6 38.4 19.0 3.8 4.0 4.1

Nov 08.

9.2 5.3 27.8 24.2 14.1 5.9 1.0

0.5

0.3 0.3

0.3

25.8 100.0

20.4 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

22.1 100.0

4.4 100.0

12.6 100.0

35

Table Ib

June 08.

No income < 100 KM 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 SUBTOTAL to 500 1501 - 1600 1601 - 1700 1701 - 1800 1801-1900 1901 - 2000 More than 2000 KM/DM SUBTOTAL >1500

3.5 1.1 16.7 14.7 12.1 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FBiH Sept 08.

1.0 1.0 2.2 15.4 15.8 11.7 47.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Nov 08.

June 08.

2.4 1.3 10.1 14.4 12.2 40.3 0.0

7.6 5.6 12.6 9.8 11.4 47.0 0.0

RS Sept 08.

0.8 5.6 6.7 15.4 17.7 13.2 59.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nov 08.

June 08.

4.5 3.1 16.0 14.4 11.4 49.5 0.0

17.1 6.9 25.4 8.6 9.0 66.9 0.0

Brcko District Sept 08.

4.3 7.9 13.6 38.4 19.0 3.8 86.9 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nov 08.

9.2 5.3 27.8 24.2 14.1 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table II Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %) June 08.

No income less than 100 KM 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 SUBTOTAL to 500

5.4 3.0 15.3 12.6 11.7 48.1

Sept 08.

1.0 3.0 4.2 15.9 16.6 12.2 52.9

Nov 08.

3.4 2.1 12.8 14.6 11.9 44.9

Table II Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %) Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500 Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500

Bosniak Majority areas June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.7 3.9 1.3 2.6 1.3 2.0 1.2 19.0 17.2 11.4 17.3 18.8 16.1 14.0 12.2 13.8 55.5 52.3 45.1 Minority sample in BMA June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

2.0 1.4 2.0 4.3 0.6 2.0 6.2 21.3 15.4 29.8 24.5 24.5 17.5 9.0 10.6 20.0 56.9 56.5 77.8

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Croat Majority areas June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

2.1 2.1 0.1 1.5 0.7 2.8 1.6 8.6 8.8 5.0 5.8 5.1 7.6 5.2 10.1 5.8 22.4 29.1 21.6 Minority sample in CMA June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

1.0 1.8 2.6 1.8 1.9 2.5 22.5 11.4 15.4 27.2 10.8 9.4 10.3 14.4 15.7 63.5 39.3 45.6

Serb Majority areas June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.8 7.6 5.6 4.5 5.6 6.7 3.1 12.6 15.4 16.0 9.8 17.7 14.4 11.4 13.2 11.4 47.0 59.4 49.5 Minority sample in SMA June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.9 9.0 5.2 4.6 11.1 11.8 3.8 27.3 25.9 21.6 8.7 16.8 25.9 4.6 9.5 10.9 60.7 70.1 66.8

Annual Report 2008

Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)

Annual Report 2008

36

Table III Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %) Income in KM

Urban Rural Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.1 1.7 1.5 2.0 4.2 4.4 3.0 1.3 5.2 2.7 10.9 9.0 19.6 15.7 14.7 13.0 18.0 15.9 12.0 12.2 12.3 11.7 42.1 37.5 60.9 50.3

No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 SUBTOTAL TO 500

Male Sept 08. Nov 08.

1.6 1.9 2.8 4.2 1.9 16.5 11.5 16.1 15.5 11.5 12.6 51.9 44.3

BiH Female Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.4 4.0 3.9 4.3 2.3 15.2 14.1 17.1 13.9 12.8 11.3 53.8 45.4

18-35 Sept 08. Nov 08.

0.1 1.1 3.3 1.4 0.9 5.8 2.5 9.8 10.3 13.5 12.4 31.7 29.5

36-50 Sept 08. Nov 08.

2.0 3.4 7.6 17.6 14.8 45.4

2.9 0.5 9.9 13.9 14.2 41.3

51+ Sept 08. Nov 08.

2.4 5.4 3.8 7.4 4.4 30.2 25.5 22.6 19.6 9.4 9.9 77.3 63.1

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IV Over past year, household economic status has (in %)?

BiH Survey TOTAL BETTER STAY THE SAME TOTAL WORSE DK/NA Total

Sept 08.

15.51 57.10 27.05 0.35 100.00

FBiH Nov 08.

10.76 53.78 34.46 0.99 100.00

Sept 08.

14.61 56.75 28.46 0.18 100.00

RS Nov 08.

10.24 51.95 36.73 1.09 100.00

Sept 08.

17.52 59.69 22.17 0.61 100.00

Brcko Distrikt Nov 08.

9.39 58.24 31.63 0.74 100.00

Sept 08.

2.58 18.48 78.94 100.00

Nov 08.

43.77 28.00 25.41 2.82 100.00

Bosniak maj. areas Nov 08.

8.7 49.7 40.5 1.1 100.0

Croat maj. areas Nov 08.

16.3 60.8 22.0 0.9 100.0

Serb maj. areas Nov 08.

9.4 58.2 31.6 0.7 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table V Expect the economic situation over the next year to...(in %) Bosniak Majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

10.0 0.1 32.8 39.6 41.4 38.9 7.5 4.0 0.5 13.3 7.9 4.1 100.0 100.0 42.8 39.7 41.4 38.9 7.9 17.2 7.9 4.1 100.0 100.0

Deteriorate significantly Deteriorate somewhat Stay the same Improve somewhat Improve significantly DK/NA Total TOTAL DETERIORATE Stay the same TOTAL IMPROVE DK/NA Total

Croat Majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

1.5 5.2 13.0 14.9 69.6 53.2 9.7 22.0 1.2 6.3 3.4 100.0 100.0 14.5 20.1 69.6 53.2 9.7 23.2 6.3 3.4 100.0 100.0

Serb Majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

2.8 3.7 19.4 23.7 43.7 48.8 25.4 19.1 1.3 7.6 4.7 100.0 100.0 22.1 27.3 43.9 48.8 26.6 19.1 7.5 4.7 100.0 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VI Expect further privatization to affect their household's economic statusâ&#x20AC;Ś.

FBiH Quarter TOTAL NEGATIVE TOTAL POSITIVE DK/NA Total

Sept 08.

59.3 13.6 27.1 100.0

RS Nov 08.

66.4 10.1 23.5 100.0

Sept 08.

58.0 13.7 28.3 100.0

Brcko Distrikt Nov 08.

53.5 11.3 35.2 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Sept 08.

32.0 13.6 54.4 100.0

Nov 08.

33.6 40.1 26.3 100.0

Bosniak majority areas Sept 08. Nov 08.

59.0 68.8 11.2 7.9 29.8 23.3 100.0 100.0

Croat majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

60.4 56.9 22.3 18.9 17.3 24.3 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

58.0 53.5 13.7 11.3 28.3 35.2 100.0 100.0

37

Table VII

FBiH RS Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

13.42 14.22 13.32 8.89 21.05 18.36 26.50 25.64 58.74 62.78 54.99 60.55 6.80 4.64 5.19 4.91 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Quarter TOTAL FALL TOTAL RISE NO CHANGE DK/NA Total

BMA CMA SMA 18-35 36-50 Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

13.0 13.6 15.0 16.6 13.3 8.9 12.6 13.4 11.9 9.0 16.8 14.6 35.9 33.3 26.5 25.6 27.5 24.1 24.2 18.6 62.8 67.7 44.6 43.4 55.0 60.6 53.1 57.2 57.9 68.2 7.5 4.1 4.5 6.8 5.2 4.9 6.7 5.3 6.0 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

51+ Sept 08. Nov 08.

14.5 12.3 17.4 19.4 62.8 64.1 5.3 4.2 100.0 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VIII Will prices rise or fall over next six months (%)

TOTAL FALL TOTAL RISE No change DK/NA TotaL

FBiH Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

3.93 2.40 6.24 7.40 87.05 76.32 74.28 78.08 5.13 15.01 13.70 9.31 3.89 6.27 5.78 5.22 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

RS Mar. 08. June 08.

4.02 2.46 80.62 89.28 11.97 5.30 3.39 2.96 100.0 100.0

Sept 08.

13.44 71.59 10.56 4.41 100.0

Nov 08.

8.88 74.92 11.67 4.53 100.0

Mar. 08.

38.53 53.42 8.05 100.0

Brcko District June 08.

Sept 08.

4.18 38.41 59.62 10.76 33.33 46.01 2.87 4.83 100.0 100.0

Nov 08.

35.56 0.43 61.96 2.05 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IX Expect to be able to save over coming year (%) FBiH Sept 08.

7.13 84.95 7.92 100.00

Yes No DK/NA Total

RS Nov 08.

6.33 88.19 5.47 100.00

Sept 08.

9.70 85.43 4.88 100.00

Nov 08.

7.50 89.10 3.40 100.00

Brcko District Sept 08. Nov 08.

2.05 0.43 94.69 99.57 3.26 100.00 100.00

18-35 Sept 08. Nov 08.

12.98 7.16 78.56 87.35 8.46 5.49 100.00 100.00

36-50 Sept 08.

Nov 08.

8.35 7.76 83.95 87.77 7.70 4.47 100.00 100.00

51+ Sept 08.

3.12 92.64 4.24 100.00

Nov 08.

5.3 91.1 3.6 100.0

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table X Think they might lose their job during next three months (%) FBiH Sept 08.

14.97

RS Nov 08.

15.41

Sept 08.

8.98

Nov 08.

22.28

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Brcko District Sept 08.

Nov 08.

11.39

18-35 Sept 08.

13.34

36-50 Nov 08.

22.62

Sept 08.

10.20

Nov 08.

14.46

Sept 08.

14.65

51+ Nov 08.

12.63

Annual Report 2008

What change do you expect in your household income, if any, over the next 6 months (%)?

Annual Report 2008

38

Table XI Would support public protests, strikes, and demonstrations regarding (%) FBiH Survey

RS

Brcko District

Urban

Rural

18-35 36-50 51+

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08.Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

Job loss Inability to find a job Entity government policy Low salaries/pensions Discrimination/to protect ethnic and civil rights Behaviour of the international community Return of property

Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08.

59.8 58.2 53.5 59.2

53.5 50.9 45.0 51.9

61.3 58.2 51.6 60.8

48.0 46.8 44.3 50.3

45.6 44.8 40.2 45.4

35.1 35.3 32.5 37.7

24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5

33.4 33.4 27.6 45.2

33.7 31.6 2.9 38.8

56.5 54.4 50.9 57.7

55.1 52.9 45.7 54.5

49.7 48.4 42.9 50.9

52.9 51.9 48.0 52.9

46.0 44.5 40.4 45.2

50.9 48.8 43.0 51.6

60.4 59.1 51.4 58.4

54.7 51.2 45.3 53.3

37.1 36.1 32.7 42.6

56.9

50.8

56.4

50.5

47.3

39.0

24.5

30.6

5.5

54.8 53.7

47.1

52.8

45.4

49.3

56.1

53.0 37.3

51.1 59.6

43.2 50.3

49.8 54.6

48.0 49.6

43.8 46.9

39.9 41.9

24.5 24.5

25.2 28.3

4.2 33.1

49.8 46.0 56.0 52.2

43.3 46.4

49.0 54.1

40.8 45.7

46.0 51.2

50.4 55.8

49.6 35.7 50.9 41.1

36-50 45.61 39.38

51+ 17.41 17.57

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XII Would leave BiH if they could (%)

Sept 08.

Nov 08.

BiH 41.58 40.36

FBiH 48.31 40.08

RS 31.52 41.56

18-35 64.45 63.29

Source: Entity Statistical Offices

Table XIII Trends for average salaries and the Consumer Price Index for the RS and the FBiH (December 07. - November 08.)

