This project is financed by the EUthrough the European Integration Fund,a programme managed by the EC Delegationto the Republic of Serbia and implementedby Press Now.

CIDEC - Citizens' Dialogue forEuropean Consensus

Institutional Formsand Mechanisms ofCitizens' Participationin the EUIntegration Process

Citizens' Associationfor Democracy andCivic Education

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

This project is financed by the EUthrough the European Integration Fund,a programme managed by the EC Delegationto the Republic of Serbia and implementedby Press Now.

CIDEC - Citizens' Dialogue forEuropean Consensus

Institutional Formsand Mechanisms ofCitizens' Participationin the EUIntegration Process

Citizens' Associationfor Democracy andCivic Education

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

Belgrade, June 2009

3

Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................5

On the project: CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue

for European Consensus ..........................................................................7

Realization of Events ................................................................................................ 11

Institutional Forms and Mechanisms of Citizens’ Participation

in the EU Integration Process ................................................................13

International Conference, 28 November 2008, Belgrade,

Hall of the National Bank of Serbia .....................................................................15

Report on the Event ............................................................................................ 17

List of Participants in the Second International Conference ....................67

Public Duscission in Novi Pazar, 12 December 2008 ....................................... 71

Report on the Event ............................................................................................73

List of Participants in the Public Discussion .................................................94

Public Duscission in Zrenjanin, 3 February 2009 .............................................97

Report on the Event ............................................................................................99

List of Participants in the Public Discussion in Zrenjanin ......................133

Recommendations ................................................................................139

4

5

Introduction

Th is is the second in a series of three publications prepared in the scope of the project CIDEC – Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus, imple-mented by Civic Initiatives in cooperation with the European Integration Fund managed by the European Commission Delegation to Serbia, and technically im-plemented by Press Now.

Th is project has been envisaged as a set of related activities, among which is preparation of these publications that accompany a series of public events – international conferences and local public discussions, on topics important for including citizens into the process of European integrations.

Each publication contains a detailed review of the cycle of three events held under the same name. Th e fi rst publication refers to the topic “Building Partner-ship between NGOs and Public Administration in the EU Integration Proc-ess”, treated at the First International Conference, held in Belgrade on 9 October 2008, as well as at public discussions in Bujanovac on 31 October 2008, and in Novi Sad on 5 November 2008. Th e second publication reports on events ad-dressing “Institutional Forms and Mechanisms of Citizens’ Participation in the EU Integration Process”, analyzed at the 2nd International Conference in Belgrade, on 28 November 2008, and at public discussions in Novi Pazar on 12 December 2008, and in Zrenjanin on 3 February 2009. Th e third publication presents events that have started at the 3rd International Conference in Belgrade “Possibilities for Citizens and NGOs to Communicate with EU Institutions” on 3 March 2009, and follow-up public discussions in Kruševac, on 26 March 2009, and in Niš on 20 May 2009.

Each publication contains a detailed review of presentations of experts from abroad and from Serbia, the fl ow of events, lists of participants, comments, dis-cussion and evaluation. We especially point to documents at the end of each pub-

6

lication, the author of which is the Assistant Professor Tanja Miščević PhD. Th ey summarize fi ndings of each cycle of events and at the same time contain conclu-sions and recommendations for diff erent actors in the EU integration process.

7

On the project: CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue

for European Consensus

Th is project aims to initiate public discussions between participants from civil society and State offi cials on European integration of Serbia, and thereby contribute to the political and social consensus on integration of Serbia into EU. In order to have a successful dialogue, civil society organizations and active citizens’ associations must be enabled to be frontmen and implementers of this process. It may be achieved by using the experience of other EU candidate and member countries, which have recently gone through diff erent phases of EU in-tegration.

Th e project envisages the following aims and outcomes:

a) General project aim:

To contribute to establishment of consensus on EU integration in Serbia.

b) Special aim:

To increase citizens’ support to EU integration by creating conditi-ons for their participation in public discussions.

c) Expected outcomes:

Raised awareness and level of knowledge on opportunities for coo-peration between nongovernmental organizations, public admini-stration and media in the EU integration process

Initiation of public dialogue, exchange of information and good practice principles related to the EU integration process

8

Empowered nongovernmental organizations for setting up partner relations with the Government in the course of the EU accession process

Better informed citizens, and more included in public discussions on EU integration

Concrete activities planned in the scope of the one-year project:

1. Th ree one-day thematic international conferences – One of the key planned activities during the project duration are three one-day international thematic conferences. Th e conferences are focused on experiences of EU can-didate and member countries in diff erent phases of their integration process. In direct discussion with organizations from Serbia will be analyzed possibilities for application of methods and activities that were evidently successful in their cases. Lessons learned from presented models of informing and inclusion of citi-zens into integration fl ows will help Serbian nongovernmental organizations and associations to avoid mistakes and to do their job effi ciently and successfully.

International conferences were planned to be held in Belgrade, for some 35 participants, including both representatives of the civil sector and representa-tives of the state administration, media (journalists and editors-in-chief), Eu-ropean institutions and foreign embassies, international experts from Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia (member countries) and Croatia (candidate country), as well as representatives of the European Integration Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia.

Six public discussions – Two discussions were planned to be organized af-ter each conference, a total of six public discussions. Discussions were envisaged as an additional clarifi cation of the conference contents. Th ey will be organized in regional centers all over Serbia (Zrenjanin, Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac, Novi Pazar and Bujanovac). Each discussion will be attended by 50 participants, in-cluding representatives of local civil society organizations, local authorities and media. Th e events will be facilitated by two domestic experts.

9

3. TV production and broadcasting – each event will be taped, edited and off ered to nationally and locally covered TV stations. Th e programme duration will be up to 30 minutes each. We expect the Association of Local Electronic Media to broadcast this programme for symbolic price.

4. Publications – Based on documents and materials from conferences and discussions, conclusions and recommendations will be put together in three the-matic publications. Th ey will be printed in circulation of 500 each, and will also be available on our website.

5. Spreading information on activities and outcomes through media – Information will be communicated to the public in the course of the complete duration of the project. Th e Project Coordinator from Civic Initiatives will be responsible for the overall information spreading strategy, while the PR Man-ager will be in charge of daily activities related to cooperation with media. Be-sides conference materials and three publications, this project brings a number of other materials as well. It includes monthly reports on activities, fi nal report with internal evaluation, press releases, NETWORK magazine. All of the materi-als will be available to public on Civic Initiatives website as well, while a special link will connect it to the website of the European Integration Offi ce. For more information please visit the Civic Initiatives websites.

10

11

Realization of Events

In the period October 2008 – April 2009 three international conferences were held in Belgrade, and fi ve round tables – public discussions in Bujanovac, Novi Sad, Novi Pazar, Zrenjanin and Kruševac. Th e fi nal event was planned for May 2009.

Guests at conferences were experts from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slo-vakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia. Th ey presented experiences from their countries, of both governmental and nongovernmental sectors, in the domain of mechanisms of cooperation, citizens’ participation, process monitoring, dialogue establishment and discussions on diff erent topics. Representatives of the EU Inte-gration Offi ce, as well as the Ministry of Finance, presented eff orts made by their institutions in the EU integration process. Conferences were attended by more than 180 participants (instead of the planned 105) from the governmental and nongovernmental sectors, representatives of media, local self-governments, trade unions, local institutions. Discussions all over Serbia were used for presenting experiences and recommendations set forth during international conferences, as well as for presenting activities of domestic institutions and nongovernmental organizations in this process. Interest for these events surpassed all our expecta-tions – instead of planned 250 participants, at 5 out of 6 events were present over 400 participants from all sectors of the society, including representatives of local community centres.

Here is a detailed review of the second series of events, which started at the International Conference in Belgrade, on 28 November 2008, and fi nished at public discussions in Novi Pazar and Zrenjanin.

12

13

Institutional Forms and Mechanisms

of Citizens’ Participation

in the EU Integration Process

14

15

International Conference,

28 November 2008, Belgrade,

Hall of the National Bank of Serbia

PROGRAMME

09:00 – 09:30 Registration

09:30 – 09:45 Opening: Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives

09:45 – 10:00 Th omas Gnocchi, Th e First Secretary and Head of the Political Section –

European Commission Delegation to Serbia

10:00 – 10:20 Ivana Djurić, Head of the Department for Communication Activities and

Relations with European Institutions of the Government of the Republic

of Serbia; Communicating on European Integration of Serbia, Role of Civil

Society Organizations

10:20 – 10:45 Assya Kavrakova, Director of the Programme for European Policies and

Citizens’ Participation, Open Society Institute, Sofi a, Bulgaria; Report on

Citizens’ Supervision

10:45 – 11:10 Ionut Sibian, Executive Director, Foundation for Civil Society Develop-

ment, Bucharest, Romania; Th e Role of the Civil Society in EU Accession

Negotiations – Romanian Perspective

11:10 – 11:40 Coff ee break

11:40 – 12:00 Nadia Ćuk, European Council, Belgrade Offi ce

12:00 – 12:20 Jelena Pajović, Ministry of Finance, Sector for Programming, EU Funds

Management and Development Assistance; Development of the System

Mechanism for Consultation with Civil Society on IPA Programming

12:20 – 14: 30 Discussion/Questions and Answers

14:30 Lunch for all participants

16

17

Report on the Event

Th e Second International Conference by the name of “Institutional Forms and Mechanisms of Citizens’ Participation in the EU Integration Process”, took place in Belgrade, on Friday, 28 November 2008. At the Conference, in which part took some 50 representatives of governmental and international in-stitutions, of domestic and foreign nongovernmental sector, funds and founda-tions, was discussed the process of accession to the European Union, measures that should be taken to become a member as soon as possible, but were also dis-cussed the traps that should be avoided on that path. Th e key message from the gathering was that on the way to European Integration, the Government and nongovernmental sector must closely cooperate, because EU membership is in interest of both of them.

Th e Conference was opened by Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives, who said that the idea of the gathering was to listen to experi-ences of countries in the region that have already accessed the European Union or are candidate countries, to get acquainted with mechanisms necessary to be established by the State in order to carry out the EU Integration Process as suc-cessfully as possible, with participation of citizens. He transferred to the audi-ence experiences of guests from Poland, Croatia and Macedonia, who spoke at the previous Conference about establishment of very sophisticated channels of communication going from the national to the local level. “Th e local level, I be-lieve, is something particularly neglected in our country. I do not claim that it was neglected with bad intentions, it was neglected because it seems that other things have priority. For us, it is also exceptionally important that these gatherings are taking place at the moment when out Government shows readiness to establish some institutions that will deal exclusively with care for nongovernmental sec-tor”, said Dereta and added that “there exists ever more intensive cooperation with some ministries whose representatives, too, attend this Conference; also, there has been ever more intensive cooperation between the Government and NGOs”.

18

Th e Head of the Political Section of the European Commission Delegation to Serbia, Th omas Gnocchi, said that the new Serbian Government has set as its key priority European Integration and reforms, and that Serbia should do her best to achieve these priorities as soon as possible. “Th e European Commission considers EU accession to be a strong driving force of changes and we remain, just like hitherto, fully committed to support and strengthening of democracy in Serbia, and together with the governmental structures and NGOs, media and all others we are ready to assist Serbia in its progress in the context of European pros-pects.” He said that the European future of Serbia is in the fi rst place in the hands of its people and its democratically elected leaders, and that getting closer to EU membership requires both political will and citizens’ support. EU is aware of the important role of civil society in consolidation of democracy, as well as in the European Integration Process, and Serbia should put further eff orts in deepening freedom of association and in facilitating development of civil society organiza-tions (CSOs). In order to have an active role in the European Integration Process, local organizations need training and capacity building. Th erefore, EU rendered and is still rendering assistance to many CSOs, primarily to the ones addressing interethnic relations, minority rights protection, including Roma rights, poverty reduction, environmental protection and social development.

Gnocchi said that for Serbia, which has been going through a diffi cult pro-cess of political, economic and social transformation, it is important that all stakeholders take part in the process. Th e role of CSOs is crucial for consoli-dation of democracy. In its Progress Report 2008, the European Commission acknowledged the importance of CSOs in social, economic and political life of Serbia. “Th rough regional cooperation and good relations with civil society in the neighbouring countries, Serbian civil society plays and important role in the re-gional stability and in improvement of relations between countries in the region; however, Serbia still lacks a comprehensive law that would create good conditions for establishment and functioning of civil society”, said Gnocchi.

19

Besides, there is a need in Serbia for intensive dialogue between civil society organizations and central and local authorities. Although diff erent forms of con-sultations between the authorities and CSOs have been already introduced, their cooperation is still on irregular, ad hoc basis, while a system dialogue has not been developed so far. Th e Government must systematically include civil society in policy-and decision-making processes; however, civil society should also be coordinated within itself.

Gnocchi specifi ed a few important things that the European Union does for civil society in Serbia: it increases inclusion of civil society in processes of con-sultation in the domain of programming fi nancial and technical assistance, it gives more importance to the role of civil society in preparing the annual report of EC, which covers a number of diff erent spheres important for EU accession of Serbia. Also, EU has been rendering continuous and signifi cant fi nancial as-sistance to civil society. Th e IPA 2008 Programme (instrument for pre-accession assistance) en visaged 2 million Euros for CSO projects that aim at strengthening the dialogue and partnership between the Serbian Government and civil society, as well as promotion and capacity building of CSOs. Th ere is also a relatively large initiative, as a part of the general strategy for support to civil sector in the region, by the name of Civil Society Facility, which consists of thee parts: starting civic initiatives and capacity building, conducting programmes for individuals, and diff erent partner activities. Th e EC Delegation is ready to inform through these initiatives representatives of the civil sector on diff erent forms of available fi nancing, to include them as much as possible into discussions on EU policies, and fi rst of all into preparation of the Progress Report.

Representative of the European Integration Offi ce of the Government of Ser-bia, Ivana Djurić, highlighted the importance of the role of nongovernmental sector in the integration process, as well as timely informing of public of the process. She said it was very important to work on forming positive opinion of citizens of Serbia through better understanding of European Integration Process and reforms as its integral part. Ms Djurić presented the document by the name

20

of “Communication Strategy of the Government of Serbia in the Stabiliza-tion and Accession Process”. Th e Strategy is the fi rst document that the Offi ce submitted to the Government for adoption, with the aim to bring closer to citi-zens of Serbia the process of stabilization and accession, to explain the need and importance of reforms conducted in the process, as well as to provide objective and timely informing of citizens of the process, and of necessary reforms. It is important to understand that the European Integration Process is not something coming from outside that is being imposed on us but it is something that we have to do for ourselves. Strategy implementation, that has been lasting for 4 years, gave positive results: citizens declared very positively on the European Integra-tion Process (more than 70% gave support to EI; today, that percentage is some 67%), a broader social consensus on the issue was reached, and positive attitude towards Serbia was formed. Th e main method of implementing the Strategy, i.e. the method of communication with target groups, is direct contact with citizens. To that end, the EI Offi ce, in cooperation with the civil sector, initiated three years ago a campaign “Europe is Knocking on Your Door”, which contributed in many towns of Serbia to citizens’ getting directly included into communication on the topic, for the fi rst time. In the campaign were included local self-gov-ernments, universities, secondary-school students, citizens in the streets; a large number of brochures was prepared, as well as a website, so that citizens could have the opportunity to directly communicate with the Offi ce and get informa-tion on the topic.

Another aspect of communication that the Offi ce particularly paid attention to, was communication with media. When in 2004 was organized the fi rst press conference in the Government of Serbia, for the purpose to present the newly-formed European Integration Offi ce and Communication Strategy, only three journalists were present. Th ree years later, in 2007, the Offi ce was proclaimed by representatives of printed media as a State body that cooperates in the best way with media. From April 2004 till April 2007, the Offi ce was working on educa-tion of journalists and organized a large number of trainings, primarily for jour-

21

nalists from local media, because the public opinion research had proved that the majority of citizens of Serbia (from non-urban environments and not from major cities in Serbia) know very little about European Integration, and that their main source is televi-sion, local media in the fi rst place. Also, for journalists was organized a large number of study tours into new member countries, and a journalist award for the best contribution of Eu-ropean Integration was establishedMs Djurić said that in the next period it is very important for the Offi ce to de-velop communication though media-tors, i.e. NGOs as key partners, given that their role in the European Integration Process is very important. For the purpose of institutionalizing that communication and cooperation in general, the Offi ce signed with CSOs a Memorandum of Cooperation; similar memoranda were signed with the Chamber of Commerce and with universities in Serbia as well (in October 2006).

In 2009, the Offi ce is awaiting preparation and adoption of the Strategy of Communication of the Process of Accession of Serbia to European Union. In Octo-ber the Government adopted a document by the name of National Plan for Euro-pean Integration, which should improve future communication and harmonize it with these documents.

See power point presentation of Ivana Djurić

22

CIDEC - Citizens’ Dialogue for European Consensus

“Institutional forms and mechanisms for citizen partici-pation in the EU integrations”

November 28th 2008, Belgrade

Communicating on European integrations

of Serbia

Role of the CSO

Ivana ĐurićSerbian government

The EU integration offi ce

www.seio.gov.rs

• • •Communication strategy of the Serbian government on the sta-

bilization and association process

Prepared in 2003; adopted in 2004.

• Making the Stabilization and association process (SAP) closer to the Serbian citizens

• Explaining need and importancy of the reforms that are being carried out in this process

23

• Securing the objective and timely informing citizens on the SAP and necessary reforms

MAIN MESSAGE -

European integrations process = economic, political, social and men-tality TRANSITION

• • •EXPECTED RESULTS

• Informing the public on the SAP and motivating and encouraging the citizens to take part in the process and to understand their own du-ties in responsible and constructive manner

• Forming a more positive opinion among Serbian citizens on accession to the EU through better understanding of process of the European integrations and reforms as its integral part / does the high percent-age of support also means a national consensus on EU membership

• Reaching a higher social consensus and making a bigger contribution to the process of European integrations of all parts in the society.

• Forming a positive attitude of the EU citizens and EU offi cials towards the eff orts and progress of Serbia in the process of European integra-tions

• • •

24

Ways of communicating with the public and stakeholders

• Direct contact with the citizens

• Communicating through the medias

• Communicating trough the networks (cooperation of the key mes-sage transporters – NGOs, medias, business communities, academic institutions, representatives of the EU member states in Serbia, emi-nent individuals)

• • •Cooperation of the Offi ce and the CSO

• Memorandum on cooperation with the NGOs in the process of Euro-pean integrations, signed on July 12th 2005Purpose: Institutionalization of the cooperation between the Offi ce and the NGOs in the process of the European integrations

• Memorandum on cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce of Serbia, signed in 2004.

• Memorandum on cooperation with Serbian Universities, signed in October 2006.

• • •

25

Why does the civil sector matter?

• Encouraging the public debate

• Process ownership

• Enhancing the culture of the democratic dialogue and social cohesion

• Securing the civil participation in policy creating

• • •Forms of the cooperation between the Offi ce and the NGOs

• Regular contacts and information exchange

• Common projects and activities

• Easing the contact between the NGOs and potential donors

• Organizing the Day of Europe and other campaigns related to the EU

• Organizing regular meetings

• Giving recommendations

• Participation of the Offi ce representatives in lectures and trainings or-ganized by the partner NGOs

• Common organization of the conferences and round tables

• Offi ce publishes a bulletin dedicated to the civil society

• There is a special part of the Offi ce’s web site dedicated to the civil society

26

Expected activities in 2009.

• Preparing and adopting the Communication strategy in process of the Serbian accession to the EU

• Encouraging and complementing the EU debate

• Harmonizing the Communications strategy with the National inte-gration plan

• Message segmenting

• Strengthening the role of the NGOs, private sector and medias, as source of information

• • •Key challenges

• Keeping the public interested, not stimulating unreal expectations

• Media attention should be more focused on the question of the Eu-ropean integrations

• Directing the civil sector initiatives in relevant project propositions

• More accessibility fi nancial support of the EU

• Cooperation of all the parts of the society

• Common communication of the ‘’changes’’ in the process of acces-sion to the EU, in order to enhance the present image

• Responsibility of the politicians

27

• • •Thank you for your attention

Ivana ĐurićThe EU integration offi ce

idjuric@seio.gov.rs Telephone: +381 11 3061102

www.seio.gov.rs

28

Th e Programme director for European Policies and Citizens’ Participation of the Open Society Institute from Sofi a, Assya Kavrakova, transferred her country’s experiences in the European Integration Process. She said that it was very important to execute pressure on the Government to complete success-fully the initiated reforms. Kavarakova specially highlighted the obligation of the State to inform civil society organizations and other public about the proc-ess, as well as to enable transparency of the whole process. Kavrakova started her addressing the audience by congratulating the Government of Serbia for what it has presented so far as an example of structural approach to dialogue with civil society, and added that such a thing did not exist in Bulgaria during the pre-accession period and that it still does not exist. She stated that in Bul-garia they have been working on the new proposal of normative act that should provide an institutionalized and structural dialogue between representatives of authorities and civil society. A structured cooperation is a challenge for civil society, too, because it requires representatives in the dialogue. Civil society should be mature enough to consolidate and defi ne who will present it before the Government, and it should point out diff erent segments in the scope of its thematic areas. It was a problem in Bulgaria because the civil sector there is very diverse, which is good regarding competence of programmes and ideas, but not so good when expressing concern and assuming joint platform in dis-cussions with decision makers. Th erefore, there is a constant confl ict regarding who will represent whom and why.

Negotiations in the European Integration Process are not simple; from the very beginning the negotiations become technical by their nature, and require specifi c technical expertise, which is exceptionally important when one wants to be an equal partner in the process. Th e fact is that Serbia has invested a lot in the development of the preliminary phase of the dialogue, which will be very useful when negotiations on membership start, because it will add an ad-ditional value to the contents of the process and will legitimize it.

29

Bulgaria started its EU accession negotiations in 2000, completed all her obligations in 2004, and in 2005 signed the Accession Agreement. Th e Agree-ment stipulated that Bulgaria may access EU on 1 January 2007, if it proves to be ready to follow instructions by the European Commission in that period, i.e. accession will be delayed for one year if Bulgaria fails to prove its readiness for membership. Actually, there were 4 scenarios for EU accession of Bulgaria: accession on 1 January 2007 without meeting additional clauses; accession on 1 January 2007 by meeting two clauses; on 1 January 2008 without clauses and on 1 January 2008 with clauses. For this purpose, Bulgaria was the subject of the most extensive monitoring conducted by the European Commission. Th e Bulgarian Government based on a coalition agreement, tried to prove that, even if there are no results, there is political will to solve the problems. All the time there were speculations on what was going on and what is going to be, what im-pact on citizens would have the choice of this or that option. Th e opinion was that the entire process would be more successful if independent organizations started their own supervision. Th us came into existence the idea of conduct-ing an independent citizens’ supervision, and it was focused on issues that had priority at the time, i.e. the ones that could slow down or even jeopardize Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union. Th ose issues refer to the Com-mercial Law (where there were problems with the protection of copyrights), freedom of rendering services, agriculture, regional policies, judiciary, which are so far acute spheres nonetheless. Th e purpose of the report was to give, in-dependently from the Government and European Commission, an evaluation of the situation and to enable citizens’ informing of the current state of aff airs, because they had the experience that during accession negotiations politicians tended to often misrepresent the facts. NGOs wished to submit these reports because, as a response to what the Commission issued, the Bulgarian Govern-ment was preparing an action plan, in order to respond to concerns resulting from the Commission’s Report. Th at action plan consisted of diff erent meas-ures planned in a manner to solve all shortcomings. Th erefore NGOs decided to focus on supervision of the level of implementation of these measures, for

30

which it was necessary to have access to information on everything going on and what the Government did do. Th e issues of transparency and responsibility of the Bulgarian Government and its parts is present as far as today; these are issues to be worked on for the purpose to improve the situation. For this is nec-essary to have an exceptionally important ally in the Government. In Bulgaria it was Madlena Kuneva, Minister for European Aff airs, who is now a Commis-sary of the European Commission’s Consumer Protection. In the scope of the Council of Ministers, she was presiding the department responsible for coor-dinating all Bulgarian attitudes during the negotiation process. She signed the agreement on the basis of which representatives of NGOs were allowed the access to meetings of the Council and insight into all documents resulting from these meetings. Th is enabled access to all information indispensable for conducting activities. Th ereupon were formed 6 expert groups, consisting of experienced people, experts from the nongovernmental sector and universities, not only from the Government; these groups addressed key problems in the European Integration Process. Reports produced in the course of that research

31

were evaluating progress in carrying out the assumed obligations and were pre-sented to ambassadors of member countries, to diff erent target groups and to broader public. NGOs communicated to media the fi ndings they had obtained, for the purpose of securing adequate coverage, and they also provided inde-pendence in terms of their own expertise and fi nances. Regarding supervision methodology, the level of implementation of measures was evaluated according to a four-level scale: implemented, not implemented, mainly implemented, mainly not implemented. It is necessary to remark that before evaluating one measure as implemented or not implemented, it is necessary to assess whether it was adequately planned or not.

Th e most important lesson learned by NGOs in Bulgaria refers to the im-portance of securing independence. It concretely means the use of own exper-tise and autonomous fi nancing.

Th e second important lesson refers to diversifi cation of messages. One and the same message should not be transferred in the same manner, i.e. using the same language, to diff erent target groups (e.g. representatives of domestic authorities, foreign ambassadors, broader public). Th e language used in this connection, primarily in the nongovernmental sector, is full of incomprehensi-ble argot and must be adapted to citizens, which actually means that it is neces-sary to make messages as clear as possible.

“What actually happened is that this report put us into the very centre of attention of the broader public and media, not only in Bulgaria but abroad as well. Th e report presentation itself was nothing as compared to what occurred after that. Domestic journalists, journalists from other EU member countries, journalists from new member countries were coming and asking for comments on the events”, said Kavrakova.

See power point presentation of Assya Kavrakova

32

Civic Monitoring Report

Open Society Institute – Sofi a

• • •Monitoring Objectives

• To pressure the government to successfully complete the reforms be-fore January 1, 2007;

• To inform the civil society about the actual progress achieved in the “red areas” of Bulgaria’s preparation for accession to the EU simulta-neously with and independently of the Government;

• To stimulate transparency and accountability in the performance of the state administration.

• • •

33

Monitoring Areas

• The “red areas” of Bulgaria’s preparation for accession to the EU, de-fi ned by the European Commission in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report of October 2005 and May 2006.

• Areas, where the delay of reforms raises “serious concern”: company law, freedom to provide services, agriculture, regional policy, and jus-tice and home aff airs (October 2005 – May 2006).

• The monitoring focuses on the extent of implementation of the meas-ures planned by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria (Action plan) in response to the critical remarks of the European Commission.