RS Month 12/07 Average salary 628.00 Consumer price index100.80 FBiH Month 12/07 Average salary 696.74 Consumer price index -

01/08 584.00 101.50

02/08 03/08 724.00 731.00 100.30 100.90

04/08 05/08 751.00 758.00 99.30 100.80

06/08 768.00 100.90

07/08 765.00 100.00

08/08 762.00 100.20

09/08 783.00 100.00

10/08 783.00 100.70

11/08 790.00 99.40

Change 10/08 - 12/07 124.68 104,2*

01/08 709.84 101.26

02/08 03/08 713.20 723.66 100.42 100.91

04/08 05/08 735.11 751.82 99.74 100.91

06/08 740.60 100.95

07/08 763.51 100.11

08/07 759.11 99.60

09/08 773.44 100.14

10/08 780.51 100.76

11/08 99.37

Change 10/08 - 12/07 112.02 104,71*

Source: Entity Statistics Offices

39

Table XV

Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (November 2008)

Average household spending by item (as % of total)

RS

Total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothes and shoes Accommodation, water and other utilities Furniture, furnishings, and regular maintainance Healthcare Transport Communications Recreation and culture Education Restaurants and hotels Other goods and services

FBiH

XI 2008/ X 2008 99.40 99.80 100.00 100.00

XI 2008/ XI 2007 105.10 107.30 101.70 98.10

XI 2008/ X 2008 99.37 99.63 100.09 99.64

XI 2008 / XI 2007 105.95 109.38 101.40 96.47

100.30

107.70

101.69

112.14

100.10 100.10 94.70 102.80 100.00 100.00 100.20 100.00

102.80 100.80 104.30 106.60 104.90 101.10 105.60 103.60

100.24 100.07 94.34 99.97 99.95 100.60 101.04 100.02

103.33 99.45 101.72 104.80 106.47 97.96 107.75 104.38

Entity Statistics Offices

FBiH Quarter

RS

Mar. 08.June 08.Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

FOOD CLOTHING/SHOES TOBACCO HYGIENE FUEL AND CAR MAINTENANCE PUBLIC TRANSPORT CHILDCARE REPAYMENTS HOUSE REPAIRS MEDICAL EXPENSES RECREATION EDUCATION (CHILDREN) ELECTRICITY WATER TELEPHONE GAS

32.9 28.2 32.9 40.2 5.5 5.3 6.7 5.5 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.0 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.0

30.5 5.7 5.3 6.1

30.6 6.0 5.8 7.0

29.1 7.7 5.7 6.5

36.7 6.8 3.8 6.4

6.1

5.8

5.3

5.5

6.1

6.8

6.1

6.2

2.3 1.1 4.4 3.4

2.3 1.6 5.0 5.8

2.9 1.5 4.9 3.2

1.4 0.2 5.9 1.9

1.5 0.6 4.2 2.1

2.6 0.7 3.8 3.4

2.2 0.8 4.4 3.2

1.6 0.1 3.7 2.4

7.0 3.9

6.7 4.3

5.9 3.5

5.0 2.4

8.4 3.0

7.3 4.3

6.5 3.5

4.9 2.8

4.0 8.8 3.3 4.9 1.5 100.0

4.4 8.5 3.8 5.8 1.7 100.0

5.4 7.3 3.1 4.9 1.4 100.0

3.0 6.3 2.0 4.3 0.2 93.6

4.3 2.9 4.7 3.4 12.4 9.5 9.5 7.8 2.6 2.7 3.0 1.5 6.6 5.8 6.0 4.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XVI Households with durable consumer goods (in %)

Telephones Mobile phones Dial up internet access Car

FBiH

RS

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

81.55 66.80 18.05 51.59

72.22 67.40 13.16 51.52

78.09 68.10 19.58 48.33

83.22 74.27 20.78 53.08

72.44 68.53 12.11 51.47

71.41 65.23 14.22 54.59

Source: ALDI, BiH and entity consolidated budgets, Eurostat, IMF

Table XVII Self-description of household economic status(%) BiH Barely surviving Well below average Below average TOTAL below average

Sept 08.

9.5 14.0 19.7 43.2

Nov 08.

8.1 11.4 24.3 43.8

FBiH RS Sept 08.

Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

7.7 5.1 11.7 11.5 12.0 9.2 15.4 14.3 17.5 24.4 23.1 24.1 37.2 38.7 50.2 49.9

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Brcko District Sept 08. Nov 08.

13.7 25.7 44.4 17.3 19.7 24.4 77.8 67.4

Urban Nov 08.

5.9 10.9 23.3 40.0

Rural BosniakMA Croat MA Nov 08. Nov 08.

Nov 08.

9.7 5.1 5.1 11.8 9.4 8.6 25.0 26.3 17.0 46.6 40.7 30.7

Serb MA Nov 08.

11.5 14.3 24.1 49.9

Annual Report 2008

Table XIV

Annual Report 2008

40

SOCIAL INCLUSION Table I Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%)

Total bad Neither good nor bad Total good NA/DK Total

Total bad Neither good nor bad Total good NA/DK Total

Bosniak majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

84,9 77,6 12,3 21,3 1,6 0,2 1,2 0,9 100,0 100,0 Minority population in BMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

89,1 71,6 4,9 25,2 2,4 6,1 0,8 100,0 100,0

Croat majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

68,0 35,0 23,8 46,8 7,0 16,6 1,2 1,6 100,0 100,0 Minority population in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

50,8 47,3 47,1 41,4 2,0 11,2 0,2 100,0 100,0

Serb majority areas Nov 07.

Nov 08.

72,1 62,3 23,3 35,4 2,6 0,6 2,0 1,6 100,0 100,0 Minority population in SMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

73,8 55,4 24,4 41,5 1,8 3,1 100,0

100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table Ia Assessment of economic situation in BiH by minority situation on each of the ethnic majority areas (%)

Total bad Neither good nor bad Total good NA/DK Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 08.

Sep 08.

Nov 08.

71.8 72.0 71.6 21.2 20.3 25.2 6.4 2.4 0.6 7.7 0.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Croat majority areas Jun. 08.

Sep 08.

Nov 08.

49.6 58.7 47.3 33.3 38.8 41.4 17.1 1.5 11.2 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Sep 08.

Nov 08.

64.0 55.4 31.7 41.5 1.8 3.1 2.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Jun. 08.

73.2 24.3 2.5

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table II Expect prices over next six months toâ&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

6,1 90,0 1,8 2,1 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

6,0 78,8 10,2 5,1 100,0

Nov 07.

7,8 87,9 3,1 1,3 100,0

Nov 08.

2,0 88,4 8,9 0,8 100,0

Nov 07.

3,8 87,2 5,6 3,4 100,0

Minority in BMA Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

3,7 92,5 3,9 100,0

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

13,0 75,4 5,9 5,7 100,0

Nov 07.

7,5 83,9 6,6 2,0 100,0

Nov 08.

22,9 65,5 8,5 3,1 100,0

Nov 07.

2,5 85,7 6,3 5,5 100,0

Minority in CMA

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 08.

8,9 74,9 11,7 4,5 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

13,6 75,4 5,7 5,3 100,0

41

Table III

Majority in BMA Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

19,8 15,1 56,0 9,2 100,0

Fall Rise Stay the same NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

8,1 5,3 72,7 13,9 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

13,6 14,6 67,7 4,1 100,0

Nov 07.

16,3 20,1 58,9 4,7 100,0

Nov 08.

11,7 3,8 80,0 4,5 100,0

Nov 07.

12,8 25,8 48,3 13,1 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

16,6 33,3 43,4 6,8 100,0

Nov 07.

14,4 20,5 58,7 6,3 100,0

Nov 08.

6,2 37,4 55,2 1,2 100,0

Nov 07.

5,3 10,5 83,3 0,9 100,0

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

8,9 25,6 60,6 4,9 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

10,0 19,6 61,8 8,7 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IIIa Expect household income over next six months to …. (%)

Total fall Total increase No change NZ/BO Total

Bosniak majority areas Sept 08.

Nov 08.

13.0 13.6 16.8 14.6 62.8 67.7 7.5 4.1 100.0 100.0

Croat majority areas Sept 08.

15.0 35.9 44.6 4.5 100.0

Nov 08.

16.6 33.3 43.4 6.8 100.0

Serb majority areas Sept 08.

13.3 26.5 55.0 5.2 100.0

Nov 08.

8.9 25.6 60.6 4.9 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IV Expect to save over next half year (%) Majority in BMA Yes No NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

11,3 83,8 4,8 100,0

Yes No NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

1,7 92,7 5,6 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

4,1 91,5 4,3 100,0

Nov 07.

14,0 79,0 7,1 100,0

Nov 08.

4,2 92,6 3,2 100,0

Nov 07.

3,0 89,4 7,6 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

15,1 75,1 9,9 100,0

Nov 07.

12,8 85,1 2,2 100,0

Nov 08.

8,5 89,2 2,3 100,0

Nov 07.

5,3 92,2 2,5 100,0

Minority in CMA

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 08.

7,5 89,1 3,4 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

8,8 89,2 2,0 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Expect household income over next six months to …. (%)

Annual Report 2008

42

Table V Think political situation in BiH isâ&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA Deteriorating Improving NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

79,4 15,1 5,5 100,0

Deteriorating Improving NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

90,7 4,7 4,6 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

79,7 13,5 6,8 100,0

Nov 07.

80,2 11,5 8,3 100,0

Nov 08.

82,1 14,7 3,1 100,0

Nov 07.

60,3 19,1 20,6 100,0

Minority in BMA

Majority in SMA Nov 08.

52,9 24,7 22,4 100,0

Nov 07.

82,4 12,1 5,5 100,0

Nov 08.

47,4 48,2 4,4 100,0

Nov 07.

82,5 9,5 8,1 100,0

Minority in CMA

Nov 08.

50,3 34,6 15,1 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 08.

41,2 51,7 7,1 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table Va Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Nov. Sept.

Jun. Mar.

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 79.7 82.1 57.2 60.6 54.4 55.6 78.8 88.3

Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 52.9 47.4 61.5 64.5 57.5 71.5 57.7 65.7

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 50.3 41.2 42.5 43.2 42.5 39.2 57.3 37.6

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VI Pride in ethnic identity (%) Majority in BMA Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

86,4 10,4 2,1

Majority in CMA Nov 08.

84,7 8,6 3,7 0,3 1,1 1,1 0,5 100,0

1,2

100,0

Nov 08.

80,7 10,2 2,3 0,5 6,0

0,1 100,0

0,3 100,0

Minority in BMA Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

82,8 8,0 1,0 5,0 2,0 1,3 100,0

Majority in SMA

Nov 07.

81,4 13,6 2,7 0,9 1,3

Nov 07.

82,0 12,7 3,3 2,0

100,0

Minority in CMA Nov 08.

90,9 4,9 2,7 0,7 0,8 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Nov 07.

72,8 4,5 6,0 0,6 13,8 0,5 1,8 100,0

Nov 08.

79,3 13,7 2,5 1,9 2,2 0,2 0,2 100,0 Minority in SMA

Nov 08.

87,9 3,1 1,0

Nov 07.

74,1 14,6

Nov 08.

87,8 5,0

6,0

10,3

6,4

2,1 100,0

0,9 100,0

0,7 100,0

43

Table VII

Majority in BMA Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

86,3 9,8 2,1 0,5 1,2

Nov 08.

80,7 11,2 5,4 0,4 0,8 0,9 0,6 100,0

0,2 100,0 Minority in BMA

Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

78,4 8,0 1,0 4,2 2,0 2,6 3,9 100,0

Nov 08.

87,0 8,7 2,7

0,8 0,8 100,0

Majority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

31,6 32,5 27,5 33,8 12,7 13,8 10,7 4,7 12,6 14,0 1,5 0,3 3,5 0,9 100,0 100,0 Minority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

49,9 75,4 9,6 12,5 9,5 3,0 0,6 1,1 27,7 6,7 0,5 2,3 1,4 100,0 100,0

Majority in SMA Nov 07.

16,4 21,8 19,0 21,6 20,3

Nov 08.

23,7 20,1 15,7 20,8 17,7 1,2 0,9 100,0

1,0 100,0 Minority in SMA Nov 07.

64,2 23,6 0,9 10,4

Nov 08.