• • •Monitoring Approach

• Signed Agreement on Monitoring of the work of the state administra-tion between the Open Society Institute - Sofi a and the Minister of European Aff airs Meglena Kuneva - 5 December 2005.

• Expert groups formed to monitor the implementation by the Bulgar-ian Government of the commitments assumed in the areas of serious concern.

• Product - Reports, which evaluated progress in implementing the commitments assumed.

• Press conferences for announcing the Report fi ndings to the general public and presentations to specifi c target groups.

34

Monitoring Methodology

• A scale of four values measure implementation of each measure:

• Not implemented: the deadline for implementation has been missed and work on implementation of the measure has not started;

• Rather not implemented: the deadline for implementation has been missed, work on implementation of the measure has started, but implementation is at an initial stage;

• Rather implemented: the deadline for implementation has been missed, work on implementation of the measure has started, and implementation is at a fi nal stage;

• Implemented: the measure has been implemented by the deadline.

• • •Structure of the Monitoring Report

• Executive Summary;

• Introduction;

• Monitoring Methods;

• Evaluation of the Government-planned actions (measures) by area includes:

• evaluation of the adequacy of the measures (whether they adequate-ly address the problem as identifi ed in the EC Monitoring Report), and

• evaluation of the implementation of the measure according to the scale of four values;

35

• Conclusions by area.

• Structure of the Monitoring Report

• Overall Conclusions by the civic monitoring team, and

• Recommendations to ensure greater public openness, transparency and accountability.

• Press release (one page) summarizing the Report’s conclusions - key messages for the public.

• • •Monitoring Report (May 15, 2006) Findings by Areas

36

Chapter 24: Cooperation in the Field of Justice and Home Aff airsCon-clusion (in May 15, 2006 Report)

The area of Justice and home aff airs should not pose an obstacle to Bulgaria’s EU membership as from 1 January 2007.

However as each of the “not implemented” measures aff ects the judi-cial or law-enforcement systems of the Republic of Bulgaria, the delay of their implementation compromises the state of preparedness under Chapter 24 and spells a high risk of application of a justice and home aff airs safeguard.

• • •General Monitoring Report Findings

37

Institutional Responsibility for the 13 “rather not implemented”

Measures

• Ministry of Interior – for seven of the “rather not implemented” meas-ures. For 6 of them - shares responsibility with other institutions;

• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – 3;

• Financial Supervision Commission – 3;

• Ministry of Health – 2;

• Ministry of Justice – 2;

• Ministry of Environment and Water – 1;

• Ministry of Finance – 1;

• Commission for Personal Data Protection – 1;

• National Council on Narcotic Substances – 1;

• Guarantee Fund - 1.

• • •May 15, 2006 Monitoring Report Conclusions

• In all fi ve areas: Company law, Freedom to provide services, Agricul-ture, Regional policy, and Justice and home aff airs, progress in over-coming the delay has reached the critical minimum and, therefore, provided the brisk pace of reforms is kept up, these spheres should not pose an obstacle to Bulgaria’s membership in the EU as from 1 January 2007.

• Owing to a delay and inadequate eff ectiveness in the implementa-tion of key reforms in the areas of Agriculture and Justice and home

38

aff airs, the risk that an internal market safeguard will be applied is not overcome yet, whereas the risk of application of a justice and home aff airs safeguard remains high.

• • •Lessons Learned

• Impartiality and independence of the monitoring process – of the monitoring approach and methodology as well as of the experts who have to be recognized not only as knowledgeable but also as not be-ing biased to any specifi c interest.

• Diversifi cation of the messages presenting the fi ndings refl ecting the specifi city of the target groups.

• Preparedness for follow-up challenges – the institution as well as the expert team to be prepared to cope with all the opportunities for a follow up action.

• • •The Civic Monitoring Reports are available at www.osi.bg

For additional information:Assya KavrakovaProgram Director

European Policies and Civic Participation ProgramOpen Society Institute – Sofi a

56, Solunska Str., 1000 Sofi a, BulgariaPhone (+359 2) 930 6654, Fax (+359 2) 951 6518

e-mail: akavrakova@osi.bg, Web site: www.osf.bg

39

Th e Executive Director of the Foundation for Civil Society Development from Bucharest, Jonut Sibian, speaking about his country’s experiences, and in the fi rst place of the role of the civil sector in that process, said that with the Cabinet of the Government was formed the Offi ce for Relations with Civil Soci-ety, as well as consulting bodies on European Integration issues with cabinets of Ministers, in which there were representatives of NGOs as well. Sibian ap-pealed to the civil sector in Serbia to obligatorily, in the EU Integration Process, make use of the “stress” that EU experiences when civil society is mentioned. He said that it is very important that the civil sector is homogeneous, to have its platform, but also to build partnerships with representatives of local authori-ties. In that way, believes Sibian, confi dence of citizens in the civil sector will also rise. Sibian explained to the audience the path of Romania to the EU membership by telling that since 1994 the mission of that country was EU, and that, inter alia, Romania provided funds for civil society programmes.

Th e total sum of money available to civil society that Romania obtained from EU, from 1994 to 2008, amounted to some 35 million Euros. After obtaining as-sistance, the main task was to encourage NGOs to apply together with public administration and local authorities for joint projects. Some 2,000 projects of diff erent NGOs were fi nanced. Th e level of money spent at the end of the proj-ect ranged between 96% and 99%. Th e public administration never could exceed 90%. NGOs were an example of the best practices and as such were evaluated not by the Government only but by the European Commission Delegation in Bucharest as well. Th e most important change with reference to the civil sector occurred in 2000. In that year were replaced the Law on Association and the Law on Establishment of Organizations, so that today there is a very good Law on As-sociations and Foundations that off ers citizens the opportunity to become ready for activities within one month, as a nongovernmental organization. Regarding trends in civil society of Romania, it should be pointed out that there exist 52,000 registered NGOs, out of which, according to estimations, active are some 7,000 to 10,000. Active organizations are considered to be the ones that implement

40

projects every year and that register their balance sheet every year. Th e main problem in the nongovernmental sector is that it is dominantly urban. Romania is still a big rural country, and in rural areas there are very few NGOs, only 10% – 14% out of the total number of NGOs. Th erefore there is now need for form-ing NGOs in rural areas, too. For strengthening the role of civil society it is very important to create networks, broader NGO platforms, however, this process in Romania has been evolving very slowly. If it wishes to be strong with respect to the Government and Commission, the civil sector must have platforms and networks, i.e. it must perform as unifi ed and have a unique attitude regarding specifi c problems. Th ere are only three such examples in Romania: Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid founded in 2006, Federation of the Protec-tion of Children’s Rights and the Movement of NGOs that address problems of

41

disabled persons. Movements for environmental protection have been strength-ening lately as well.

Nongovernmental organizations in Romania have several important roles. To begin with, they are very effi cient in rendering social services. Th ere are some 1,000 NGOs offi cially accredited by the State, European Commission and USAID to render social services. Also, NGOs were initiators and activators of changes in public policies. Th ey prepared drafts of a number of public policies and laws, which made possible for Romania to become an EU member. NGOs are promoters of democratic development, and as such they were acknowl-edged in the supervision report made by EC. Th ere are a few laws fully developed by NGOs: the Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights and the Law on Election for Delegates.

Regarding relations between the civil sector and State institutions, in Roma-nia there is a Department for Relations with Civil Society, within the Prime Minister’s Cabinet, which together with the Prime Minister conducts consulta-tive cooperation with associations and foundations. Also, within each Ministry there are consultative bodies for cooperation with CSOs.

Fields in which in the pre-accession period NGOs in Romania were very ac-tive were democracy and human rights, rule of law, Constitutional reform, elec-toral system, anti-corruption, freedom of association, civic education in schools, protection of the environment, cultural heritage, health care, corporative and so-cial accountability. NGOs were also pleading for the freedom of expression, they were encouraging journalists to form associations and they organized training of journalists regarding EU issues, in order to be able to write about negotiations and to report on specifi c chapters.

Capability of nongovernmental organizations to have an impact on the au-thorities was improved because there is a good legal framework. Th us NGOs have the right to take legal action against institutions that do not give information or are not transparent. Th ey are therefore forced to be transparent and to regularly

42

publish data on their websites. In that way was created a mechanism that functions very well in some areas, and manages to link civil society, local administration, and ministries, because more expertise produc-es better results.

Regarding the civil sector image, the data say that some 30% of citizens trust nongovernmental organizations and that the percentage has been raising by 2% or 3% on annual basis. It is not a high level of trust, nevertheless, it is still higher than trust towards politicians. Of course, NGOs

cannot compete with the Church and Army that are trusted by 80% of citizens.

After acquiring the EU member status, the novelty in Romania is that tra-ditional donors of Romanian NGOs – USAID, embassies, private foundations, European Commission, private companies – have started their exiting strategy. NGOs that were dependent on one donor only have diffi culties to survive at all. “Th e period that we named ‘fat years’ has ended and now we struggle for survival of nongovernmental organizations that depend on one source of fi nancing. All the time we have been training nongovernmental organizations to keep balance and to have at least three sources of fi nancing”, said Jonut.

Romania has become a donor country given that it adopted the Strategy of Development of Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, and that together with 35 NGOs it works in the scope of the platform, the Romanian network. In 2007, Romania allocated 5,000,000 Euros for assistance to the civil sector in countries such as Serbia, Moldavia and Georgia. It may be expected that next year will be initiated 2 or 3 joint projects with NGOs from Serbia, thus improving relations between the civil sectors in Romania and Serbia.

43

“You must avoid exaggerated dependence on EU or other funds and you must diversify your fi nancing sources, meaning that you must have a sane and self-sustainable organization. Make use of emphasis that EU has put on civil society, unify with trade unions and associations of employers when you fi ght problems in the fi eld, focus on legal changes by using the whole range of opportunities, because at the moment the Government is open towards external impacts. Take over expertise of civil society from Central Europe, from Brus-sels. Fight for the change of legislation that will later help you to work more eas-ily. Work on introduction of the Law on Association and Foundations, fi ght for introduction of the Law on Social Contracting, introduce some anti-corruption measures, work on the Law on Grants, on Public Procurements, on a law by which every tax payer has the right to direct 2% of his/her taxes to an NGO by his/her choice, work even on Constitutional changes if necessary. Th e moment for it all is now. Create a broad coordination platform for NGOs. You must have it but you also must encourage the development of “umbrella” nongovernmental organiza-tions or even a federation in the sector, in order to make sure that you act unani-mously in your attitudes, because when you are together and negotiating with the Government or the European Commission or American Embassy, then you must be unanimous. Develop strong partnership with local authorities. Exactly now, in the pre-accession phase, start to work on changes in relations between nongovernmental organizations and local authorities. Work on changes in those relations because they are crucial for the future European processes. And, the most important, preserve expertise in the scope of the civil sector. Many experts, because of increased wages in the business sector and public administration, left their nongovernmental organizations, which has led to shortage of expertise”, was the message to the audience by the Romanian guest.

See power point presentation of Jonut Sibian

44

The role of civil society

in the EU accession negotiations

A view from Romania

Ionut Sibian, FDSC, Belgrade November 28th 2008

• • •Organization level of Romanian civil society

• Improved legal environment

• Ongoing EU programs for support to civil society

• Civil Society in Romania, changes and trends:

• 52 000 registered NGO

• Active NGOs are estimated to be about 7000

• Non-profi t sector remains predominantly urban, with only 10 to 14% of all NGOs located in rural areas

• Geographic distribution remains uneven

• Creation of networks or broader NGOs platforms is still a weakness• • •

45

General role of Romanian NGOs

• Social services providers;

• Inovators in public area;

• Driving force of changes in public policies;

• Promoters of the democratic development;

• Representing local communities and citizens’ interest.• • •

Structures of dialog between the Government and Civil Society

• Department for relation with civil society under the Cancelaria of the Prime Minister

• Prime Minister College for Consultation with Associations and Foun-dations

• Bodies of consultation with civil society in all Ministries (for the pre-accession phase)

• • •Fields of action for NGO’s in the EU accession process

• Democracy and Human rights

• Rule of law

• Constitutional reform and electoral system (400 000 signatures)

46

• Anticorruption

• Freedom of expression

• Economic, social and cultural rights

• Social arena (child protection reform, disable, quality services)

• Education (civic education)

• Environment

• Cultural heritage

• Health

• CSR – corporate social responsibility

• • •New perspective after EU membership

• The end of the “fat years” the beginning for fi ght for survival

• Improved NGOs’ ability to infl uence public authorities;

• Improved image among citizens (30%) but still problems with public understanding on civil society;

• NGOs’ weak sustainability in the context of decreasing funding from foreign donors;

• Increasing gap between big and small NGOs

47

• Involvement in structural funds (a devil kiss for NGOs)

• Romania a new donor - participation of Romanian NGOs in develop-ment cooperation programs (Serbia – strategic country)

• • •Lessons learned

• Avoid overdependence on EU funds and diversify your income sources

• Use the EU stress on “civil society”

• Focus on legislative changes and use the window of opportunities

• Create broader NGOs’ coordination platforms

• Speak as a non-profi t sector and avoid atomization of individual NGOs

• Develop strong partnership with local governments

• Keep the expertise inside the sector (Human resources)

• • •Best practices - 2% Law

• Giving taxpayers the option of earmarking 2% of their taxes to eligi-ble NGOs

• In 2007 15% (7.2 million Euro) of Romanian Citizens direct 2% to an NGO

• In 2006 just 8% of the citizens use this opportunity (5 mil Euro)

48

• • •Best practices - projects

• Citizens Advice Bureaux network – to facilitate rapid acces to informa-tion and advice for the citizens

• Don’t bribe!

• Clean Parliament campaign!

• Uninominal Vote!

• You voted them! They vote laws for you! Find out the MP’s Votes

• The sunshine law

• Rosia Montana gold mining campaign

• • •FDSC - Fundaţia pentru Dezvoltarea Societăţii Civile

Civil Society Development Foundation

Splaiul Independenţei nr. 2K, et. 4

sector 3, BucureştiTel.: 0040021-310 01 77Fax: 0040021-310 01 80

E-mail: ionut.sibian@fdsc.ro

Website: www.fdsc.ro

49

Representative of the Ministry of Finance, Jelena Pajović, spoke about de-velopment of the system mechanism for consultations with civil society and IPA programming. She reminded the audience that in 2007 the European Union re-placed all existing instruments of fi nancial assistance by IPA, which is the unique fi nancial instrument for all candidate countries and potential candidates, and which should enable the use of European Union funds in the process of acces-sion, by simplifi ed rules.

Ms Pajović presented IPA components saying that they refer to assistance to transition and building of institutions, cross-border cooperation, regional de-velopment, human resources development and rural development. According to her words, IPA funds assistance through the fi rst component should enable reform of State administration, harmonization with the EU Acquis Communau-taire, strengthening of democratic institutions, rule of law, social and economic development, infrastructure, but also should strengthen civil society by respect-ing human and minority rights. Explaining IPA Programmes, she said that there are two IPA components available to Serbia: assistance to transition and capacity building of institutions, intended in the fi rst place for governmental bodies, as well as cross-border cooperation intended for NGOs. Th e other three compo-nents will be available when Serbia becomes a candidate country and when a de-centralized system of fund management is established, which is currently being dealt with in the Government.

Th e fi rst component (i.e. programmes/projects in the scope of the fi rst com-ponent) should assist countries in the process of accession to the European Union to build institutions, to reform their own State administration and to establish the rule of law, to harmonize their legal systems with the EU Acquis Communau-taire, to accelerate socio-economic development, i.e. economy reform, to increase employment, achieve development sustainability, implement the Poverty Reduc-tion Strategy, assist building of infrastructure, encourage strengthening of civil society and respect of human and minority rights, and assist participation of the country in the Community programmes. For programmes in the scope of the

50

fi rst component were anticipated 78 million Euros. For the second component were anticipated considerably less funds (11.5 million Euros); these are smaller projects and their direct benefi ciaries may be nongovernmental organizations.

“IPA is very specifi c regarding the programming method; it is not a donor’s as-sistance in a general sense. It is concretely intended for European Integration aims, and therefore, when programmes that receive IPA are approved, it is very impor-tant that they be in compliance with all strategies and documents that enable accession of Serbia to the European Union”, said Ms Pajević. From the side of the European Commission it refers to the Expansion Strategy, while from our side it refers to the Stabilization and Association Agreement, Multi-year Indicative Financial Framework, Multi-year Indicative Programme Document (MIPD), National Integration Programme that should provide an insight into what legal solutions are expected from our country in the European Integration Process, and other national strategic documents – State Administration Reform Strategy, Poverty Reduction Strategy.

MIPD is the main document on the basis of which is prepared program-ming of the fi rst IPA component. In it, too, are defi ned main priorities in reforms that Serbia should implement. It is about political requirements, socio-economic requirements, European standards and cross-border cooperation. In the scope of political requirements are necessary the building of democratic institutions, State administration reform, local self-government decentralization, rule of law, judiciary reform, human rights protection. Civil society empowerment and roles of media, increased employment, enabling environment improvement, resolu-tion of macroeconomic problems, infrastructure development, higher quality of education and health protection, as well as rural development, are priorities in the scope of socio-economic requirements. Establishment of European standards in the fi rst place means harmonization of domestic Acquis Communautaire with the EU Acquis Communautaire in all sectors, improvement of IPA programming process and introduction of decentralized system of funds management.

51

Ms Pajović also explained evolving of the entire programming process in the Republic of Serbia. Th e sector for programming and management of EU funds and development assistance is responsible for taking care that all project propos-als submitted should be in compliance with all these documents. Regarding the Republic of Serbia, the most important programme document for the Republic of Serbia is the document by the name of the Need of the Republic of Serbia for International Assistance. Th is is a three-year document. Th e purpose of this document is to actually transform some strategic documents, or to transfer them into concrete programme and project proposals, and to serve us, as a sector of the Ministry of Finance, to see whether submitted projects are in accordance with the Government’s programme for the next three years. Th e idea is that this project should not change the programme of the Government of the Republic of Serbia every time when the concrete Government changes, but to have a document that will also be a liability of possible next Minister in the next Government to adhere to the programme of the Republic of Serbia, which should not be linked to politi-cal changes only. It is one of the documents in which could be included consulta-tions with the nongovernmental sector, in the forthcoming mechanism of our cooperation with the civil sector. Here is very important your contribution and your infl uence that refers to taking care that each ministry should actually defi ne its concrete needs in conformity with the real needs of the Republic of Serbia.

For the fi rst IPA component there are clearly defi ned authorized proposers of project ideas. Th ese may be competent ministries, special organizations estab-lished by the Law on Ministries, Government services, National Assembly and National Bank of Serbia. However, civil society is included, too. In IPA 2008 there is a project of assistance to nongovernmental sector, directly proposed by the Eu-ropean Commission, given the fact that among authorized proposers there is no institution or organization that could propose such a project intended for the nongovernmental sector. It is expected that possibly the future Offi ce for Cooperation with Nongovernmental Organizations could be the authorized proposer on behalf of civil society.

52

Th e National IPA Coordinator (NIPAK) is the Vice-President of the Govern-ment for European Integration. Th e sector for programming and management of EU funds and development assistance is in the scope of the Ministry of Finance; however, regarding IPA it functions as the NIPAK Secretariat. It is responsible for programming assistance, while for the very implementation, evaluation and audit of the assistance still responsible is the European Commission Delegation. Th e main aim of the mechanism is in the fi rst place promotion of good manage-ment through active participation of civil society in the IPA programming proc-ess. Also, through this mechanism should be made possible regular consulta-tions with civil society, not only for making the entire IPA programming process transparent but also because of the idea that European Integration should not be exclusively linked to State institutions only, but to include active participation of the broadest social strata, too.

In this manner, nongovernmental organizations and civil society would get their voice in the public sector, and it would be made possible for them to develop mechanisms on the basis of which they will conduct constructive consultations with line ministries. Given that almost all project proposals come to the Ministry

53

of Finance, it may help their elaboration, but may not have an impact on either behaviour of the line ministry regarding the nongovernmental sector, or to what extent it will accept their suggestions.

Also, capacity building of nongovernmental organizations must not be forgotten either. Given the fact that it is about a specifi c project. i.e. process, in which there are procedures and rules that have to be respected and whose ma-jor part implies technical matters, it is important to have understanding in the civil sector of how the process works and who are its main implementers. Tak-ing this into account, it is important to mention phases that have to be passed through before the mechanism is set to work. Of course, fi rst of all will be made an analysis of the existing mechanisms, or strategies of the European Integration Offi ce, PRSP Team, Ministry of Youth and Sports. Th ereupon, it is necessary to identify the needs, expectations and potentials for participation in setting priori-ties of the Republic of Serbia, not of the State only but of the civil sector as well. Naturally, it is indispensable to identify relevant partners, contact organizations, “ focal points”; these have to be organizations with experience and interest for Eu-ropean Integration, and primarily with experience in a specifi c sector. Besides its existence, organization’s capacity networking is also very important, i.e. estab-lishing cooperation with other nongovernmental organizations in the relevant sector, whereby creating opportunities to act as a representative of nongovern-mental organizations that have activities in a specifi c sector. Th e second part of mechanism building presupposes needs assessment for training in the scope of nongovernmental organizations, with a views to assist capacity building of civil society to constructively take part in the dialogue with governmental organiza-tions in the IPA programming process. Th e last step is formulation of mecha-nism for consultations. It is expected that by mid 2009 will be known what the mechanism will be like. “Impact of the nongovernmental sector on the use of EU funds has proven to be the most productive, and it is a basis for all other funds used by State bodies”, emphasized Ms Pajović.

See power point presentation of Jelena Pajović

54

Development of a System Mechanism for Consultations

with Civil Society on IPA Programming

Jelena Pajovic

CIDEC Conference, 28.11.2008

• • •Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance – IPA 2007 - 2013

• • •IPA COMPONENTS

• Assistance to transition and building of institutions (improvement of institutions, Acquis Communautaire, State Administration and judici-ary etc.)

• Cross-border cooperation (support to cross-border cooperation)

• Regional development (fund for regional development - ERDF and cohesion fund )

• Human resources development (programming, implementations and European Social Fund management)

• Rural development (rural development programmes)

Phare

ISPA

SAPARD

CARDS

IPA

55

• • •1. Assistance to Transition and Building of Institutions

• Assistance through the fi rst component that should render support to

• State Administration reform

• Harmonization with EU Acquis Communautaire

• Strengthening of democratic institutions, rule of law

• Socio-economic development (reform of economy, increasing em-ployment, achieving sustainable development, poverty reduction)

• Infrastructure

• Empowerment of civil society, respect of human and minority rights

• Participation in the Community programmes

• • •Multi-year Indicative Financial Framework - MIFF

Serbia

2007 2008 2009Assistance to transition and building of institutions

178.5 179.4 182.6 186.2

Cross-border cooperation 8,2 11,5 12,2 12,5

Total 186,7 190,9 194,8 198,7

56

IPA – STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

• Enlargement Strategy

• European partnership (envisages short-term and medium-term pri-orities in preparations for EU Integration)

• Multi-year Indicative Financial Framework – MIFF ( for each country and by components – for 3 years)

• Multi-year Indicative Programme Document – MIPD ( for each coun-try and by components – for 3 years)

• National Programme for EU Integration (NPI)

• National strategic documents (Strategy for EU Accession of Serbia, Strategy for State Administration Reform, Regional Development Strategy, Poverty Reduction Strategy)

Multi-year Indicative Programme Document - MIPD

Defi nes priorities by spheres.Main spheres of support:

1. Political requirements

2. Socio/economic development

3. European standards

4. Cross-border cooperation

57

Needs of RS for International Assistance

• A three-year intersectoral programme document, which is revised at the annual level, for the purpose to encompass the next period, and to refl ect the achieved reform progress, to review the funds pro-vided for individual projects, as well as for new priority projects/pro-grammes

• The purpose of the document is to contribute to implementation of reforms and to achievement of strategic goals of the Government, by introducing a three-year programming framework that should pro-vide the necessary level and structure of international assistance

• Defi nes priority action programmes within each sector, and intersec-toral priorities, as a base for international assistance programming.

• The document is based on the present strategic framework, estab-lished by medium-term aims, and it sets the programme of priority activities that lead to achievement of those aims.

Authorized Proposers of Project Ideas and Project Proposals

• Direct authorized proposers are:

• Competent ministries;

• Special organizations formed by the Law on Ministries;

• Governmental services;

• National Assembly;

• National Bank of Serbia;

58

National IPA Coordinator - NIPAC – Vice Prime Minister for EU Integra-tion

Sector for Programming and Management of EU Funds and Develop-ment Assistance (DACU) MF – NIPAC Secretariat

EC Delegation – implementation, evaluation and audit

Nongovernmental sector – professional and advisory role in identify-ing priorities and in formulating project concepts and project propos-als

Mechanism of Consultations with Civil Society on IPA Program-

ming

• The main aim of the promotion of the good governance principle through active participation of civil society in the IPA Programming Process

Purpose

• Development of a system mechanism that will facilitate through DACU regular consultations with civil society, as an integral part of IPA Programming transparency.

• To propose a methodology by which DACU will support line minis-tries in conducting constructive consultations with civil society on IPA Programming.

• To build civil society organizations’ capacity, so that they could take constructive part in the dialogue with the Government.

59

Mechanism of Consultations with Civil Society on IPA Program-

ming

Analysis

Identifi cation of relevant partners

• Criteria for consultative partners in IPA Programming

• Experience in the EU Integration Process

• Experience in a specifi c sector

• Existence of organization’s capacity to establish a network with other NGOs in the related sector

• Opportunity to act as a representative of NGOs conducting activities in the given sector

Training needs assessment

• The aim to assist capacity building of civil society organizations to take constructive part in the dialogue with governmental organiza-tions in the IPA Programming Process.

Formulation of consultative mechanisms

Ministry of Finance

Sector for Programming and Management

of EU Funds and Development Assistance

www.evropa.gov.rs

60

At the gathering in Belgrade, the audience was also addressed by the repre-sentative of the Council of Europe Offi ce in Belgrade, Nadia Ćuk, who said that mechanisms of participation of citizens in the EI process are just one of the forms of the participatory democracy. Participatory democracy implies a dialogue be-tween politicians and civil society, i.e. citizens. One of her main assumptions is a diff erent conception of citizens, which implies participation of citizens in public life through alternative channels, but does not mean abolition of representative democracy or substitution of legitimacy. Legitimacy is based on elections, how-ever, some corrective mechanisms that would make decision making dependable on citizens and increase their impact not only in decision making but in their implementations as well, are quite certainly necessary.