72,9 9,8 1,1 5,3 10,2

0,9 100,0

0,7 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VIII Thinks High Representative's powers should beâ&#x20AC;Ś. (%) Majority in BMA Reduced Increased Left as they are NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

13,1 55,8 25,0 6,2 100,0

Reduced Increased Left as they are NA/DK Total

Nov 07.

26,8 35,5 24,9 12,9 100,0

Nov 08.

10,9 41,9 40,0 7,2 100,0 Minority in BMA Nov 08.

12,8 26,9 56,4 3,9 100,0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Majority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

46,8 28,9 22,0 18,9 22,9 31,9 8,3 20,2 100,0 100,0 Minority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

17,3 12,0 33,7 30,5 22,1 54,2 26,9 3,4 100,0 100,0

Majority in SMA Nov 07.

85,1 3,9 7,4 3,6 100,0

Nov 08.

71,6 2,9 19,1 6,4 100,0 Minority in SMA

Nov 07.

27,0 24,2 45,4 3,5 100,0

Nov 08.

17,6 28,2 42,2 12,0 100,0

Annual Report 2008

Pride in being a citizen of BiH (%)

Annual Report 2008

44

Table IX Possession of consumer durables Majority in BMA Telephone Mobile phone Car

Nov 07.

83.3 64.3 47.9

Telephone Mobile phone Car

Nov 07.

84.5 60.5 28.3

Majority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

75.1 73.4 61.2 73.1 61.4 68.2 Majority in CMA Nov 07.

Nov 08.

76.5 62.5 56.3 53.1 54.3 36.9

Nov 08.

85.7 74.6 49.2 Majority in BMA Nov 08.

80.5 47.6 31.3

Majority in SMA Nov 07.

63.8 64.9 48.7

Nov 08.

71.4 65.2 54.6 Majority in SMA

Nov 07.

63.8 64.9 48.7

Nov 08.

51.2 62.2 24.5

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table X Believe that legal system will support them in the pursuit of their contractual and property rights (%)

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree NA/DK Total

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 13.63 17.27 44.12 16.99 11.04 23.68 21.61 36.47 9.60 5.59 100.00 100.00

Croat majority areas Majority sample 7.81 24.21 22.11 19.66 26.21 100.00

Minority sample 19.25 21.63 17.35 18.47 23.30 100.00

Serb majority areas Majority sample 10.42 46.87 12.75 22.02 7.93 100.00

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table XI Self-description of household status (%) Urban Total below average

Mar. 08.

44.1

Jun. 08.

38.0

Rural Sept 08.

38.5

Nov 08.

40.0

Mar. 08.

53.1

Jun. 08.

42.8

Sept 08.

46.7

Nov 08.

46.6

Sept 08.

9.7 17.8 19.3 46.7

Nov 08..

9.7 11.8 25.0 46.6

Source: Opinion polls conducted by Prism Research for the UNDP Early Warning Systems Project

Table XIa Self-description of household status (%) Urban Barely surviving Well below average Below average Total Below Average

Mar. 08.

10.4 11.0 22.7 44.1

Jun. 08.

9.3 9.7 18.9 38.0

Rural Sept 08.

9.1 9.0 20.4 38.5

Nov 08.

5.9 10.9 23.3 40.0

Mar. 08.

15.4 16.6 21.1 53.1

Source: Opinion polls conducted by Prism Research for the UNDP Early Warning Systems Project

Jun. 08.

10.6 14.4 17.8 42.8

Minority sample 23.88 42.32 6.27 15.52 12.02 100.00

45

Table XII

Annual Report 2008

Would emigrate if they could (%) - Sept 08/Nov 08

Sept 08.

Nov 08.

BiH 41.58 40.36

FBiH 48.31 40.08

RS 31.52 41.56

18-35 64.45 63.29

36-50 45.61 39.38

51+ 17.41 17.57

Source: Opinion polls conducted by Prism Research for the UNDP Early Warning Systems Project

Table XIII Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %) Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500 Income in KM Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500

March 08.

2.7 1.6 8.3 9.6 9.2 9.8 41.3 March 08.

3.7 6.9 17.6 6.8 9.7 11.4 56.2

Bosniak Majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

0.7 3.9 1.3 1.3 2.0 19.0 17.2 17.3 18.8 14.0 12.2 55.5 52.3 Bosniak Majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

2.0 1.4 2.0 0.6 2.0 21.3 15.4 24.5 24.5 9.0 10.6 56.9 56.5

Nov 08. March 08.

0.5 2.6 3.9 1.2 6.0 11.4 5.6 16.1 6.0 13.8 4.0 45.1 25.9 Nov 08. March 08.

0.5 4.3 0.9 6.2 5.0 29.8 4.2 17.5 5.6 20.0 6.0 77.8 22.1

Croat Majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

2.1 2.1 0.1 1.5 0.7 2.8 1.6 8.6 8.8 5.0 5.8 5.1 7.6 5.2 10.1 5.8 22.4 29.1 21.6 Croat Majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

Nov 08.

1.0 1.8 2.6 1.8 1.9 2.5 22.5 11.4 15.4 27.2 10.8 9.4 10.3 14.4 15.7 63.5 39.3 45.6

Source: Opinion polls conducted by Prism Research for the UNDP Early Warning Systems Project

Serb Majority areas June 08. Sept 08.

0.8 7.6 5.6 5.6 6.7 12.6 15.4 9.8 17.7 11.4 13.2 47.0 59.4 Serb Majority areas March 08.

June 08. Sept 08.

10.1 0.9 9.6 9.0 5.2 7.7 11.1 11.8 23.2 27.3 25.9 8.2 8.7 16.8 8.5 4.6 9.5 67.3 60.7 70.1 March 08.

4.3 5.2 9.8 9.3 9.9 9.9 48.3

Nov 08.

4.5 3.1 16.0 14.4 11.4 49.5 Nov 08.

4.6 3.8 21.6 25.9 10.9 66.8

Annual Report 2008

46

ETHNIC RELATIONS The Inter-ethnic Stability Index

Table Ia Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during the past year solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?

Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

No - never Yes - once Yes - more than once Yes - frequently DK/NA TOTAL

% 88.7 5.8 3.1 1.8 0.6 100.0

% 93.6 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.8 100.0

% 94.7 1.0 1.8 0.6 2.0 100.0

% % 96.0 96.5 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 100.0 100.0

% 95.1 1.5 1.1 1.8 0.5 100.0

% 96.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 100.0

% 94.5 1.2 1.6 1.7 0.9 100.0

% % 91.8 94.8 4.0 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.4 1.2 100.0 100.0

% 94.5 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.6 100.0

% 94.7 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.5 100.0

% 94.5 3.1 1.5 0.7 0.2 100.0

% 94.1 1.4 0.9 2.6 0.9 100.0

% 97.2 0.7 1.0 0.1 1.0 100.0

% 95.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Ib Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during the past year solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?

Age 36 - 50

18 - 35 Nov 2007

No - never Yes - once Yes - more than once Yes - frequently DK/NA TOTAL

% 92.2 4.1 2.5 1.0 0.2 100.0

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

% 94.7 1.3 0.2 2.6 1.1 100.0

% 94.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 2.6 100.0

Nov 2008

Nov 2007

% 94.6 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.1 100.0

% 93.7 4.1 1.8 0.4

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

100.0

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

% 94.1 1.5 1.2 2.5 0.6 100.0

% 96.4 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.2 100.0

51 + Nov 2008

Nov 2007

% 94.6 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.4 100.0

% 93.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 0.6 100.0

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

% 94.8 1.5 2.1 0.9 0.7 100.0

% 96.6 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.2 100.0

Nov 2008

% 96.0 1.5 1.3 0.4 0.7 100.0

47

Table Ic

Population No - never Yes - once Yes - more than once Yes - frequently DK/NA TOTAL

Bosniak MA Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 93.5 91.9 97.0 92.0 1.2 3.2 2.0 1.4 3.1 0.4 2.0 2.6 0.9 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat MA Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 93.2 95.5 96.2 88.8 86.1 86.0 94.0 89.9 1.9 2.8 7.5 3.4 11.3 2.6 5.8 2.3 1.2 1.9 6.3 0.8 1.0 2.7 1.8 3.2 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.3 3.5 1.9 2.1 0.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb MA Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 95.3 91.2 97.5 97.5 1.4 5.6 1.0 1.8 1.4 2.1 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 97.5 95.8 0.6 0.6 1.7 0.7 2.0 0.5 0.5 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIa To what degree you agree or disagree that prewar residents of your municipality who are not of the majority ethnicity should return to their homes? (%) Gender Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

12.6 83.4 4.0 100.0

10.8 85.4 3.9 100.0

12.6 83.0 4.4 100.0

6.2 11.8 90.5 84.9 3.3 3.3 100.0 100.0

11.0 85.2 3.8 100.0

11.6 85.0 3.4 100.0

9.0 87.9 3.1 100.0

12.5 13.1 85.6 84.7 1.9 2.2 100.0 100.0

12.6 83.0 4.4 100.0

8.8 88.1 3.2 100.0

11.8 83.0 5.2 100.0

8.8 85.8 5.3 100.0

11.5 85.2 3.2 100.0

6.9 89.8 3.2 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIb To what degree you agree or disagree that prewar residents of your municipality who are not of the majority ethnicity should return to their homes?

TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

Nov 2007 % 12.8 83.1 4.1 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 11.0 11.0 86.0 83.6 3.0 5.4 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 % % 6.0 12.1 90.5 86.1 3.5 1.8 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 % % 7.8 10.1 88.2 85.3 4.0 4.6 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 % 7.9 89.6 2.4 100.0

Nov 2007 % 11.6 84.0 4.4 100.0

51 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 12.6 14.1 83.4 83.9 4.1 1.9 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 % 9.6 87.0 3.4 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIc To what degree you agree or disagree that prewar residents of your municipality who are not of the majority ethnicity should return to their homes? (%)

Population TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % % % 9.5 7.6 5.0 7.6 5.6 2.5 87.3 91.1 92.7 91.1 92.1 94.7 3.2 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.3 2.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % 13.5 21.8 29.5 14.2 80.9 77.5 60.8 82.9 5.6 0.7 9.7 2.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. % % 13.2 8.1 79.6 80.5 7.2 11.4 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % 11.7 15.6 15.0 12.7 84.1 82.0 81.1 80.0 4.2 2.4 3.8 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. % % 9.1 7.0 87.6 90.8 3.3 2.2 100.0 100.0

Annual Report 2008

Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during the past year solely on the grounds of your ethnicity? (%)

Annual Report 2008

48

Table IIIa To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Resident, never moved away66.5 72.0 Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war 15.3 12.5 Refugee from another country 0.8 1.0 Returnee 5.4 7.7 Moved here after the war 8.4 5.7 DK/NA 3.6 1.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0

62.2

59.6

72.0

74.0

67.2

74.3

71.4

72.7

66.6

67.7

67.9

73.5

63.6

68.5

16.3

15.6

14.0

10.4

10.7

9.3

15.8

11.4

13.1

12.7

13.4

11.3

13.1

11.3

0.5 9.8 9.6 1.6 100.0

1.0 0.2 11.4 6.3 8.9 4.4 3.5 3.1 100.0 100.0

0.5 9.8 3.3 2.0 100.0

0.7 13.2 4.9 3.4 100.0

0.5 10.5 2.2 3.1 100.0

0.4 0.5 6.5 10.2 3.5 3.9 2.5 1.3 100.0 100.0

0.8 11.0 6.4 2.1 100.0

0.4 10.3 5.9 2.9 100.0

0.4 5.4 8.7 4.2 100.0

0.9 7.7 4.7 1.8 100.0

0.4 12.5 7.4 3.1 100.0

0.9 11.4 4.3 3.6 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIIb To which of the following categories does your family/household belong?

Age 18 - 35 36 - 50 50 + Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % 63.5 72.8 64.0 67.9 72.7 72.4 62.0 64.3 73.0 73.9 67.7 70.8

Resident, never moved away Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war Refugee from another country Returnee Moved here after the war DK/NA TOTAL

16.2 0.4 4.5 10.8 4.6 100.0

9.2 1.2 8.7 6.7 1.5 100.0

11.5 0.6 9.3 12.0 2.7 100.0

11.4

15.3 0.7 4.8 5.1 1.4 100.0

10.0 7.3 3.2 100.0

15.0 0.0 6.6 4.9 1.1 100.0

17.3 0.2 12.1 6.3 2.0 100.0

12.4 1.2 13.7 5.0 3.4 100.0

12.5 0.3 7.9 2.6 3.6 100.0

11.2 0.7 10.5 2.2 1.5 100.0

12.3 0.8 13.9 2.5 2.8 100.0

12.3 1.0 9.7 2.8 3.3 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIIc To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%) AREA Croat majority areas

Bosniak majority areas Population Resident, never moved away Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war Refugee from another country Returnee Moved here after the war DK/NA TOTAL

Serb majority areas

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

Nov 2008 Maj. Min.

Jun. 2008 Maj. Min.

Sep 2008 Maj. Min.

Nov 2008 Maj. Min.

Jun. 2008 Maj. Min.

Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

75.8

74.6 64.1

70.3

50.9

78.1

60.6

78.1

36.4

69.9

48.4

69.4

23.0

64.1

41.6 67.5

33.7

6.6

3.8

7.0

4.5

2.0

3.4

6.8

5.8

5.0

10.3

17.5

19.8

13.5

22.4

10.9 21.0

0.5

0.3 9.9 5.4 1.9 100.0

18.5 1.8 1.2 100.0

16.4 10.3 2.1 100.0

1.1 23.4 5.6 2.6 100.0

1.4 9.2 2.9 2.6 100.0

0.7 1.4 29.0 4.5 1.0 3.7 3.4 1.2 100.0 100.0

2.4 58.9 2.3

62.3

2.0 0.6 28.8 13.7 4.0 7.1 2.9 3.7 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

44.3 2.8

14.0 2.5 2.1 100.0 100.0

0.3 49.5 13.2 7.0 2.0 2.0 4.1 100.0 100.0

0.9 4.7 4.7 3.3 100.0 100.0

43.2 1.8 2.5 100.0

0.7 4.8 3.5 2.4 100.0

52.6 5.7 7.4 100.0

49

Table IVa

to live in the same country as Bosniaks Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to live in the same country as Bosniaks Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have Bosniaks as neighbours Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have Bosniaks as neighbours Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for Bosniak children to go to the same school as your children Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for Bosniak children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Bosniak boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Bosniak boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Bosniak Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Bosniak Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Mar. 2008

Croat M.A. Jun. 2008

Sep 2008

Mar. 2008

Serb M.A. Jun. 2008

Sep 2008

50.8 26.1 8.3 10.5 4.3 100.0

49.8 17.6 16.6 13.3 2.6 100.0

61.2 20.3 11.6 2.9 4.0 100.0

48.5 32.7 7.7 9.4 1.8 100.0

34.5 36.2 13.4 12.1 3.8 100.0

38.1 37.9 11.7 10.8 1.6 100.0

76.9 18.8 4.3 100.0

67.4 29.9 2.6 100.0

81.6 14.4 4.0 100.0

81.1 17.0 1.8 100.0

70.7 25.5 3.8 100.0

76.0 22.4 1.6 100.0

49.1 27.0 9.4 10.2 4.3 100.0

48.5 18.6 16.7 13.5 2.6 100.0

57.0 19.6 15.7 3.2 4.4 100.0

46.5 29.8 9.7 10.6 3.4 100.0

32.4 37.5 13.8 12.3 4.1 100.0

36.2 38.1 12.9 11.3 1.4 100.0

76.1 19.6 4.3 100.0

67.2 30.2 2.6 100.0

76.7 18.9 4.4 100.0

76.3 20.3 3.4 100.0

69.8 26.1 4.1 100.0

74.3 24.2 1.4 100.0

47.7 27.3 10.3 10.2 4.5 100.0

48.6 16.7 18.5 13.3 3.0 100.0

54.3 16.9 18.6 6.1 4.2 100.0

45.1 30.0 12.7 9.6 2.6 100.0

33.3 34.9 14.4 12.5 5.0 100.0

37.4 36.7 13.3 11.1 1.6 100.0

75.0 20.5 4.5 100.0

65.3 31.7 3.0 100.0

71.2 24.6 4.2 100.0

75.1 22.3 2.6 100.0

68.1 26.9 5.0 100.0

74.1 24.3 1.6 100.0

45.3 23.2 15.1 11.8 4.5 100.0

45.5 17.1 20.2 13.5 3.6 100.0

51.7 15.7 17.1 9.3 6.2 100.0

31.1 26.2 20.3 17.0 5.3 100.0

28.3 30.6 20.5 14.8 5.9 100.0

31.3 30.3 19.4 14.7 4.3 100.0

68.6 26.9 4.5 100.0

62.6 33.8 3.6 100.0

67.4 26.4 6.2 100.0

57.3 37.4 5.3 100.0

58.9 35.2 5.9 100.0

61.6 34.2 4.3 100.0

18.6 10.7 28.1 36.5 6.0 100.0

29.8 6.4 19.4 40.9 3.6 100.0

23.9 4.2 21.2 44.5 6.1 100.0

13.5 13.5 24.7 41.8 6.5 100.0

14.7 13.1 20.3 42.2 9.7 100.0

15.9 19.2 19.3 39.6 6.0 100.0

29.4 64.6 6.0 100.0

36.2 60.3 3.6 100.0

28.1 65.7 6.1 100.0

27.0 66.5 6.5 100.0

27.9 62.7 9.5 100.0

35.1 58.9 6.0 100.0

Annual Report 2008

How acceptable do you find it...? (%

Annual Report 2008

50

Table V How acceptable do you find it...? (%)

to live in the same country as Croats

Total to live in the same country as Croats

Total to have Croats as neighbours

Total to have Croats as neighbours

Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA

Total for Croat children to go to the same school as your children Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for Croat children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Croat boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Croat boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Croat Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Croat Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Jun. 2008 Maj. % 91.5 4.5 1.4 1.5 1.0 100.0 96.0 2.9 1.0 100.0 91.9 4.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 100.0 96.2 2.8 1.0 100.0

Bosniak MA Sep 2008 Maj. % 90.7 6.0 0.6 0.5 2.2 100.0 96.7 1.1 2.2 100.0 88.5 8.1 0.7 0.5 2.2 100.0 96.6 1.2 2.2 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. % 90.2 5.1 0.7 0.1 3.8 100.0 95.3 0.9 3.8 100.0 89.9 5.4 0.7 0.1 3.8 100.0 95.3 0.9 3.8 100.0

Jun. 2008 Maj. % 50.5 31.2 8.5 8.6 1.1 100.0 81.8 17.1 1.1 100.0 49.0 28.6 10.7 9.4 2.2 100.0 77.6 20.2 2.2 100.0

Serb MA Sep 2008 Maj. % 35.7 36.1 14.6 10.6 3.0 100.0 71.8 25.2 3.0 100.0 33.8 37.6 14.5 10.8 3.3 100.0 71.4 25.3 3.3 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. % 37.9 39.7 10.0 10.6 1.8 100.0 77.6 20.6 1.8 100.0 37.3 39.5 10.9 10.8 1.4 100.0 76.9 21.7 1.4 100.0

91.8 4.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 100.0

87.3 7.8 1.4 1.4 2.2 100.0

89.8 5.0 0.7 0.1 4.3 100.0

48.4 28.9 11.3 8.6 2.8 100.0

33.4 35.4 15.4 11.2 4.6 100.0

38.1 37.3 12.4 10.4 1.8 100.0

96.3 2.5 1.1 100.0 90.5 5.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 100.0 95.7 2.5 1.8 100.0 27.1 8.6 13.0 44.3 7.0 100.0 35.7 57.3 7.0 100.0

95.1 2.7 2.2 100.0 84.9 8.3 2.6 2.0 2.2 100.0 93.2 4.6 2.2 100.0 24.5 8.0 13.8 48.2 5.6 100.0 32.4 62.0 5.6 100.0

94.8 0.9 4.3 100.0 85.9 6.5 1.3 1.4 4.9 100.0 92.5 2.7 4.9 100.0 24.1 9.1 13.8 44.7 8.3 100.0 33.2 58.5 8.3 100.0

77.3 19.9 2.8 100.0 35.7 26.3 18.0 14.5 5.5 100.0 62.0 32.5 5.5 100.0 17.8 20.4 19.6 35.6 6.5 100.0 38.2 55.3 6.5 100.0

68.8 26.6 4.6 100.0 30.4 30.9 20.1 13.6 5.1 100.0 61.3 33.6 5.1 100.0 14.3 13.4 24.6 37.2 10.5 100.0 27.7 62.0 10.3 100.0

75.4 22.8 1.8 100.0 34.3 33.6 15.0 13.2 4.0 100.0 67.8 28.2 4.0 100.0 16.9 23.0 18.3 36.3 5.4 100.0 39.9 54.7 5.4 100.0

51

Table VI

to live in the same country as Serbs

Total to live in the same country as Serbs

Total to have Serbs as neighbours

Total to have Serbs as neighbours

Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA

Total for Serb children to go to the same school as your children Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for Serb children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Serb boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Serb boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Serb Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Serb Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion polls conducted by PRISM Research

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Maj. Maj. 90.9 86.7 87.7 4.4 7.0 4.9 1.8 1.1 2.5 1.9 2.9 0.6 1.0 2.3 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.3 93.7 92.6 3.7 4.0 3.1 1.0 2.3 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 91.1 84.4 87.6 4.1 8.3 5.4 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.9 0.6 1.0 2.3 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 92.7 92.9 3.8 5.0 2.8 1.0 2.3 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Jun. 2008 Maj. 48.1 26.8 11.9 9.3 4.0 100.0 74.8 21.1 4.0 100.0 46.4 28.2 11.5 9.8 4.0 100.0 74.6 21.3 4.0 100.0

Croat majority areas Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Maj. 49.8 57.6 19.0 22.1 15.7 12.4 12.9 4.2 2.6 3.6 100.0 100.0 68.7 79.7 28.6 16.6 2.6 3.6 100.0 100.0 49.6 55.8 18.2 22.8 16.4 13.0 13.2 5.1 2.6 3.2 100.0 100.0 67.8 78.6 29.6 18.2 2.6 3.2 100.0 100.0

90.5 4.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 100.0

82.9 8.2 2.8 3.7 2.3 100.0

87.9 5.1 2.2 0.6 4.2 100.0

45.7 28.6 11.8 9.9 4.0 100.0

47.5 20.0 15.5 14.0 3.0 100.0

53.8 21.4 14.6 7.0 3.2 100.0

94.6 3.8 1.7 100.0 88.6 4.4 2.3 1.9 2.9 100.0 93.0 4.1 2.9 100.0 24.8 7.8 9.4 49.7 8.3 100.0 32.6 59.1 8.3 100.0

91.2 6.5 2.3 100.0 81.9 7.8 3.7 4.3 2.3 100.0 89.7 8.0 2.3 100.0 20.5 6.4 14.6 51.5 7.0 100.0 26.9 66.1 7.0 100.0

92.9 2.8 4.2 100.0 83.7 5.5 4.4 1.6 4.9 100.0 89.1 6.0 4.9 100.0 20.5 8.4 12.8 49.3 9.0 100.0 29.0 62.1 9.0 100.0

74.3 21.6 4.0 100.0 39.8 23.5 19.9 12.7 4.0 100.0 63.3 32.6 4.0 100.0 19.0 11.3 30.8 33.4 5.5 100.0 30.3 64.2 5.5 100.0

67.5 29.5 3.0 100.0 44.6 19.3 18.6 14.5 3.0 100.0 63.9 33.2 3.0 100.0 28.3 9.2 21.0 37.6 3.9 100.0 37.5 58.6 3.9 100.0

75.2 21.6 3.2 100.0 47.8 21.0 16.3 10.1 4.8 100.0 68.8 26.4 4.8 100.0 18.8 5.9 26.7 43.4 5.3 100.0 24.6 70.1 5.3 100.0