Th e second assumption is that there was noted some lack of institutional mechanisms by means of which a society makes decisions. It means that one may not speak of citizens’ participation at the level of international organi-zations and in European Integration Processes in general, if beforehand are not created and opened channels for citizens’ participation at the Govern-ment level or at the local level. It is one of the principles on which the work of the Council of Europe rests today, which actually sees the local level as the closest one to citizens. Th erefore, cooperation between citizens and local self-government is of exceptional importance. Recently has been adopted a Council of Europe resolution that actually proposes a model of memorandum to be con-cluded between civil society and local self-governments, and which would in a way institutionalize channels of the dialogue. Th e aim is to feel the results of participation of broader structures in dialogues.

On the basis of the previous two was derived the third assumption, which refers to existence of citizens’ or civil dialogue. It is very often wrongly assumed that civil dialogue is realized by the very fact that we make possible for non-governmental organizations or citizens in general to take part in forums attend-ed by representatives of the State. However, that is only one-way communica-tion, i.e. proposing, informing and possibly consultations; there is no exchange

61

of opinions and no result can be seen. It is therefore necessary to have coopera-tion based on mutual acknowledgement and respect. Citizens’ dialogue presup-poses diff erent aspects of formalization of communication channels, as well as diff erent types of work (debates, informing etc.). Finally, the most important thing is to conduct a dialogue: starting from the phase of preparing agenda, through decision making, their implementation, control and supervision, all the way to feedback. Nongovernmental organizations act as a mediator in the citizens’ participation process, and they actually channel the dialogue. Th ey have recognized the importance of both European Integration Process and their par-ticipation in the Process, but also in numerous international organizations; they secure their presence in them in diff erent ways. Th us in the Council of Europe and United Nations there is a special forum that provides permanent presence of nongovernmental organizations by accreditation system. Actually, in the Council of Europe each country must present itself through its Parliamentary delegation, Governmental delegation, delegations of local authorities and NGO delegations.

62

It is exceptionally important that NGOs have a participatory status, meaning that they take part in the work of Council of Europe conferences. However, in order that their work during the conference is not ad hoc and too inapplicable (since the conference is organized once a year), work of NGOs was grouped, so that to-day there are diff erent groups – groups for social issues, human rights, education and culture, relations between nongovernmental organizations and cities, i.e. lo-cal self-governments, civil society and democracy development, protection of the environment, gender equality, social cohesion issues, i.e. struggle against pov-erty. Th ey form committees that have their special sessions and meetings as well, which are more regular than plenary assemblies. In order to have administrative form, too, or logistic support to both conference of international organizations and committees, a Liaison Committee was formed, as a counterpart to the EU Economic-Social Committee, which gives support at the expert level as well.

Nongovernmental organizations, members of the Council of Europe, have numerous opportunities. In the fi rst place, they have the opportunity to take part in preparation of the report for the Secretary General, to take part in the so-called hearings before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and before the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities; they also submit their own reports, may become members of diff erent expert groups and diff erent intergovernmental bodies, for which they also need a consent, i.e. approval by the State. Also, NGOs have an opportunity for continuous lobbying through the Liaison Committee, which often leads to very practical results, such as, for in-stance, Recommendations on the Legal Status of Nongovernmental Organi-zations1. Formation of a new body, expert committee for monitoring legislative reforms with reference to civil sector development in member countries is un-derway. However, it will not exhaust its work in expert preparations of diff erent laws, it will rather focus on supervision of implementation of those laws. NGOs also take part in the process of passing Council of Europe Conventions. One of

1 Th e wording of Recommendations may be found in the Bulletin MREŽA (Network) No. 72, January

2008, translated and printed by Civic Initiatives: http://gradjanske.org/page/civilSocietyDevelopment/sr/

center/bulletinNetwork.html

63

the best known is the European Convention on Human Rights, on the basis of which NGOs have the right to give advice and to represent all citizens of member countries of the Council of Europe on the occasion of submitting their petitions to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. Th ey also gave the right, as the third interested party, upon being summoned, to submit to the Court information re-lated to a specifi c case. Th us, too, they are directly and in a very practical way included in the protection of human rights. Th e Social Charter, a document un-fortunately still not revised, stipulates the possibility to submit the so-called col-lective NGO petitions for violations of some of social rights guaranteed by this Convention. Finally, NGOs submit so-called shadow reports. Monitoring of the Council of Europe does not imply only dialogue with the State but always with the nongovernmental sector as well. So, when conducting assessment of the situ-ation in one country, nongovernmental organizations, media and professional associations are obligatorily addressed, too, in order to acquire the real picture of the situation in the country. Of course, NGOs may in diff erent ways mobilise the public opinion, and very often they are initiators of some campaigns of the Council of Europe.

After Nadia Ćuk addressed the audience, a dialogue was established and questions posed on the topic of EU membership, but also on opportunities to use IPA funds, as well as competition for projects. Th e representative of the European Integration Offi ce one more time repeated that, unfortunately, this institution does not have funds for fi nancing civil society projects; however, they will work on the issue and she hopes to have “good news” soon.

Here are the most interesting questions in the discussion:

In what ways does the Delegation of the European Commission to Serbia as-sist the civil society sector? Could you specify some examples of cooperation?

Th omas Gnocchi: “We wish to include the civil sector in forming policies, pub-lic policies, particularly with reference to EU Integration. We believe it is impor-tant that civil society fi nds its place in this process. For instance, in commenting

64

and informing our annual report on progress, we think this is an important way for the voice of civil society to be heard. We also off er a lot of fi nancial funds to civil society for many diff erent projects which, for instance, aim at integrating Roma communities into everyday life or at taking care of refugees in this country. We also assist projects of environmental protection, so that our fi nancing ranges through a number of diff erent sectors. In the course of 2008 we allocated two million Euros for diff erent needs of CSOs.”

How important are CSOs in the EU Integration Process of Serbia? What is the role of civil society as compared to other civil societies in member countries of the European Union?

Jonut Sibian: “I think that the role of civil society is of crucial importance. Civil society provides a way to direct policies and reforms implemented during the EU Integration Process towards the entire Serbian society, so that civil society is a means for transferring and off ering a kind of consensus on European Integration to the whole country. It is important that we have signifi cant collocutors in the Government, but it is also important that civil society has its own communication channel.”

65

In the Progress Report published by the European Commission a month ago it is also stated that civil society is one of the key elements in the EU Integration Process. Could you just tell us what else should Serbia do to have the Progress Re-port for 2009 even more favourable?

Th omas Gnocchi: “Serbia must adopt the Law on Associations and at this moment the European Commission is welcoming the draft of that Law. We be-lieve it to be an important law that enables civil society to work more effi ciently in Serbia and to play an important role in the society. We hope that the Law will be passed on time, before the Progress Report for the next year, because we could make a positive comment on it in the Report.”

Which are the most important examples of the Bulgarian EU Accession proc-ess that you could share with us, and which are the most important elements of EU Integration Process in your country?

Assya Kavrakova: “It is a very fast process, at least it was in the case of Bul-garia. It needed less than four years. Basically, we were not suffi ciently ready to participate on an equal footing in the process, with respect to consultations. In your example I see that you are conducting a great preparatory work, in terms of trying to institutionalize relations between the Government and civil sector. It is very important because it will off er you methods and mechanisms to have an impact on the process in the best possible way, in the interest of citizens of Serbia.”

What is the role of the civil sector in the EU Integration Process, how impor-tant it is regarding approaching of the country to the European Union?

Assya Kavrakova: “It is very important in both cases. Firstly, through impact on the Government to adopt laws required by the European Union, but also in identifying needs, specifi c needs of citizens, on the one hand. It means that civil so-ciety is expected to present opinion of citizens but also to have a relevant expertise, in order to create a relevant impact on the law-passing process. It is expected from NGOs, as an organized form of civil society, to be capable of transferring messages of the European Union to citizens which is, I would say, equally a challenge”.

66

What is the current cooperation between NGOs and other sector organiza-tions with the Bulgarian Government?

Assya Kavrakova: “After EU accession the political relief has signifi cantly changed, to tell the truth, because the sector profi le changed. Th e majority of NGOs that used to implement projects basically fi nanced by the Americans, such as independent supervisory activities, development activities, they changed their profi les into service rendering because EU mainly allocated funds for rendering diff erent services. Now we have a problem of preserving the independence exper-tise that was developed during the transition process. Bulgaria is the ultimate example that it is equally important to have critical consideration of civil society as well, because the fact is that miracles do not happen overnight and that there are still many reforms that have to be implemented.”

67

List of Participants in the Second International Conference

NAME AND SURNAME ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION CITY

Miljenko Dereta Građanske inicijative Belgrade

Assya Kavrakova Open Society Institute - Sofi a Sofi a

Ionut Sibian CSAF Bucharest

Thomas GnocchiEuropean Commission Delegation to the Republic of Serbia Belgrade

Nadia Ćuk Council of Europe, Belgrade Offi ce Belgrade

Jelena Pajović Ministry of Finance Belgrade

Ivana Đurić European Integration Offi ce Belgrade

1 Maja Dimitrijević OKZ Romanipen Kragujevac

2 Svetozar Vasić D.C. Mali Princ (Little Prince) Belgrade

3 Zorana Ivanković European Commission Delegation Belgrade

4 Suzana Popović ABC Centre for Peace, Safety and Tolerance Vranje

5 Goran Šehović Agency NGO and EH Belgrade

6 Ružica Nikolić Roma Education Centre Subotica

7 Miljan Šuković MERR Belgrade

8 Olja Ćirić Offi ce for Cooperation with Media Belgrade

9 Miroslav Tamburić Forca Požega

10 Melanija Kološnjai Nenin Citizens’ Association Ukrštanje (Interweaving) Novi Sad

11 Ana Saćipović Roma Women’s Association Osvit Niš

12 Ivana Karalejić FONET Belgrade

13 Tamara Nikolić Ministry of Youth and Sports Belgrade

14 Vladimir Paunović NGO Milenijum (Millennium) Kragujevac

68

15 Vesna Simendić Centar Živeti uspravno (Living Upright) Novi Sad

16 Darko Memedović NGO CEDI Smederevo

17 Sanja Krsmanović Tasić Dah Teatar (Dah Theatre) Belgrade

18 Milica Kokotović Ministry of Finance Belgrade

19 Aleksandra Krstić PG Mreža (Network) Belgrade

20 Dejan Milev KIC Caribrod Dimitrovgrad

21 Saša Kostov KIC Caribrod Dimitrovgrad

22 Svetlana Đukić European Commission Delegation Belgrade

23 Rajko Atanacković Ministry of Justice Belgrade

24 Snežana Antonijević Service for Human Resources Management Belgrade

25 Snežana Pavković Timočki klub (Timok Club) Knjaževac

26 Milica Ružičić Novković Centar Živeti uspravno Novi Sad

27 Lidija Valtner Danas (Today) Belgrade

28 Suzana Ponjavić Friends of Children of New Belgrade Belgrade

29 Draško Popović eko 030 Majdanpek

30 Boban Prokić eko 030 Majdanpek

31 Aleksandar Koković FONET Belgrade

32 Bojana Trbojević Ministry for KiM Belgrade

33 Miladin Decanović Forum for Vlachs’ Culture Bor

34 Slavica Rakić NGO Romano Alav Kruševac

35 Ana Mikić ABC Centre for Peace, Safety and Tolerance Vranje

36 Stevan Nikolić Roma Education Centre Subotica

37 Ninioslav Stanković KULT – Movement for Local Development Grdelica

69

38 Duško Krstić City Municipality of Obrenovac Obrenovac

39 Snežana VoštinarovCity of Belgrade – City Management, Service for Communication and Coordination of Relations with Citizens

Belgrade

40 Olgica BajićSociety for the Protection and Improvement of Mental Health of Children and Youth

Niš

On behalf of Civic Initiatives

1 Dubravka Velat Civic Initiatives Belgrade

2 Dejana Mitev Civic Initiatives Belgrade

3 Suzana Đorđević Civic Initiatives Belgrade

4 Branislav Lovrenski Civic Initiatives Belgrade

70

71

Round Table in Novi Pazar,

12 December 2008

PROGRAMME

10:30 - 11:00 Registration

11:00 - 11:10 Address of welcome: Vinko Dobrić, Deputy Mayor

11:10 - 11:20 Presentation of the Project “CIDEC – Citizen’s Dialogue for European Consensus: Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives

11:20 - 11:50 Presentation of experiences of other countries in the EU Inte-gration Process: Vladimir Ateljević, Assistant at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade; Department for Institutional Extension and Training, European Integration Offi ce

11:50 - 12:10 Cross-border Cooperation Programmes: Denis Slatina, Minis-try of Finance

12:10 - 13:30 Discussion

14:00 Lunch for all participants in the Tadž Hotel

72

73

Report on the Event

Th e public discussion “Institutional Forms and Mechanisms of Citizen’s Participation in the European Integration Process” was held in the Multime-dia Centre in Novi Pazar, on Friday, 12 December 2008.

Th e gathering in Novi Pazar was opened and welcomed by the Deputy Mayor Vinko Dobrić, who said that the whole Serbia is putting maximum eff orts in be-ing prepared as properly as possible and in becoming as close to the European Union as possible. “Unfortunately, we are witnesses, and it was proved at the last elections, that there is a huge number of citizens in our country who dislike the European Union or Integration, the reason of which is in citizens’ being insuf-fi ciently informed on what the European Union off ers, and what advantages of EU membership and accession for a country like ours are. On that task, the aim of all of us is to bring as close as possible all information on EU to citizens – what is necessary that we do in the next period in order to join the society of successful states”, emphasized Dobrić.