Annual Report 2008

How acceptable do you find it...? (%)

Annual Report 2008

52

Table VIIa Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Yes No DK/NA Total

36.0 57.4 6.6 100.0

34.6 50.5 14.9 100.0

36.1 52.5 11.4 100.0

31.7 34.8 60.9 55.4 7.4 9.8 100.0 100.0

34.5 54.5 11.0 100.0

29.6 60.4 10.0 100.0

33.6 56.4 10.0 100.0

36.7 38.0 55.3 47.8 8.0 14.3 100.0 100.0

37.1 53.5 9.4 100.0

34.7 57.0 8.3 100.0

34.0 57.2 8.8 100.0

31.2 57.6 11.2 100.0

27.9 60.4 11.7 100.0

31.0 59.6 9.5 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIb Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)

Yes No DK/NA Total

Nov 2007 48.1 42.4 9.6 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 47.4 45.0 37.5 43.1 15.1 12.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 49.9 39.2 41.8 52.7 8.3 8.1 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 38.0 30.8 46.8 56.4 15.2 12.9 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 28.6 60.7 10.8 100.0

Nov 2007 21.0 71.4 7.6 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 21.9 21.2 69.2 70.8 8.8 7.9 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 18.2 73.6 8.2 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIc Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)

Population Yes No DK/NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 36.7 45.6 39.0 42.9 39.4 39.0 52.3 45.6 53.2 48.6 53.9 58.8 11.0 8.8 7.9 8.5 6.8 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 42.8 36.8 30.9 15.9 42.6 51.9 58.3 65.2 14.6 11.3 10.9 18.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 32.1 45.3 51.8 44.9 16.1 9.8 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 29.0 57.1 26.7 43.3 56.4 34.8 59.2 38.5 14.5 8.1 14.1 18.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 25.1 28.8 65.1 58.9 9.8 12.3 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIIa How proud are you of your ethnicity?

Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

% 82.6 12.4 2.7 0.1 2.1 0.0 100.0

% 78.7 13.3 3.0 1.2 2.2 0.3 1.2 100.0

% 77.3 16.2 3.8 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.2 100.0

% % 81.0 85.0 11.7 10.9 2.6 2.7 0.7 0.4 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.3 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

% 83.8 11.0 2.4 0.5 2.2 0.1 100.0

% 86.8 8.3 2.6 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.5 100.0

% 83.3 10.0 3.2 1.1 1.6 0.4 0.4 100.0

% 80.9 13.9 3.5 0.4 1.3

% 79.9 13.1 2.4 1.2 2.7

% 82.4 11.4 3.4 0.8 1.8

0.6 100.0 100.0

0.1 100.0

% 82.2 11.0 3.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.2 100.0

% 86.9 9.2 2.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 100.0

% 83.2 11.0 3.0 0.4 1.7 0.2 0.6 100.0

% 83.1 11.9 2.8 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 100.0

% 82.5 10.5 2.8 0.7 3.0 0.5 100.0

53

Table VIIIb

Annual Report 2008

How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)

Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

Nov 2007 83.2 13.6 2.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 81.6 80.0 11.1 13.8 3.1 4.1 0.5 0.0 2.6 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.3 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 80.7 82.4 13.9 13.3 3.2 2.0 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.1 0.5 0.2 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 81.8 84.3 12.9 13.0 1.7 1.7 0.3 0.1 3.2 0.8 0.1 100.0

100.0

Nov 2008 84.9 8.2 3.6 1.0 2.3

Nov 2007 85.8 8.4 3.5 0.4 1.8

100.0

100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 81.3 84.5 12.6 8.8 3.0 3.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 82.2 9.2 2.3 1.6 2.8 1.1 0.8 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIIc How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)

Population Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 91.1 74.5 87.4 84.7 84.7 90.9 4.8 10.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 4.9 0.7 2.1 2.8 0.9 3.7 2.7 0.4 4.7 0.1 0.9 0.3 2.0 7.4 0.9 4.9 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 77.3 85.1 78.3 72.9 13.3 8.9 11.9 11.1 4.5 2.8 6.4 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.0 3.6 1.1 1.5 7.6 0.2 100.0

0.8 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 80.7 87.9 71.3 71.4 78.4 82.7 10.2 3.1 20.5 16.2 15.5 9.3 2.3 1.0 4.5 1.1 2.5 1.8 0.5 1.1 2.4 0.7 0.9 6.0 6.0 2.0 4.4 1.5 5.4 1.1 0.6 6.3 0.3 2.1 0.6 3.5 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 79.3 87.8 13.7 5.0 2.5 1.9 2.2 6.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IXa How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%) GENDER Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

52.9 16.0 11.2 9.2 9.9 0.9 100.0

51.5 14.8 12.1 10.2 9.5 0.6 1.3 100.0

46.3 21.2 13.8 9.1 7.9 1.0 0.6 100.0

51.5 50.6 14.5 17.1 12.4 9.4 11.5 11.0 8.4 10.6 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

53.1 14.3 11.1 6.7 13.7 0.3 0.8 100.0

55.5 21.6 9.6 5.6 4.9 0.9 1.7 100.0

54.4 19.2 8.7 6.8 9.3 0.9 0.8 100.0

49.4 51.3 17.5 13.4 8.9 12.3 13.2 9.3 10.0 12.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.3 100.0 100.0

49.7 21.4 11.9 7.6 7.5 0.8 1.1 100.0

52.6 16.9 10.1 9.1 9.4 1.6 0.3 100.0

53.6 15.9 11.4 7.3 10.5 0.3 0.9 100.0

53.4 15.5 10.8 7.2 11.7 0.7 0.7 100.0

53.4 21.5 10.9 6.7 5.0 1.1 1.4 100.0

53.8 17.5 10.5 8.5 8.4 0.2 1.1 100.0

Annual Report 2008

54

Table IXb How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)

Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

Nov 2007 54.1 18.9 6.8 8.6 10.8 0.2 0.7 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 52.9 50.8 14.7 26.7 11.2 10.3 6.9 6.8 12.8 3.9 0.1 0.5 1.3 1.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 51.5 50.4 20.5 17.5 12.2 9.6 6.7 11.5 7.9 9.6 0.9 0.1 0.4 1.3 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 51.5 46.3 11.6 20.7 11.6 12.6 9.4 10.0 15.4 8.9 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 56.6 14.1 8.9 11.3 8.5 0.5

Nov 2007 50.1 14.1 13.7 10.9 10.3 0.2 0.8 100.0

100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 51.8 55.2 15.7 16.8 12.1 11.8 8.8 5.9 9.7 7.0 0.8 1.2 1.1 2.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 52.6 16.0 9.3 9.2 10.3 1.2 1.6 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IXc How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)

Population Very Somewhat Not very Not all It's not important DK NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 89.8 78.0 81.1 76.7 80.7 87.0 4.0 10.0 12.4 9.6 11.2 8.7 1.5 2.1 4.1 6.9 5.4 2.7 1.7 4.1 0.7 1.9 0.4 2.1 3.4 0.9 4.9 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 2.4 0.2 0.6 0.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 35.6 69.2 36.1 60.2 21.1 7.6 29.1 16.3 15.8 9.3 16.3 3.1 12.9 9.2 6.2 6.5 11.6 3.2 8.8 7.6 1.3 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.0 2.1 6.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 32.5 75.4 33.8 12.5 13.8 3.0 4.7 1.1 14.0 6.7 0.3 0.9 1.4 100.0 100.0

Jun. 2008 Maj. Min. 12.7 54.3 25.1 16.3 22.3 3.2 14.4 8.4 23.9 13.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 3.5 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 21.0 60.8 23.7 72.9 30.2 15.1 20.1 9.8 18.7 10.8 15.7 1.1 15.0 20.8 5.3 11.6 10.9 17.7 10.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 2.5 0.9 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Xa If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%) TIP

Gender Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Yes No DK/NA Total

26.2 62.1 11.6 100.0

14.0 71.7 14.3 100.0

19.9 63.9 16.2 100.0

21.9 33.3 67.4 56.7 10.6 10.0 100.0 100.0

16.8 71.3 11.8 100.0

17.3 71.5 11.2 100.0

23.8 63.6 12.6 100.0

32.3 16.2 60.4 73.9 7.2 9.9 100.0 100.0

20.9 67.5 11.6 100.0

23.9 66.5 9.6 100.0

28.3 57.7 14.0 100.0

15.0 69.2 15.8 100.0

16.1 68.9 15.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Xb If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)

Yes No DK/NA Total

Nov 2007 32.6 56.7 10.7 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 11.4 19.0 77.6 66.7 11.0 14.2 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 22.3 26.9 62.2 62.6 15.5 10.5 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 21.0 14.7 65.5 72.6 13.5 12.7 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 24.8 66.1 9.1 100.0

Nov 2007 30.5 58.6 10.9 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 16.6 19.9 70.3 67.2 13.1 12.8 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 22.5 67.8 9.8 100.0

22.1 64.1 13.8 100.0

55

Table Xc

Population Yes No DK/NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 16.2 20.8 26.0 17.5 29.5 13.9 65.1 53.3 56.6 70.7 60.9 78.4 18.7 25.8 17.4 11.8 9.5 7.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 12.4 26.4 15.5 19.6 75.2 61.3 74.5 71.1 12.4 12.3 10.0 9.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 15.4 18.4 11.5 13.5 78.1 55.6 78.0 75.4 6.5 26.0 10.5 11.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 18.6 27.2 57.0 67.7 24.5 5.2 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 17.8 27.0 70.9 64.7 11.3 8.3 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIa Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%) Gender Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights 48.5 54.8 53.7 44.8 39.0 37.8 6.7 6.2 8.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

47.1 52.9 41.8 43.5 11.1 3.5 100.0 100.0

52.8 41.6 5.6 100.0

45.4 48.0 6.7 100.0

49.3 45.7 5.0 100.0

55.3 56.7 40.7 36.3 4.0 7.0 100.0 100.0

52.2 40.9 6.9 100.0

49.5 43.9 6.6 100.0

46.9 47.4 5.7 100.0

50.7 44.5 4.8 100.0

45.9 46.2 7.9 100.0

47.3 44.2 8.5 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIb Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)

18 - 35 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights 53.2 57.9 51.1 40.9 35.5 39.3 Total 5.9 6.6 9.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 56.1 36.6 7.3 100.0

57.2 39.6 3.2 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 62.9 31.2 5.9 100.0

57.1 38.1 4.8 100.0

Nov 2008

Nov 2007

53.0 39.0 8.0 100.0

44.7 50.2 5.2 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 45.0 50.2 4.9 100.0

42.5 50.8 6.7 100.0

Nov 2008 37.3 55.2 7.5 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIc Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights 61.3 53.2 49.8 39.1 56.2 54.3 31.5 38.9 42.0 48.6 34.0 41.3 7.1 7.9 8.1 12.3 9.8 4.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 41.2 50.8 8.0 100.0

35.5 54.3 61.6 35.7 2.9 10.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

48.9 57.3 34.5 34.9 16.6 7.9 100.0 100.0

40.4 57.6 2.1 100.0

50.5 45.5 4.0 100.0

41.8 47.3 53.5 46.5 4.7 6.2 100.0 100.0

46.5 49.0 4.4 100.0

39.0 55.6 5.3 100.0

33.1 63.0 3.9 100.0

Annual Report 2008

If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)

Annual Report 2008

56

Table XIIa How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

None Little A certain amount A lot DK/NA Total Total LITTLE Total MUCH DK/NA Total

9.0 19.3 37.7 27.2 6.8 100.0 28.3 64.9 6.8 100.0

11.2 20.3 30.0 26.2 12.3 100.0 31.5 56.2 12.3 100.0

11.4 17.8 30.5 32.9 7.3 100.0 29.3 63.4 7.3 100.0

11.2 11.6 19.6 21.5 32.9 33.5 31.1 25.6 5.2 7.8 100.0 100.0 30.7 33.1 64.0 59.1 5.2 7.8 100.0 100.0