Th e Executive Director pf Civic Initiatives, Miljenko Dereta, presented to the present representatives of nongovernmental organizations and local institu-tions experiences of Poland, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria. He added that this gathering is, in the fi rst place, an opportunity to learn from experiences of coun-tries in the region that have become candidates or are already EU member states, but also to send a message that the State and civil sector must cooperate closely on that path.

He said that all EU member states have the same awareness that the Eu-ropean Integration Process cannot evolve without active inclusion of citizens, primarily through associated citizens’ organizations, through diff erent forms of association, nongovernmental organizations, and associations. In Poland, the problem was solved through the so-called dialogue around triangle tables, at which were sitting representatives of authorities, on the one side, representatives

74

of so-called umbrella organizations on the second side, and on the third side rep-resentatives of organizations that have preserved some aspect of independence but were mainly critical towards European Integration. In Slovenia was fi rstly announced an invitation for participation in the work of expert groups, where some 170 nongovernmental organizations applied. Th ereupon were formed com-missions that addressed problems of disabled persons, education, discrimination, social issues, women’s rights, minority rights, and setting standards that will at the same time be both European ones and based on their local experiences. According to the words of Janez Potočnik, a European Commissary, Slovenia was fi nancing those organizations but also organizations that were criticizing their work. Experience of Croatia is also most valuable for Serbia, because there a number of governmental bodies were formed that offi cially, on behalf of the Government, addressed issues of civil society development, collected informa-tion, distributed them, informed local administrations and Central Government in Croatia, nongovernmental organizations, informed European institutions on what was going on in civil society. An offi ce was established that deals exclusively with creation of favourable environment for development of civil society organi-zations. From Romanian experience one may notice how important it is to have so-called overarching organizations or coalitions and networks that are mainly thematically linked. Bulgarian experience is interesting because in Bulgaria, in the course of the EU Integration Process, nongovernmental organizations acted in agreement with the State. Civil society was invited to control the European Integration Process and it was given free access to all information and processes. It was expected from civil society to evaluate those processes and to inform the society of it. It was rather diffi cult at the beginning, however, fi rst results were soon visible. CSOs fi rstly made a list of what has to be done by ministries, and then they published the so-called success list, i.e. the list of everything done, not done or done partially. Firstly, it was strongly criticized among ministries, but afterwards there was a competition to get on the list. Th is experience should be applied in Serbia as well.

75

Representative of the European Integration Offi ce, Vladimir Ateljević, pre-sented in Novi Pazar experiences of other countries in the EU Integration Proc-ess. He remarked that there are 4 phases to EI membership: Stabilization and Association Process (preparatory phase for signing the Stabilization and Asso-ciation Agreement (SAA); Feasibility Study; Negotiations on concluding SAA,; Signing and Implementing SAA), membership candidacy, negotiations on full membership, invitation by the European Council and signing the Accession

76

Agreement. Ateljević defi ned that Serbia’s path to EU may be divided into two phases – phase of association and phase of accession – that terminate by signing two agreements. One of them - the Stabilization and Association Agreement, Serbia already signed, and its implementation started on 1 January 2009. Howev-er, the accession phase is much more important for us. For that purpose, the Gov-ernment has prepared the National Programme for Integration of the Republic of Serbia into European Union, which contains a set of measures and methods by which Serbia will get prepared for membership in the course of the next fi ve years, i.e. by the end of 2012. One of the measures to be conducted in that period is harmonization of 156,000 pages of domestic legislation with the European one. Just like all other countries, on its path to EU, Serbia has to met specifi c politi-cal conditions of accession, which refer to the rule of law, democracy, respect of human and minority rights, civil society development. Th e National Programme for Integration into European Union defi ned the base of negotiating position of the Republic of Serbia for negotiations with EU. Ateljević emphasized that local partners and nongovernmental organizations, faculties, chambers of commerce and trade unions may and should take part in it, primarily through cooperation with institutions. Signing the Memorandum of Cooperation and activities of the Council for European Integration are two mechanisms by means of which local partners can have a direct impact on legislative and executive branches of au-thorities, but by means of which can also be increased the impact of civil society in the Integration Process. For CSOs the most important thing at the moment is adoption and implementation of the Law on Associations, as well as its institu-tionalization in the form of an Offi ce for cooperation with civil society. “Empow-erment of local and regional nongovernmental organizations is also important, as well as strengthening of partnership with those organizations but with the State, too, because only in that way, on the basis of others’ experiences and strong partnership, we can bring to an end the process leading us to a full membership in the family of European nations”, said Ateljević.

See power point presentation of Vladimir Ateljević

77

Republic of SerbiaGovernment

European Integration Offi ceNemanjina 34/V, 11000 Belgrade

tel: +381 11 3061 100offi ce@seio.gov.rs

www.seio.gov.rs www.srbija.gov.rs

Institutional Forms and Mechanisms

of Citizens’ Participation in the European Integration

Process

Vladimir Ateljević European Integration Offi ce

Novi Pazar, 12 December 2008

• • •European Integration Phases till EU Membership

• Stabilization and Accession Process

• Preparatory phase for SAA signing

• Feasibility study

• Negotiations on SAA conclusion

• Signing and implementing SAA

• Candidacy for membership

• Negotiations on full membership

78

• Invitation by the European Council and signing the Accession Agree-ment

Four Types of Impact of European Integration on the Civil Society

Development

• In the course of meeting political criteria for membership – democ-racy, the rule of law, respect of human and minority rights, judiciary;

• EU programmes for promotion and development of democracy and civil society;

• Reforms and harmonization of domestic legislation with Acquis Com-munautaire;

• Transnational organizations and advocacy for interests at the EU level.

Structure of the European Union Assistance 2000-2006

Loca

l sel

f-gov

ernm

ent

Educ

atio

n

Hea

lth c

are

Wat

er s

uppl

y an

d w

aste

re

habi

litat

ion

Econ

omic

and

dev

elop

men

t pol

icy/

plan

ning

Publ

ic fi

nanc

es m

anag

emen

t

Judi

ciar

y an

d le

gal s

yste

m

deve

lopm

ent

Inte

rnal

Aff a

irs

Stat

e Ad

min

istra

tion

Civ

il so

ciet

y

Soci

al is

sues

Wor

k an

d em

ploy

men

t

Cul

ture

and

recr

eatio

n/sp

orts

Traffi

c a

nd s

tora

ge

Ener

gy

Bank

ing

and

fi nan

cial

ser

vice

s

Priv

atiz

atio

n, b

usin

ess

deve

lopm

ent

Agric

ultu

re, f

ores

try a

nd fi

sher

y

Indu

stry

, inc

ludi

ng S

MEs

Min

eral

raw

mat

eria

ls a

nd m

inin

g

Con

stru

ctio

n in

dust

ry

Envi

ronm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

79

Projected Structure of IPA Assistance

• From the fi rst IPA component in 2007 and 2008 will be allocated al-most 4.8 million Euros

• Strengthening Serbia – EU Civil Society Dialogue (2 million Euros) - IPA 2007

• Support to Civil Society (2.77 million Euros) - IPA 2008

• In the scope of the second IPA component, NGOs are potential project proposers in the scope of each cross-border cooperation programme (CBC) 

• In the scope of Multi Benefi ciary IPA (regional and horizontal pro-grammes) allocated - Civil Society Facility – 14.675 million Euros

• • •An Individual in EU

• Citizen

• Consumer

• Employee

• Employer

• Legal Entity

• • •

80

• • •Participation of Social Actors in European Integration “Aff airs”:

• Analysis of European legislation and assessments of impact on econ-omy competitiveness, employment, wages, social protection etc.

• Informing citizens on economic and social aspects of EU membership

• Harmonization of the national legislation with the European Acquis Communautaire

• EU policies implementation

• Pre-accession instrument management

• Participation in considering the negotiating position

• • •

81

Recommendations for Further Strengthening of the Civil Sector

in the European Integration Process

• Adoption of the Law on Associations is necessary as soon as possible, as well as its institutionalization and implementation

• Encouragement of local and regional civil society organizations is of particular importance (special role of EC, Government, European NGOs)

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE

REPUBLIC OF SERBIA REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

European Integration Committee European Integration Committee of the National Assembly of the National Assembly

of Serbia of Serbia

European European

Integration Integration

CouncilCouncil

GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT

Coordination Body for theCoordination Body for the

Vice Prime Minister for Vice Prime Minister for European IntegrationEuropean Integration

Mission in Mission in

Coordination Body for the Coordination Body for the EU Integration ProcessEU Integration ProcessMFAMFA

BrusselsBrusselsSEIOSEIO

Professional Group Professional Group

Negotiating team

35 35 SUBGROUPSSUBGROUPS

SGKTSGKT

ofofCoordination BodyCoordination Body

SGKTSGKT

MINISTRIESMINISTRIES

LOCAL PARTNERSLOCAL PARTNERS

NGOs, faculties, Chamber of Commerce, trade unions…NGOs, faculties, Chamber of Commerce, trade unions…

82

• Inclusion into broader organization forms and cooperation with tran-snational NGOs. Further development of relations between NGO net-work and State institutions (National Assembly and the Government)

• Higher specialist training of NGOs and strengthening of own capaci-ties are prerequisites for every quality cooperation (train people for project cycle management, for monitoring of specifi c domains of Eu-ropean legislation)

• It is impossible to remain without project ideas in the European Inte-gration Process - NPI, SAA, Progress Report, European Partnership etc.

• Activism of the local community and civil society demonstrated by creating activity programmes in the domain of European Integration is desirable

LET’S FOLLOW THE EUROPEAN AGENDA!

• • •

83

Th e cross-border cooperation programme was presented by Denis Slatina from the Ministry of Finance of Serbia. He spoke to the participants of pro-grammes through which may be provided funds for projects of EU membership candidate countries, cross-border cooperation programmes – with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Adriatic Pro-gramme, but also about functioning of cross-border programmes (necessity to have two partners, one from each side of the border, who jointly plan, develop and implement the project).

In the scope of the cross-border cooperation programme, Serbia cooperated with EU member countries – Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Th ese programmes brought to Serbia 16 million Euros, while programmes to be implemented in the period from 2007 to 2013, through the fi rst and second IPA components, should bring 190 million Euros per year. For each cross-border cooperation programme is qualifi ed a specifi c region from both countries; for instance, Zlatibor and Raška region from the one side, and almost all of Montenegro (coast not included) from

84

the other side, are qualifying for cross-border cooperation programmes Serbia – Montenegro. An important feature of these programmes, and at the same time the fi rst phase in their implementation, is identifi cation of the problem or idea that should be addressed. Problems to be addressed and priorities to be achieved are included in documents existing in Development Strategies, in Action Plans for each municipality, but also in special programme documents for cross-bor-der cooperation programme. Th e next phase is to fi nd a partner with a similar problem across the border, after which should be written a joint project and sub-mitted application for funds. Slatina announced that the Ministry of Finance in January 2009 will publish its fi rst invitation for collection of cross-border coop-eration programme with Montenegro. Applications will be submitted to the Of-fi ce of the Joint Technical Secretariat in Prijepolje. In order that a specifi c project could compete for the cross-border cooperation programme and be evaluated as relevant, it must be jointly planned with the partner; its activities must encom-pass events from both sides of the border. Th e whole project is implemented in compliance with EU regulations, more precisely saying, by respecting the docu-ment or guidelines by the name of PRAG – Practical Guide for Implementation of Projects Financed by EC. Independent external evaluators evaluate projects, and fi nal decision on the proposal of the list of projects to be fi nanced is made by the supervision board consisting of members of ministries of the Govern-ment of Serbia and Government of Montenegro. After that the list is submitted to the European Commission with which you sign a contract. At the end, Slatina reminded that the Joint Technical Secretariat in Prijepolje has a satellite offi ce in Bijelo Polje, and that it renders assistance to nongovernmental organizations when searching for a partner, gives instructions to project proposal applicants, conducts assessment of project evaluation, and after the funds are granted, the Offi ce gives advice for project implementation, conducts monitoring and renders assistance at the time of procurement.