14.7 24.3 30.5 20.0 10.6 100.0 39.0 50.5 10.6 100.0

18.4 24.5 28.3 23.1 5.8 100.0 42.8 51.4 5.8 100.0

15.9 20.8 27.3 28.1 7.8 100.0 36.7 55.5 7.8 100.0

10.3 14.2 18.9 22.4 34.5 29.3 31.2 26.4 5.1 7.7 100.0 100.0 29.2 36.6 65.6 55.7 5.1 7.7 100.0 100.0

14.2 23.9 26.0 30.9 5.0 100.0 38.1 56.9 5.0 100.0

14.7 21.4 28.9 29.5 5.5 100.0 36.2 58.4 5.5 100.0

10.7 22.1 36.1 21.6 9.6 100.0 32.7 57.7 9.6 100.0

12.2 22.8 31.2 19.0 14.8 100.0 35.0 50.2 14.8 100.0

16.5 19.4 32.3 23.8 7.9 100.0 36.0 56.1 7.9 100.0

13.1 19.2 30.5 29.3 7.9 100.0 32.3 59.8 7.9 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIIb How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)

None Little A certain amount A lot DK/NA Total Total LITTLE Total MUCH DK/NA Total

Nov 2007 10.4 18.4 36.3 26.7 8.2 100.0 28.8 63.0 8.2 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 14.2 13.4 23.1 17.4 29.9 35.2 22.7 29.7 10.1 4.3 100.0 100.0 37.3 30.8 52.6 64.9 10.1 4.3 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 11.2 9.1 18.8 19.7 31.2 41.5 29.4 23.1 9.4 6.7 100.0 100.0 30.0 28.7 60.6 64.6 9.4 6.7 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 10.2 14.4 23.1 23.0 27.7 27.7 28.7 29.2 10.3 5.7 100.0 100.0 33.3 37.5 56.4 56.8 10.3 5.7 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 13.1 17.9 30.5 35.1 3.3 100.0 31.0 65.6 3.3 100.0

Nov 2007 11.6 23.1 30.0 28.2 7.2 100.0 34.7 58.1 7.2 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 13.6 17.8 21.7 24.9 32.1 24.4 19.7 24.0 12.8 9.0 100.0 100.0 35.3 42.7 51.9 48.3 12.8 9.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 17.2 23.4 27.6 25.4 6.3 100.0 40.6 53.1 6.3 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIIc How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)

Population None Little A certain amount A lot DK/NA Total Total LITTLE Total MUCH DK/NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 4.7 6.8 7.3 4.9 2.1 7.4 17.6 10.6 12.6 10.4 18.1 13.2 28.7 15.1 31.5 29.1 31.6 18.7 32.5 45.2 43.0 45.2 45.6 58.8 16.5 22.2 5.6 10.4 2.6 1.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 22.3 17.5 19.9 15.3 20.2 20.5 61.2 60.4 74.5 74.4 77.2 77.5 16.5 22.2 5.6 10.4 2.6 1.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 20.7 6.1 9.2 6.6 29.8 28.3 29.8 11.7 35.1 24.6 36.2 39.2 10.6 38.0 14.7 35.1 3.7 3.0 10.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.5 34.4 39.0 18.3 45.7 62.6 51.0 74.3 3.7 3.0 10.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 6.2 5.7 16.1 14.0 32.2 33.2 25.7 43.7 19.8 3.4 100.0 100.0 22.3 19.7 57.9 76.9 19.8 3.4 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 19.2 11.8 24.5 19.2 25.3 35.1 29.7 31.3 31.0 31.5 24.3 20.4 16.1 12.5 14.8 14.0 8.4 9.1 6.6 15.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 44.5 46.9 54.2 50.5 47.1 44.1 39.2 34.5 8.4 9.1 6.6 15.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 28.0 10.4 22.7 25.8 28.3 27.5 13.0 24.1 8.0 12.2 100.0 100.0 50.7 36.2 41.3 51.6 8.0 12.2 100.0 100.0

57

Table XIIIa

Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

72.5 19.5 8.0 100.0

63.8 22.4 13.8 100.0

63.0 26.4 10.7 100.0

74.9 67.8 16.2 21.2 8.9 11.0 100.0 100.0

62.4 23.8 13.8 100.0

56.9 28.1 15.0 100.0

72.2 18.0 9.9 100.0

73.9 64.3 20.5 24.1 5.6 11.7 100.0 100.0

60.3 27.2 12.5 100.0

72.7 19.3 8.0 100.0

65.8 20.5 13.7 100.0

62.1 22.4 15.5 100.0

59.6 27.3 13.1 100.0

73.9 15.3 10.8 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIIIb Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea? (%)

TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

Nov 2007 % 71.1 20.1 8.8 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 59.6 60.0 26.7 29.5 13.7 10.5 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 % % 73.9 73.4 14.9 19.5 11.2 7.1 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 % % 65.3 60.2 21.1 25.8 13.6 14.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 % 74.4 17.4 8.3 100.0

Nov 2007 % 66.1 21.6 12.3 100.0

51 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % 65.0 59.6 21.4 26.2 13.6 14.2 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 % 72.0 19.5 8.5 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table XIIIc Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea? (%)

Population TOTAL DISAGREE TOTAL AGREE DK/NA Total

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % % % 69.4 83.7 73.4 63.8 86.9 92.7 15.1 10.9 15.9 14.5 8.0 5.1 15.6 5.4 10.6 21.7 5.1 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % 51.6 75.5 47.2 64.4 32.2 18.4 38.5 28.1 16.1 6.1 14.3 7.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. % % 41.0 60.4 45.7 32.6 13.3 7.1 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. % % % % 51.4 65.7 53.1 52.3 31.0 21.4 31.5 30.2 17.7 12.9 15.4 17.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. % % 65.4 59.8 20.5 23.3 14.1 16.9 100.0 100.0

Annual Report 2008

Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea? (%)

Annual Report 2008

58

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY The Safety Index of BiH

Table Ia During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%) Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Burglary at home Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Burglary at workplace Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Pickpocketing Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Car theft Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Theft of other valuables Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Scam/Con Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Blackmail Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

1.3 98.6 0.1 100.0

3.1 96.5 0.5 100.0

2.9 96.0 1.1 100.0

1.5 0.9 98.3 98.7 0.2 0.5 100.0 100.0

1.8 96.8 1.4 100.0

1.9 95.4 2.7 100.0

0.5 98.6 0.9 100.0

1.1 2.8 98.6 95.5 0.3 1.8 100.0 100.0

2.4 96.1 1.6 100.0

1.4 98.2 0.4 100.0

1.0 98.7 0.3 100.0

2.0 97.8 0.3 100.0

2.3 95.3 2.5 100.0

0.5 98.7 0.8 100.0

0.8 98.4 0.9 100.0

0.9 98.6 0.5 100.0

1.0 97.5 1.5 100.0

0.2 0.4 99.3 98.4 0.5 1.1 100.0 100.0

1.0 97.0 2.0 100.0

1.2 96.4 2.4 100.0

0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0

0.4 1.3 98.7 96.8 0.9 1.9 100.0 100.0

1.6 97.1 1.3 100.0

0.5 98.8 0.7 100.0

0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0

0.7 98.5 0.8 100.0

0.6 96.7 2.7 100.0

0.5 98.5 1.0 100.0

1.7 98.2 0.1 100.0

2.1 97.4 0.5 100.0

4.1 94.3 1.6 100.0

2.2 0.7 97.5 98.8 0.2 0.5 100.0 100.0

1.4 97.2 1.4 100.0

2.2 95.4 2.4 100.0

1.4 97.6 1.0 100.0

0.0 1.9 99.6 96.4 0.3 1.7 100.0 100.0

4.1 94.6 1.4 100.0

2.1 97.4 0.5 100.0

2.2 97.5 0.3 100.0

1.5 98.2 0.3 100.0

2.0 95.4 2.7 100.0

1.4 97.8 0.8 100.0

0.2 99.0 0.8 100.0

1.8 97.7 0.5 100.0

0.6 98.1 1.3 100.0

0.2 0.6 99.5 98.4 0.2 1.0 100.0 100.0

0.8 97.8 1.4 100.0

0.9 97.0 2.2 100.0

0.2 98.8 1.0 100.0

0.3 1.9 98.9 96.4 0.7 1.7 100.0 100.0

1.1 97.7 1.2 100.0

0.3 99.2 0.5 100.0

0.5 98.4 1.1 100.0

0.7 99.0 0.3 100.0

0.4 97.2 2.4 100.0

0.2 99.0 0.9 100.0

2.2 97.4 0.4 100.0

3.1 96.5 0.5 100.0

3.6 94.8 1.6 100.0

1.0 2.3 98.8 97.2 0.2 0.5 100.0 100.0

1.1 97.6 1.4 100.0

1.5 96.1 2.4 100.0

2.4 96.7 1.0 100.0

2.7 2.0 97.1 96.2 0.3 1.7 100.0 100.0

2.4 96.3 1.3 100.0

1.3 98.1 0.6 100.0

1.9 97.5 0.6 100.0

1.8 97.9 0.3 100.0

2.4 94.9 2.7 100.0

2.3 97.0 0.7 100.0

0.2 99.7 0.1 100.0

0.3 99.0 0.7 100.0

0.5 97.8 1.7 100.0

0.1 0.3 99.5 99.2 0.4 0.5 100.0 100.0

0.7 98.1 1.3 100.0

0.9 96.7 2.4 100.0

0.1 99.0 1.0 100.0

0.2 0.7 99.5 97.7 0.3 1.6 100.0 100.0

1.0 97.6 1.4 100.0

0.1 99.3 0.6 100.0

0.3 99.3 0.4 100.0

0.3 99.2 0.5 100.0

0.4 96.8 2.7 100.0

0.1 99.1 0.8 100.0

0.1 99.7 0.1 100.0

1.0 98.4 0.6 100.0

0.8 97.6 1.6 100.0

0.2 0.5 99.4 99.1 0.4 0.5 100.0 100.0

1.1 97.6 1.3 100.0

0.9 96.7 2.4 100.0

0.3 98.6 1.2 100.0

0.5 1.9 99.1 96.5 0.4 1.6 100.0 100.0

1.1 97.6 1.3 100.0

0.2 99.2 0.6 100.0

0.2 99.6 0.3 100.0

0.3 99.3 0.4 100.0

0.5 96.7 2.7 100.0

0.3 98.6 1.1 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

59

Table Ib

Table I b

Age 18 - 35 36 - 50 51 + Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 Nov 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % %

Burglary at home Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Burglary at workplace Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Pickpocketing Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Car theft Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Theft of other valuables Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Scam/Con Yes No DK/NA TOTAL Blackmail Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

1.9 98.0 0.1 100.0

2.5 96.6 0.9 100.0

3.2 93.8 3.0 100.0

0.5 99.4 0.1 100.0

0.5 99.0 0.5 100.0

0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0

1.8 95.1 3.0 100.0

1.4 98.5 0.2 100.0

1.6 97.5 0.9 100.0

0.6 98.9 0.5 100.0

100.0

1.0 98.8 0.2 100.0

1.7 98.2 0.1 100.0

0.4 98.6 1.0 100.0

0.4 98.9 0.7 100.0

3.1 95.4 1.6 100.0

1.8 96.1 2.2 100.0

1.7 97.4 0.8 100.0

1.1 98.3 0.7 100.0

0.6 98.6 0.8 100.0

0.6 98.7 0.6 100.0

0.3 99.6 0.1 100.0

0.2 98.8 1.0 100.0

0.6 97.7 1.6 100.0

1.4 96.6 2.0 100.0

0.9 97.1 2.0 100.0

0.1 98.9 1.0 100.0

3.5 93.5 3.0 100.0

1.9 98.0 0.1 100.0

1.0 99.0 0.0 100.0

1.8 98.0 0.2 100.0

4.7 95.1 0.3 100.0

1.8 97.2 1.0 100.0

1.0 98.4 0.7 100.0

1.9 96.6 1.5 100.0

1.7 96.3 2.0 100.0

1.6 97.4 1.0 100.0

1.9 97.3 0.9 100.0

1.8 95.7 2.5 100.0

0.2 99.5 0.4 100.0

0.1 99.3 0.6 100.0

1.1 98.9 0.0 100.0

0.3 99.6 0.1 100.0

0.4 98.8 0.8 100.0

0.4 98.0 1.6 100.0

0.9 97.5 1.6 100.0

0.1 97.9 2.0 100.0

0.1 98.9 1.0 100.0

2.3 97.2 0.5 100.0

2.1 97.0 0.9 100.0

3.3 93.5 3.1 100.0

1.6 98.3 0.1 100.0

2.8 97.2 0.0 100.0

1.6 98.4 0.0 100.0

1.1 98.8 0.1 100.0

1.2 98.0 0.8 100.0

1.8 97.5 0.7 100.0

2.0 96.4 1.6 100.0

2.2 95.8 2.0 100.0

2.4 96.5 1.1 100.0

0.0 99.9 0.1 100.0

0.3 98.9 0.9 100.0

1.6 95.3 3.1 100.0

0.1 99.8 0.1 100.0

0.5 99.3 0.2 100.0

0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

0.3 99.5 0.3 100.0

0.1 98.8 1.0 100.0

0.3 99.0 0.7 100.0

0.9 97.4 1.6 100.0

0.2 97.8 2.0 100.0

0.0 98.9 1.1 100.0

0.4 99.5 0.1 100.0

0.9 98.2 0.9 100.0

1.8 95.0 3.1 100.0

0.4 99.5 0.1 100.0

0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

0.3 99.6 0.1 100.0

0.1 98.8 1.0 100.0

0.5 98.8 0.7 100.0

1.8 96.6 1.6 100.0

0.2 97.8 2.0 100.0

0.2 98.4 1.4 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

0.9 99.1

Annual Report 2008

During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of....