See power point presentation of Denis Slatina

85

CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMMESIN SERBIA

Denis Slatina

Head of the Joint Technical Secretariat

Cross-border Cooperation Programme

Serbia - Montenegro

• • •

86

• • •

IPAIPAPotential candidate Candidate countries for

countries for EUmembership

Candidate countries forEU membership

IPomoć

tranziciji i

IIRegionalna i prekograničn

IIIRegionalni

IVRazvojljudskih

VRuralnij

izgradnjainstitucija

prekogranična saradnja

grazvoj ljudskih

resursa razvoj

Programmes 2004-2006 (CARDS)

1. Hun-Srb2. Rom-Srb3. Bulg-Srb4. Adriatic Programme5 CADSES5. CADSES

Total value: 16m EUR

Programmes 2007-2013 (IPA)Programmes 2007 2013 (IPA)

1. Hun-Srb2. Rom-Srb3 B l S b3. Bulg-Srb4. Adriatic Programme5. SEE6. Cro-Srb6. Cro Srb7. Srb-BiH8. Srb-Mne

Total availability:30 EUR30m EUR for the first 3 years

IAssistance to transition

and institution building

IIRegional and cross-border cooperation

IIIRegional

development

IVHuman

resources development

VRural

development

87

• 1 partner on each of the two bor-der sides

• 1 application – 2 budgets

• Joint project:

• Planned

• Developed

• Implemented

• Joint team

• • •RULES

• EU rules in force, preparation for structural funds

• 85% grant – 15% participation

• Own sources

• Municipal budget

• Other donations (not from the European Union)

• Cannot be “in kind”, has to be in cash

• Pre-fi nancing 80%, the rest upon project termination

• • •

88

• • •Cycle

Timeline

PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS

ASSISTANCE

CycleCycle

P t

Any programme

Partner

Proposal

Idea CBC

Contract

Action

TimelineTimelineMar

09

Aug

09

Nov

09

Dec

09

89

• • •ASSISTANCE

JOINT TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT

• The fi rst contact point for all potential candidates and programme benefi ciaries

• Organizing info of the day – giving information

• Assistance in search for a partner

• Instructions to project proposal applicants

• Receives project proposals (in specifi c form and at specifi c time)

• Informs applicants on being awarded/not being awarded a grant

• Advice to benefi ciaries related to project implementation (workshops with reference to reporting, procurement and monitoring)

PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESSPRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS

S f ll l d blSuccessfully solved problem

Good project proposal

NGOs ExpertsMunicipality

90

• • •JOINT TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT IN PRIJEPOLJE FOR

CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMME

SERBIA – MONTENEGRO

Valterova 36, 31300 Prijepolje, Republic of Serbia

Tel/fax: + 381 33 712-370

Contact persons:

Denis Slatina, Head of the Joint Technical Secretariat in Prijepolje

E-mail: denis.slatina@mfi n.gov.rs

Mithat Bahović, Task Manager in JTS

E-mail: po.prijepolje@mtel-cg.net

Goran Prebiračević, Task Manager, antenna Bijelo Polje

E-mail: po.bijelopolje@mtel-cg.net

www.evropa.gov.rs

91

At the end of the discussion was initiated a dialogue between participants in the event, representatives of NGOs and local authorities, on European Integra-tion, on which occasion the audience had the greatest interest for the following questions:

1. In what way may NGOs coming from non-border parts of Serbia, e.g. Šumadija, apply for projects in the scope of the cross-border cooperation pro-gramme?

*Denis Slatina: If it refers to IPA Programmes, the entire country is qualifi ed for application. Šumadija is by chance in the centre of the country, therefore not in any district bordering EU member countries. However, by the instrumental-ity of the country as a whole, it may participate in numerous transnational pro-grammes.

92

2. Have the measures for encouragement of local NGO activities been defi ned?

Ateljević: It is at this moment and in the forthcoming period the most impor-tant priority. First of all, there must be a normative framework which is a pre-requisite for concrete aspects of assistance. In the draft Law on Associations are specifi ed areas in which the governmental and nongovernmental sectors should cooperate. In order to realize such activities, it is necessary to allocate from the budget of the Republic of Serbia assistance to local organizations, as well as to the ones functioning at the national level; however nothing can be done without organization. Institutionalisation of this Law is even more important.

3. Is the Romanian experience applicable in Serbia in terms of obtaining as-sistance by overarching NGOs?

Ateljević: Romanian experience could be to a great extent important for us, and in a large number of areas, particularly referring local organizations, but not

93

in that area only. First of all, in Roma-nia there was an offi ce at the Central Government’s level, which actually had a similar position as the European In-tegration Offi ce has today; however, it was dealing with cooperation with the civil sector. Well, it would be a Govern-ment’s service and responsible to the Prime Minister. In my opinion, it is a position that guarantees a successful coordination and institutionalization of cooperation between the Government and nongovernmental sector during the EI Process.

4. When will local self-govern-ments recognize local NGOs as equal partners?

Ateljević: We are ready, at the Offi ce, in any sense, to render technical support and assistance. However, we cannot be initiators of proposals and activities before the Government because it is not our scope of activities.

Dobrić: For the next year, the city of Novi Pazar has projected a portion of funds from the budget for the civil sector development, in which there must be stronger cooperation. However, the civil sector must have its contribution, too, it must be professionalized, it must propose quality programmes and projects.

94

List of Participants in the Public Discussion

NAME AND SURNAME ORGANIZATION/ INSTITUTION CITY

  MILJENKO DERETA Civic Initiatives Belgrade

  VLADIMIR ATELJEVIĆ European Integration Offi ce Belgrade

  DENIS SLATINA Ministry of Finance – Serbia -Montenegro Cross-Border Cooperation Programme Prijepolje

  VINKO DOBRIĆ Deputy Mayor Novi Pazar

1 Evica Petrović Informal group of citizens of Rudnica Raška

2 Nenad Mihajlović Informal group of citizens of Rudnica Raška

3 Branko Mihalović Eco Club – Zeleni putokaz (Green Signpost) Raška

4 Minhat Memić Eco Pešter Sjenica

5 Tarik Memić Eco Pešter Sjenica

6 Emina Selmanović National Library Dositej Obradović Novi Pazar

7 Rifat Redžović Culture Club Oslobođenje (Liberation) Novi Pazar

8 Veljović Miomir Municipal Association for Mentally Disabled Persons Tutin

9 Sadrija Hot Municipal Association for Mentally Disabled Persons Tutin

10 Aida Ćorović Urban in Novi Pazar

11 Dženan Palamar Culture Club Oslobođenje Novi Pazar

12 Semiha Kačar Sandžak Board for Human Rights Novi Pazar

13 Elvir Hamidović City Administration of the City of Novi Pazar Novi Pazar

14 Sedat Vrcić Citizens’ Association Flores Sjenica

15 Sadeta Zahirović Culture and Education Community Sjenica Sjenica

16 Šaban Šarenkapić KC Damad Novi Pazar

95

17 Marija Đurović Citizens’ Association for Assistance to Children and Adults with Hindered Development Raška

18 Slavica Milutinović Citizens’ Association for Assistance to Children and Adults with Hindered Development Raška

19 Meradija Nokić Association of Women and Mothers Anna Novi Pazar

20 Seadetin Mujezinović Citizens’ Association Together Against Narcotics Novi Pazar

21 Bisera Šećeragić EMinS - LV Novi Pazar Novi Pazar

22 Tahir Delić Society for Assistance MNRL Novi Pazar

23 Šreif Rujović Association of Disabled Persons Dilavni Sjenica

24 Ramiz Selmanović Friends of Children Tutin

25 Nazim Halilović Fotos Tutin

26 Semir Halilović Fotos Tutin

27 Redžep Renda NGO Aura Novi Pazar

28 Slobodan Marković Association of Roma Novi Pazar

29 Brničanin Esada Citizens’ Association 25. maj Novi Pazar

30 Đanko Suljević Centre for Rights of the Roma Novi Pazar

31 Esad Nicević Branch Union Confederation Independence Novi Pazar

32 Enisa Kojić City of Novi Pazar Novi Pazar

33 Mileva Malešić Women’s Forum of Prijepolje Prijepolje

34 Mithat Eminović Eco Movement Vidra (Otter) Tutin

35 Rifat Hodović Sandžak Bosniac Club Novi Pazar

36 Hodo Katal NGO Ruka (Hand) Tutin

37 Bulatović Zoran Association of Textile Workers Novi Pazar

38 Mladen Tomašević NGO Nova Vizija (New Vision) Prijepolje

39 Erol Nadžak Offi ce for Youth Prijepolje

96

40 Dino Bašović Offi ce for Youth Prijepolje

41 Anel Grbović CBS Sandžak newspaper Novi Pazar

42 Mirela Balija Sandžak Carpet Sjenica

43 Hasanović Mersiha Sandžak Carpet Sjenica

44 Hasanović Mediha Sandžak Carpet Sjenica

45 Ivana Milić Municipality of Novi Pazar Novi Pazar

46 Sead Biberović Urban in Novi Pazar

47 Marko Stevanović PG Mreža (Network) Belgrade

48 Kadrija Mehmedović Reintegration Novi Pazar

On behalf of Civic Initiatives

1 Dubravka Velat Civic Initiatives Belgrade

2 Dejana Mitev Civic Initiatives Belgrade

3 Branislav Lovrenski Civic Initiatives Belgrade

97

Round Table in Zrenjanin,

3 February 2009

PROGRAMME

10:30 - 11:00 Registration

11:00 - 11:10 Address of welcome: Predrag Stankov, Assistant Mayor

11:10 - 11:20 Presentation of the Project “CIDEC – Citizen’s Dialogue for

European Consensus: Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of

Civic Initiatives

11:20 - 11:50 Presentation of experiences of other countries in the EU

Integration Process: Vladimir Ateljević, Assistant at the

Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade; Department for

Institutional Extension and Training, European Integration

Offi ce

11:50 - 12:10 Cross-border Cooperation Programme Serbia - Romania:

Jelena Stojović, Ministry of Finance of Serbia

12:10 - 12:30 Local Self-Government and European Integration Process

: Djordje Staničić, Standing Conference of Towns and

Municipalities

12:30 - 13:30 Discussion

14:00 Lunch for all participants in the Restaurant of the Hotel

Vojvodina

98

99

Report on the Event

Th e public discussion by the name of “Institutional Forms and Mecha-nisms of Citizens’ Participation in the EU Integration Process” was held on 3 February 2009 in the Assembly Hall of the Town Hall in Zrenjanin, with 100 participants.

Th e audience was welcomed by Predrag Stankov, Assistant Mayor, who pointed out that exceptionally high response of representatives of civil society and institutions is an indicator of interest for European Integration, projects, dia-logue between the nongovernmental and public sectors. “For a number of years, the City of Zrenjanin has been participating in cross-border cooperation projects. We successfully implemented a few projects, and the biggest project that we are currently working on is infrastructural equipment of the industrial zone South-east, fi nanced by the European Commission. I hope that our country will soon acquire the name of a European Union candidate country and that many more funds for which we may compete will be available to us”. He pointed out that, although there are many ideas on the basis of which funds can be withdrawn, in our country there are still not enough people who write projects and, which is a much bigger problem, even when a project is adopted and funds for it approved, there are no people to implement it. Th e majority of people who may implement those projects are in the nongovernmental sector, out of which should be drawn human resources, in order to achieve a successful project implementation. Co-operation between the public and business sectors with the nongovernmental sector in Zrenjanin works exceptionally well, and this is supported by the data that from the last grant 600 thousand Euros were withdrawn in the Municipality of Zrenjanin. According to his words, Zrenjanin has a high potentiality to fur-ther attract such funds, particularly because of nearness of EU (i.e. its members Romania and Hungary) and because of cross-border cooperation which will soon start with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, as well. “One should work a lot,

100

learn about methodology of project implementation, learn the English language, how to work on computer, but the most important thing is that it is done by young people, the ones who wish us to become members of the European Union as soon as possible, and the ones who see Serbia in the European Union in the future”, ac-centuated Stankov.

Miljenko Dereta, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives, briefl y presented to representatives of local institutions and NGOs the CIDEC project and expe-riences of countries in diff erent phases and relations with the European Union – Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. Experience of Poland, as a relatively new EU member country, speaks about transparency of the Integration Process. Namely, from the very beginning, in the entire Process were included not only the ones supporting the Process but also the ones opposing the Process, starting from the assumption that from them one may also learn a lot. From the Roma-nian experience one may also draw a conclusion of the necessity and importance

101

of civil society actors networking. It is poorly developed in our country, on both local and national levels.

Dereta also transferred to the participants in the discussion the Bulgarian experience, which points, in the fi rst place, to the necessity to control the State in the Integration Process. Th e purpose of the control is to see to what extent the State actually fulfi ls all obligations imposed by the EU negotiations process. “It is a signal to our country that it must include citizens; the best way would be, of course, through some platforms or, as they call it, umbrella organizations, but also through individual organizations that specifi cally address topics they are in-terested in”, said Dereta. Guests from Croatia explained, in a plastic manner, that the European Integration Process that we experience as something faraway from us, given that it is evolving at the level of the State, national level, should actu-ally go deep into the system and really descend to the level of local community centres, which also have to adjust to it in their activities, not only for the purpose of meeting diff erent standards but also for the purpose of using the opportuni-ties that EU membership should bring them one day. “Th e aim of our project is to inform you of the way in which we must adapt to what the European Integration is bringing us, the way in which we can contribute to that process and the way in which we should and must get included into the process, so that it would not tear itself away and go into a totally bureaucratized phase, which will again make us face problems and laws that are possibly adjusted to some European standards but cannot be implemented in our country”, emphasized Dereta.

On the process of European Integration in general, experiences of other countries in it and its impact on CSOs spoke Vladimir Ateljević, Advisor in the European Integration Offi ce. He reminded that the European Integration Proc-ess encompasses two phases – phase of association and phase of accession. Our country is striving to successfully get out of the phase of association; the fi rst step was made by signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement, and even more important is that we expect to start implementation of the Agreement. Th e second phase for which we have been preparing – the phase of accession – starts

102

with the process of candidacy for EU membership. With the membership candi-dacy begins the crucial phase, in which the role of all of us will be much bigger. Th e Offi ce has adopted the plan on the basis of which by 2012 Serbia should be ready to assume all responsibilities arising from EU membership. It concretely means that by the end of 2012 should be harmonized domestic legislation with the European and, even more important, it should be made appropriate and ap-plicable in the national legal framework. Th e problem occurring on that occasion is that it will not be possible to conduct it in all areas.