Annual Report 2008

60

Table Ic During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%)

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Burglary at home Yes 3.2 No 96.2 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Burglary at workplace Yes 1.0 No 98.3 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Pickpocketing Yes 2.1 No 97.2 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Car theft Yes 1.6 No 97.8 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Theft of other valuables Yes 2.7 No 96.6 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Scam/Con Yes 0.9 No 98.2 DK/NA 0.9 TOTAL 100.0 Blackmail Yes 1.8 No 97.4 DK/NA 0.8 TOTAL 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

4.3 2.3 93.8 94.1 1.8 3.7 100.0 100.0

1.5 97.1 97.5 2.9 0.9 100.0 100.0

1.8 96.9 1.2 100.0 100.0

7.2 4.1 90.2 92.9 2.6 2.9 100.0 100.0

5.0 1.1 90.0 97.4 4.9 1.5 100.0 100.0

3.5 95.3 1.2 100.0

1.7 96.9 1.4 100.0

1.9 100.0 98.1

3.8 0.7 94.4 95.9 1.8 3.4 100.0 100.0

0.9 96.2 2.9 100.0

0.5 98.6 0.9 100.0

1.8 100.0 97.2 1.0 100.0 100.0

6.2 2.5 91.7 94.5 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0

0.5 1.2 94.5 97.0 4.9 1.8 100.0 100.0

3.5 95.3 1.2 100.0

0.7 97.0 2.3 100.0

1.1 98.9

1.2 98.6 0.2 100.0 100.0

0.3 99.3 99.2 0.7 0.5 100.0 100.0

5.0 3.1 93.2 93.5 1.8 3.4 100.0 100.0

2.0 95.1 2.9 100.0

2.0 97.0 0.9 100.0

1.5 98.5

3.3 95.7 1.0 100.0 100.0

7.4 3.2 90.5 93.7 2.1 3.2 100.0 100.0

3.1 3.6 92.0 94.6 4.9 1.8 100.0 100.0

3.7 95.1 1.2 100.0

0.9 97.8 1.4 100.0

1.3 98.7

3.0 96.8 0.2 100.0 100.0

1.1 1.0 98.2 99.0 0.7 100.0 100.0

2.5 0.5 95.7 96.6 1.8 2.9 100.0 100.0

0.1 97.1 99.0 2.9 0.9 100.0 100.0

0.9 100.0 98.1 1.0 100.0 100.0

6.2 1.0 91.7 96.1 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0

0.5 1.6 94.5 97.0 4.9 1.5 100.0 100.0

3.0 95.8 1.2 100.0

1.1 97.5 1.4 100.0

1.1 100.0 98.7 0.2 100.0 100.0

99.3 99.8 0.7 0.2 100.0 100.0

100.0

8.1 2.1 90.7 94.5 1.2 3.5 100.0 100.0

1.2 97.1 97.8 2.9 0.9 100.0 100.0

2.2 100.0 96.8 1.0 100.0 100.0

8.8 3.5 89.1 93.6 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0

2.9 95.1 95.3 4.9 1.8 100.0 100.0

4.5 94.3 1.2 100.0

0.9 97.7 1.4 100.0

2.1 97.9

2.5 97.2 0.2 100.0 100.0

0.9 1.4 98.4 98.6 0.7 100.0 100.0

0.5 99.5

3.1 0.5 95.1 96.0 1.9 3.5 100.0 100.0

0.1 97.1 98.9 2.9 1.1 100.0 100.0

0.7 96.9 98.7 3.1 0.6 100.0 100.0

6.9 1.2 91.0 95.6 2.1 3.2 100.0 100.0

0.5 0.3 94.6 97.9 4.9 1.8 100.0 100.0

4.0 93.7 98.6 2.3 1.4 100.0 100.0

0.9 100.0 98.9 0.2 100.0 100.0

99.3 100.0 0.7 100.0 100.0

3.1 0.6 95.1 95.9 1.8 3.5 100.0 100.0

0.1 97.1 98.6 2.9 1.4 100.0 100.0

0.7 96.9 98.7 3.1 0.6 100.0 100.0

6.2 1.0 91.7 96.1 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0

0.3 95.1 97.9 4.9 1.8 100.0 100.0

5.5 92.2 2.3 100.0

1.1 100.0 98.7 0.2 100.0 100.0

0.5 99.3 99.5 0.7 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

2.3 97.7

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

0.4 98.2 1.4 100.0

100.0 100.0

99.3 100.0 0.7 100.0 100.0

0.5 99.5 100.0

100.0 100.0 0.5 99.5 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

61

Table IIa

Gender Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

9.5 90.1 0.4 100.0

4.4 95.3 0.3 100.0

6.6 90.7 2.6 100.0

5.0 4.5 94.0 95.1 1.0 0.4 100.0 100.0

5.5 93.8 0.7 100.0

3.7 95.2 1.0 100.0

4.7 94.5 0.8 100.0

6.7 5.9 92.9 93.8 0.4 0.3 100.0 100.0

6.5 91.3 2.2 100.0

5.5 93.7 0.8 100.0

6.6 92.9 0.5 100.0

4.2 95.1 0.7 100.0

3.5 95.2 1.3 100.0

94.8 1.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIb During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

Nov 2007 8.9 91.1 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 4.6 3.5 95.4 94.5 2.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 7.1 5.3 92.5 94.4 0.5 0.3 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 5.3 8.5 94.3 90.6 0.4 0.9 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 3.7 94.5 1.8 100.0

Nov 2007 5.6 93.5 1.0 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 5.5 4.4 94.0 93.7 0.5 1.9 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 3.4 95.9 0.7 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIc During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

AREA Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 6.60 11.21 5.94 7.79 5.84 2.25 4.08 7.76 3.13 5.32 93.06 86.32 93.08 92.21 92.53 96.55 94.71 91.55 90.75 93.14 0.34 2.48 0.98 1.63 1.20 1.21 0.69 6.12 1.54 100.00 100.00100.00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 4.57 2.18 3.86 3.19 4.62 3.28 3.76 1.80 94.33 94.23 95.79 96.81 94.16 96.72 96.24 98.20 1.10 3.59 0.34 1.21 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00100.00 100.00

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIIa If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%) Gender Urban

Rural

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Not at all satisfied Generally dissatisfied Generally satisfied Totally satisfied DK/NA TOTAL

16.1 51.6 27.3 4.3 0.7 100.0

84.3 11.7

4.0 100.0

24.5 46.2 23.7 5.6 100.0

27.2 19.6 33.1 25.9 22.0 39.1 15.5 15.4 2.2 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

59.6 34.7

5.7 100.0

18.7 38.9 33.7 8.6 100.0

26.3 21.5 40.7 6.5 5.0 100.0

12.7 76.8 47.8 20.6 32.4 6.3 0.8 2.6 100.0 100.0

33.0 37.4 25.6 4.0 100.0

36.1 6.6 43.3 9.0 5.1 100.0

22.1 35.8 31.4 10.7 100.0

58.2 33.5

8.3 100.0

2.6 53.2 32.2 12.0 100.0

14.9 51.6 19.0 12.3 2.2 100.0

Annual Report 2008

During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)

Annual Report 2008

62

Table IIIb If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)

Nov 2007 Not at all satisfied 17.9 Generally dissatisfied 44.9 Generally satisfied 29.7 Totally satisfied 7.5 DK/NA TOTAL 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 77.5 6.9 22.5 36.9 48.3 8.0 100.0

100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 16.6 18.3 27.1 39.6 37.9 16.9 13.2 23.3 5.2 1.8 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 64.3 38.8 29.2 41.8 16.6 2.8 6.5 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 39.2 28.3 27.6

Nov 2007 16.2 38.5 45.3

4.9 100.0

100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 65.2 15.7 27.0 49.2 24.6 10.5 7.8 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 38.5 24.2 24.7 12.5 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IIIc If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)

Not at all satisfied Generally dissatisfied Generally satisfied Totally satisfied DK/NA TOTAL

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 76.5 82.8 21.3 42.7 23.5 11.7 55.0 77.1 32.8 66.7 19.5 22.9 10.3 33.3 4.1 9.2 5.5 5.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 46.7 86.8 11.4 53.3 13.2 23.5 8.9 39.4 91.1 25.7

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 3.7 12.3 30.5 70.0 69.5 13.9

100.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 61.6 100.0 25.9 37.2 22.8 21.8 31.0 33.3 45.1 54.4 36.1 33.3 9.2 7.0 33.3 8.5 22.8 16.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IVa In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

3.0 96.2 0.9 100.0

1.8 97.6 0.6 100.0

0.9 98.6 0.4 100.0

1.1 2.1 96.4 96.9 2.4 1.1 100.0 100.0

2.1 96.8 1.1 100.0

0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0

1.5 95.0 3.4 100.0

3.6 95.9 0.5 100.0 100.0

1.1 97.7 1.3 100.0

1.9 94.2 3.9 100.0

1.4 97.2 1.4 100.0

1.9 96.9 1.2 100.0

0.6 99.0 0.4 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IVb In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

Nov 2007 3.5 95.9 0.6 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 2.1 0.5 97.2 98.0 0.8 1.4 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 2.0 1.3 94.6 97.3 3.4 1.4 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 1.8 1.1 96.9 97.8 1.3 1.1 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 0.7 96.9 2.4 100.0

Nov 2007 1.3 97.3 1.4 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 2.0 0.9 97.6 99.0 0.3 0.2 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 1.2 95.8 3.0 100.0

0.8 97.0 2.1 100.0

100.0

63

Table IVc

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 2.6 6.2 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.5 96.9 92.0 97.9 99.1 94.2 95.4 0.5 1.9 1.2 4.0 3.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 1.63 9.7 1.1 4.3 2.0 96.17 88.9 97.5 99.5 93.1 97.3 2.19 1.4 1.4 0.5 2.6 0.7 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 1.4 0.6 1.1 97.6 100.0 99.1 98.9 1.0 0.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 98.0 2.0 100.0

92.3 7.7 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Va Over the past six months, have you experienced or witnessed the clear abuse of police powers (e.g. regulating traffic, civil protests, or during investigation, etc.)? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

13.7 86.1 0.2 100.0

12.0 86.0 1.9 100.0

13.7 82.8 3.4 100.0

12.8 8.8 86.1 90.2 1.1 0.9 100.0 100.0

10.1 88.5 1.4 100.0

4.1 94.5 1.4 100.0

6.2 92.1 1.7 100.0

12.1 11.9 87.1 86.4 0.8 1.7 100.0 100.0

10.6 87.1 2.3 100.0

10.7 88.4 0.9 100.0

9.8 89.7 0.5 100.0

10.0 88.4 1.6 100.0

6.0 91.8 2.3 100.0

7.4 90.6 1.9 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Vb Over the past six months, have you experienced or witnessed the clear abuse of police powers (e.g. regulating traffic, civil protests, or during investigation, etc.)? (%)

Yes No DK/NA TOTAL

Nov 2007 15.0 84.6 0.4 100.0

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 14.1 12.1 84.2 84.4 1.7 3.5 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 13.0 10.1 85.1 88.7 1.9 1.3 100.0 100.0

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 13.3 10.0 84.9 88.8 1.7 1.2 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 8.1 90.3 1.6 100.0

Nov 2007 7.9 91.8 0.3 100.0

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 7.4 3.5 91.2 94.8 1.4 1.7 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 5.6 93.6 0.8 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table Vc Over the past six months, have you experienced or witnessed the clear abuse of police powers (e.g. regulating traffic, civil protests, or during investigation, etc.)? (%)

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Yes 8.4 8.7 10.1 8.9 9.6 6.1 No 90.4 86.3 88.5 87.3 88.4 90.8 DK/NA 1.2 5.0 1.4 3.8 2.0 3.1 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 10.0 17.7 3.2 10.1 8.1 2.7 86.0 80.5 91.2 86.8 89.8 96.6 4.0 1.7 5.6 3.1 2.1 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 14.8 2.1 8.2 2.9 83.8 95.3 89.5 96.4 1.4 2.5 2.3 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 2008 Maj. Min. 9.0 2.2 90.3 97.2 0.7 0.5 100.0 100.0

Annual Report 2008

In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)

Annual Report 2008

64

Table VIa Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Police Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove Total Courts Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

68.0 22.1 0.7

52.4 25.3 1.5

54.7 28.0 0.4

64.1 23.1

62.5 24.3 0.1

51.3 31.7 1.9

53.9 26.1 1.0

61.2 20.1

64.5 25.8 0.2

50.1 33.3 2.6

53.1 30.1 1.1

66.2 17.9

65.2 21.0 0.5

53.3 24.8 0.9

55.4 23.9 0.4

59.0 24.7

5.4 100.0

9.2 100.0

10.8 100.0

4.8 5.5 100.0 100.0

9.2 100.0

9.5 100.0

7.1 100.0

4.2 8.5 100.0 100.0

7.7 100.0

6.8 100.0

6.6 100.0

9.9 100.0

12.3 100.0

5.5 100.0

63.5 26.0 1.3

49.1 28.9 2.1

48.9 32.7 0.6

58.6 28.1

53.4 31.9 0.3

45.9 35.7 2.3

49.6 29.9 2.4

54.4 26.0

56.1 33.5 0.8

47.8 35.6 2.3

46.7 34.5 2.6

58.9 24.2

59.4 25.4 0.6

46.8 30.1 2.1

51.7 27.9 0.7

53.6 29.5

5.5 3.7 100.0

8.7 11.1 100.0

11.2 6.5 100.0

4.9 5.7 8.4 8.7 100.0 100.0

9.8 6.2 100.0

9.4 8.8 100.0

7.3 12.3 100.0

4.7 8.5 4.9 5.7 100.0 100.0

8.6 7.6 100.0

6.8 10.2 100.0

6.4 8.1 100.0

10.1 10.8 100.0

11.7 8.0 100.0

5.8 11.1 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIb Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)

Nov 2007 % Police Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Courts Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % %

Nov 2008 Nov 2007 % %

Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 % %

Nov 2008 %

Nov 2007 %

50 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % %

Nov 2008 %

66.8 21.9 0.7

51.5 29.2 2.0

52.8 26.9 0.1

66.2 17.8

65.9 24.3

54.7 28.5 2.1

55.5 24.5 0.2

58.9 22.9

62.4 24.0 0.3

51.1 28.9 1.4

55.0 28.2 1.6

61.2 24.0

4.8 5.8 100.0

8.0 9.3 100.0

8.9 11.3 100.0

3.5 12.6 100.0

4.0 5.8 100.0

10.6 4.1 100.0

13.9 6.1 100.0

8.5 9.7 100.0

7.1 6.3 100.0

9.0 9.7 100.0

9.1 6.0 100.0

7.2 7.6 100.0

62.3 26.2 0.6

46.1 34.6 3.0

50.0 29.7 0.5

61.9 21.2

58.9 30.6

47.4 33.8 1.5

50.1 31.1 0.2

48.9 32.2

52.8 31.4 1.3

48.7 30.9 2.0

48.2 32.5 3.5

55.5 29.0

4.6 6.3 100.0

7.4 8.9 100.0

8.5 11.3 100.0

4.0 13.0 100.0

4.2 6.3 100.0

12.4 4.9 100.0

13.1 5.6 100.0

8.8 10.1 100.0

7.5 7.0 100.0

8.9 9.5 100.0

10.2 5.7 100.0

6.9 8.6 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

65

Table VIc

Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

49.1 30.3

42.2 19.0

51.0 70.8 21.6 14.6 0.9

76.8 15.2

66.9 13.3 0.9

77.3 77.2 13.3 9.7

72.5 14.7

Police Yes 34.8 No 41.9 Not applicable 3.1 Neither approve nor disapprove 7.3 DK/NA 13.0 Total 100.0 Courts Yes 33.3 No 42.1 Not applicable 3.8 Neither approve nor disapprove 7.6 DK/NA 13.1 Total 100.0

51.1 46.1 31.0 39.5 2.4 0.4

39.1 53.5 43.9 32.7

63.1 33.5

44.4 44.8 1.0

5.1 7.3 10.4 6.6 100.0 100.0

5.8 3.6 11.2 10.2 100.0 100.0

2.0 16.4 1.5 4.2 100.0 100.0

6.5 18.6 3.3 14.5 100.0 100.0

13.9 16.9 16.8 21.9 100.0 100.0

22.5 8.9 4.9 4.9 100.0 100.0

4.5 11.0 3.5 7.9 100.0 100.0

6.2 6.3 3.2 6.8 100.0 100.0

2.8 10.1 100.0

47.7 41.8 34.4 42.8 2.4 1.9

37.1 49.9 46.9 35.6

50.6 42.9

44.4 45.8

35.6 31.8 0.5

40.7 21.3

43.8 65.2 28.2 19.2 1.2

67.5 18.6 4.7

60.3 18.8 1.5

68.0 66.1 22.2 19.8 0.7

62.2 20.1

5.1 6.8 10.4 6.7 100.0 100.0

5.8 4.0 10.3 10.5 100.0 100.0

5.1 13.7 1.5 4.2 100.0 100.0

15.4 16.6 16.8 21.4 100.0 100.0

23.6 9.7 4.4 4.6 100.0 100.0

4.5 12.0 4.8 7.4 100.0 100.0

5.1 6.2 3.9 7.9 100.0 100.0

7.7 10.1 100.0

37.0 45.2

39.3 26.1 1.4

35.8 30.6 1.4

6.5 18.1 3.3 14.1 100.0 100.0

40.8 28.4

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIa How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%) Gender Rural

Urban

Male

Female

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008

Police Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL Courts Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL

%

%

%

4.0 19.6 16.9 19.5 40.1 100.0

2.8 9.2 20.9 21.6 45.4 100.0

1.1 18.0 19.2 20.2 41.4 100.0

4.0 17.1 15.5 20.2 43.3 100.0

1.7 6.8 16.0 25.2 50.3 100.0

1.0 15.7 16.7 20.3 46.4 100.0

%

%

%

%

3.8 4.9 16.5 11.6 17.1 15.4 22.2 27.2 40.4 40.9 100.0 100.0

2.0 12.4 17.4 20.9 47.3 100.0

3.3 16.1 18.6 22.0 40.0 100.0

1.5 15.2 16.6 30.0 36.8 100.0

2.4 3.0 16.7 12.6 13.3 12.7 22.8 26.2 44.6 45.5 100.0 100.0

2.8 10.1 12.9 20.8 53.5 100.0

2.4 12.9 18.6 24.3 41.8 100.0

1.1 12.3 16.3 29.7 40.6 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

6.3 3.0 15.0 11.9 14.5 19.6 22.0 18.2 42.2 47.2 100.0 100.0

1.8 16.2 19.7 19.2 43.0 100.0

2.8 16.5 15.9 27.1 37.7 100.0

2.7 15.3 17.6 25.6 38.9 100.0

1.7 10.1 18.2 24.3 45.7 100.0

3.0 17.6 17.9 23.2 38.2 100.0

2.2 15.0 17.6 26.2 38.9 100.0

4.4 2.7 14.7 9.9 13.9 14.9 20.6 19.9 46.4 52.6 100.0 100.0

1.2 11.8 19.2 21.5 46.2 100.0

1.9 13.5 16.0 27.4 41.2 100.0

2.4 14.5 14.0 26.5 42.6 100.0

1.9 7.4 13.7 25.5 51.5 100.0

2.4 16.3 16.4 23.6 41.4 100.0

Annual Report 2008

Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)

Annual Report 2008

66

Table VIIb How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%)

Nov 2007 Police Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL Courts Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL

18 - 35 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Nov 2008 Nov 2007

36 - 50 Jun. 2008Sep 2008

Nov 2008

Nov 2007

51 + Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Nov 2008

4.8 15.6 15.6 21.1 43.0 100.0

1.9 13.5 18.7 26.6 39.2 100.0

2.6 10.4 20.3 24.2 42.5 100.0

3.2 15.3 15.9 21.4 44.3 100.0

4.5 18.4 11.8 26.2 39.1 100.0

2.3 14.5 17.4 25.9 39.9 100.0

1.8 8.3 20.7 18.9 50.4 100.0

0.8 18.1 17.0 23.1 41.0 100.0

4.3 12.3 19.5 24.6 39.3 100.0

2.7 17.4 20.2 25.5 34.2 100.0

2.6 13.2 16.7 19.6 47.9 100.0

2.5 18.0 22.9 20.1 36.5 100.0

3.5 15.1 15.6 20.6 45.3 100.0

1.5 7.9 14.6 25.4 50.5 100.0

1.9 13.2 16.2 23.0 45.7 100.0

3.1 15.6 15.5 24.2 41.6 100.0

3.6 15.8 11.1 25.8 43.7 100.0

2.6 7.6 16.5 21.0 52.2 100.0

0.8 13.0 19.1 21.1 46.0 100.0

0.8 15.7 13.4 29.5 40.6 100.0

3.2 13.2 14.4 24.7 44.4 100.0

3.0 10.2 12.4 20.6 53.8 100.0

2.3 15.6 18.6 23.0 40.4 100.0

0.8 11.6 15.7 27.5 44.4 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIIc How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%) Bosniak majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

AREA Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

Serb majority areas Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.

2.6 8.6 12.8 15.5 60.5 100.0

3.0 16.0 24.0 33.4 23.7 100.0

0.6 10.1 21.5 29.8 38.0 100.0

Police Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL

3.1 2.7 13.3 11.8 16.7 13.5 15.9 18.1 51.0 53.9 100.0 100.0

2.2 11.3 21.5 65.0 100.0

4.5 11.5 13.5 22.5 47.9 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

4.3 6.3 5.2 24.7 59.4 100.0

5.8 2.6 8.0 11.1 8.4 22.6 39.9 27.8 37.9 35.9 100.0 100.0

1.3 10.8 14.1 31.7 42.1 100.0

3.1 21.5 25.7 22.3 27.3 100.0

0.8 11.5 24.1 23.7 40.0 100.0

2.7 24.4 20.1 34.8 18.0 100.0

2.0 23.3 22.9 22.9 28.9 100.0

34.2 27.8 20.3 17.6 100.0

0.6 19.6 19.5 31.0 29.3 100.0

30.1 24.7 17.5 27.7 100.0