Th e role of citizens and civil society is very important in this Process. Th e Eu-ropean Integration Process is not ownership of the Government, not ownership

103

of the State. Th e Government has to do the majority of work, the Government has the biggest responsibility, however, citizens are in the foreground. Observing the European Integration Process, primarily experiences of other countries, it was noted that European Integration has impact on organization of civil society in four ways: by meeting the political criterion for membership, through fi -nancial assets and support programmes for promotion and development of democracy and civil society, reforms and harmonization of domestic legisla-tion with Acquis Communautaire, by forming transnational organizations and by advocating interest at the EU level. Th e essential in the relation between governmental institutions and citizens is also the question that we often pose to ourselves: Are we as individuals, as citizens, aware of rights that we shall one day have as citizens of the European Union? In answer to this question are singling out several key aspects. An individual/citizen in the European Union has specifi c political and civil rights; he/she has the rights as a citizen, a consumer, a legal

104

entity and rights arising from employment – as an employer and as an employee. What we may expect from EU is the high level of protection, in the fi rst place, of political rights – the right to take part, as citizens of the European Union, in elections for the European Parliament of any member country, the right to turn, out of EU borders, to any consulate or representative offi ce for the purpose of the protection of our rights, the right of protection regarding acting towards EU institutions. Th e rights of individuals as consumers are practically protected to-day, and they are a sacred thing in the European Union. Today, one of the most important regulations in this fi eld is the Product Safety Directive, which is be-ing introduced in our legal system (where an individual, for instance, has all the rights to control a product on the market, while the organization that launches the product is responsible for controlling the safety of that product and, in case that the product is unsafe, it has an obligation to withdraw it for a period of one year). Th ere is a number of rights that can be protected not only before the State but, which is much more important, before a court instance of the European Union. Th is is the most important – an individual in EU has the right to appeal not only to the State but he/she may look for legal remedies before EU institutions as well, in the fi rst place before the Court of Justice of European Communities.

A very important question for our country is in what way should civil society organizations and the Government establish or strengthen partnership relations? Th e problem is in the fact that it is impossible to always accommodate the needs of both parties when harmonizing legislation. In the procedure of harmonization of legislation professional support by the nongovernmental sector is of immeas-urable importance for the Government, and, on the other hand, for civil society as well, to the extent to which it wishes to secure its interests. At this moment, the area in which the Government cooperates best with civil society is informing of citizens on the European Integration Process. Th e European Integration Offi ce has concluded an agreement with nongovernmental organizations – Memoran-dum of Cooperation in the European Integration Process, which was pointed out as an example of good cooperation with the nongovernmental sector, but the

105

Offi ce alone could never bring this topic closer to citizens if there was not an exceptionally good coopera-tion with civil society.

Th e coordinator of the neigh-bourhood programme Serbia-Ro-mania at the Ministry of Finance, Jelena Stojović, reminded partici-pants in the discussion that neigh-bourhood programmes are the “Eu-ropean Union programmes with the aim to establish a uniform and more balanced socio-economic develop-ment in the border region”. Th eir goal is civil society development and resolution of a number of common problems existing in border regions by the instrumentality of the Euro-pean Union funds. Th e European Union has continued to render as-sistance to the civil sector by means of a new instrument for pre-accession assistance – IPA, through which is fi -nanced the cross-border cooperation and which is a continuation of the CARDS programme. In the scope of the IPA Programme will be fi nanced a total of eight programmes, and for the fi rst time will also be fi nanced the cross-border coop-eration with former Yugoslav republics – Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. It is important to point out that there is certain diff erence in pro-gramme intended for cooperation with countries that are potential candidates or candidates, and cross-border cooperation programme with EU member states. Cross-border cooperation programmes with member states will be implemented

106

in the scope of the so-called shared management, which is a novelty in neigh-bourhood programme implementation. In this manner, the European Union has shared responsibility with the member country, so that negotiator for our party, i.e. Serbian applicants will not be the European Commission Delegation any more or European Agency for Reconstruction as before, but the competent ministry, i.e. the ministry actually in charge of conducting and implementing the whole programme, which is fully responsible. For other programmes referring to cooperation between the Republic of Serbia and Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, there will continue to exist separate funds and negotiators will be on the one or on the other side. For our party it will be the European Com-mission Delegation to the Republic of Serbia in Belgrade. Neighbourhood coop-eration programmes with member countries are actually an excellent practice for later funds – structural funds that will be available to Serbia when it acquires candidacy for EU membership.

In the scope of cross-border cooperation programme with Romania of three years (2007/08/09) it was anticipated to allocate more than 19 million Euros. Out of it Serbia will sign an agreement for somewhat more than 7 million Eu-ros. However, the joint fund will be physically situated in Romania, therefore the EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia will not be competent for signing agreements any more; it will be the Romanian Ministry that plays the role of a Directorate in this programme. Regarding the method of application for IPA Pro-gramme funds it should be pointed out that there is a unique fund, that a unique list is formed for applicants from both sides, that applicants’ partner organiza-tions may also obtain the money. Th ere are ongoing negotiations with the Ro-manian party on putting constraint in terms of existence of at least one partner from the Romanian, i.e. Serbian side, and of giving opportunity to both partners to be fi nanced. Th ere are four principles that must be met in the cross-border cooperation programmes; they are: joint fi nancing, joint conducting, joint im-plementation of the project and joint staff . Each of the leading applicants, either from Serbian or Romanian side, is not responsible only for implementation that

107

it defi ned for itself but also for all of its partners, situated either in Romania or in Serbia – from how the funds are allocated to how they spend them. Another nov-elty in this programme is a much bigger competition, given that competitors are not only applicants situated in the territory of the Republic of Serbia but also in the territory of Romania. In order to have applications ranked in the best possible way, the Ministry of Finance, in cooperation with the European Integration Of-fi ce, will organize trainings, workshops on project proposal writing, and process application forms with participants. She pointed out that the Ministry of Finance Offi ce in Vršac will start in March its offi cial activities as an “antenna” for the joint technical secretariat in Timisoara, and it will be responsible for rendering all the necessary assistance on the occasion of applying. Th e fi rst invitation for applying for funds from the cross-border cooperation programme with Romania will be announced in the fi rst half of April. Another novelty is that this time, in the scope of economic and social development will also be fi nanced larger infra-structure projects of value between half a million and 1.5 million Euros.

Th e second priority in the scope of this programme is the protection of envi-ronment, where some common problems from the border regions will be treated, such as waste waters and waste, as well as diff erent other problems in the domain of the protection of environment.

Th e most important feature of the IPA Programme is lack of constraint for areas to be fi nanced – besides infrastructure projects will be also fi nanced co-operation in the domain of sports, culture, education, environmental protection, social infrastructure, nongovernmental sector development and civil society propelling; however, the major part of funds is allocated for socio-economic de-velopment projects.

See power point presentation of Jelena Stojović

108

CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMMES

IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

CARDS 2004-2006

IPA 2007-2013

Zrenjanin, 03 February 2009

• • •What Are Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes?

EU support to cooperation between border regions of member states, candidate countries and countries outside EU bordering with them

Aims:

• To achieve uniform and sustainable socio-economic development of the region

• To get countries that are not EU members closer and acquainted with EU practice and procedures

• Joint engagement in projects, for the purpose of solving common problems

• To provide higher security in the border region

European Commission Delegation

Serbian Government

Ministry of Finance

109

Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes in the Territory of the Re-

public of Serbia

IPA 2nd Component – Cross-Border Cooperation 1/3

• Non-repayable funds (85% grant: 15% co-fi nancing IPA)

• Projects are implemented by EU rules – preparation for structural funds

• “Joint Management” system

• Cooperation with neighbouring countries

Programmes 2004-2006 (CARDS)Programmes 2004-2006 (CARDS)Hun-SrbHun-SrbRom-SrbRom-SrbBulg-SrbBulg-SrbAdriatic Programme KADSESAdriatic Programme KADSES

Programmes 2007-2013 (IPA)Programmes 2007-2013 (IPA)Hun-SrbHun-SrbRom-SrbRom-SrbBulg-SrbBulg-SrbAdriatic Programme СЕЕAdriatic Programme СЕЕCro-SrbCro-SrbBiH-SrbBiH-SrbMne-SrbMne-Srb

110

IPA 2nd Component – Cross-Border Cooperation 2/3

National Coordinator:

Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia

Negotiator and Financier:

European Commission Delegation (ECD)

Benefi ciaries:

Non-for-profi t organizations registered in the territory covered by the programme

IPA 2nd Component – Cross-Border Cooperation 3/3

In the scope of IPA II to the Republic of Serbia were approved cross-border cooperation programmes with member states, candidate coun-tries and potential candidate countries:

EU 2007 2008 2009 Total Serbia – Hungary 1,334 2,790 2,486 6,600 Serbia - Romania 1,580 2,698 2,943 7,221 Serbia - Bulgaria 1,265 2,160 2,356 5,681 Adriatic Programme 0,319 0,546 0,596 1,461 Cooperation Programme Southeast Europe - SEE 1,140 0,600 0,600 2,340 23,103

111

Candidate countries and potential candidate countries 2007 2008 2009 Total Serbia – Croatia 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 Serbia – Bosnia & Herzegovina 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 Serbia – Montenegro 0,500 0,500 0,500 1,500 7,800

Croatia – Serbia IPA Cross- Border Programme

Annual budget: 1.8 mill €Croatia: 0.8 mill €Serbia: 1 mill €

Antenna: Sremska Mitrovica

Serbia – Croatia (11,703 км2)

Administrative Districts:North BačkaWest Bačka South BačkaSrem

112

Serbia – Bosnia & Herzegovina IPA Cross- Border Programme

Annual budget : 1,8 mill €-BiH: 0.7 mill €-Serbia: 1.1 mill €

Joint Technical Secretariat: Užice

Serbia - BiH (15,370 км2)

Administrative Districts :SremMačvaKolubaraZlatibor

113

Serbia – Montenegro IPA Cross- Border Programme

Annual budget : 1.1 mill €- Serbia : 0.5 mill €- Mne: 0.6 mill €

Joint Technical Secretariat :Prijepolje

Serbia - Montenegro (10,063 км2)

Administrative Districts :ZlatiborRaška

114

Hungary – Serbia IPA Cross- Border Programme 2007-2013

Annual budget :2007 - 4 032 5002008 - 6 889 5252009 - 7 530 765TOTAL 18 452 790

Information Centre:Subotica

Administrative Districts :West BačkaNorth BačkaNorth BanatSouth Bačka Central Banat Connected Admin. Districts:South Banat and Srem

115

Bulgaria – Serbia IPA Cross- Border Programme 2007-2013

Annual budget:2007 - 2 524 3102008 - 4 312 7802009 - 4 714 194TOTAL 11 551 284

Antenna: Niš

Administrative Districts:BorZaječarNišavaPirotJablanicaPčinj

116

Romania – Serbia IPA Cross- Border Programme 2007-2013

Annual budget :2007 - 4 274 2522008 - 7 302 5632009 – 7 982 247TOTAL 19 559 062

Antenna: Vršac

Administrative Districts:North Banat Central BanatSouth BanatBraničevoBor

117

Romania – Serbia IPA Cross-Border Programme 2007-2013/ Priorities

Priority 1. Economic and Social Development  

1.1.Support to local/regional socio-economic infrastructure

1.2.Development of tourism, including creation of regional tourist identity of the border region as a tourist destination

1.3.Promotion of development of small and medium-sized enterprises

1.4. Support to a higher level of research and development activities and innovations

Priority 2. Protection of the Environment and Reaction in Emergency Situations  

2.1 Improvement of the system and approach in solving cross-border problems related to the environmental protection domain

2.2 Development and implementation of strategies in the domain of waste waters and waste management  

2.3 More effi cient systems and approaches in emergency situations

Priority 3. Actions “People to People”

3.1.Support to civil society development

3.2 Improvement of local administration by rendering services to communities in the cross-border region

3.3 Improvement of educational, cultural cooperation and coopera-tion in the sports domain

3.4 Social and cultural integration of border regions

118

Priority 4. Technical Assistance

4.1.Assistance to implementation, general management and evalua-tion of the Programme

4.2 Assistance to promotional activities and informing on the Pro-gramme

Romania – Serbia IPA Cross- Border Programme 2007-2013/

Allocation

Priority ИПА National co-fi nancing

Total fund (1)+(2)

EU participation percentage

Economic and social development 9.779.531 1.725.799 11.505.330 85%

Environmental protection and reaction in emergency situations

5.085.356 897.416 5.982.772 85%

Promotion of “People to People” actions

2.738.269 483.224 3.221.493 85%

Technical assistance

1.955.906 345.160 2.301.066 85%

TOTAL 19.559.062 3.451.599 23.010.661 85%

119

Thank you for your attention!

Contactwww.evropa.gov.rs

cbc@mfi n.gov.rs

Ministry of FinanceSector for Programming and EU Funds

Management and Development Assistance Kneza Miloša 2011000 Belgrade

Serbia

Djordje Staničić, Secretary General to the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (SCTM), said that this organization took part in preparation of numerous laws related to local self-government – the Law on Local Self-Gov-ernment itself, diff erent sector laws and other legal acts implemented mainly in local self-governments; in that way it took part in the process of harmonization of legal and political systems of our country with the EU legal system. Given that it refers to a huge number of regulations that will become a part of internal legisla-tion of Serbia, as soon as we become an EU member state, it is important that as big circle of people as possible becomes aware of what is awaiting us on the path to the European Union, and what when we become its member. Due to the fact that over 60% of these regulations refer to and are implemented in local commu-nities, SCTM believes that it is necessary to get all towns and municipalities in Serbia acquainted with what is awaiting them and in what way they should par-ticipate in the process of implementation of the harmonized laws. Consequences

120

of EU accession have the most direct impact on economic policy at the local self-government level, public procurement, public fi nancing and regulations in the sphere of communal services, application of standards for the environmen-tal protection etc. “It is really a big responsibility that local self-governments will have to assume, because without that it cannot be understood what is expected from a local self-government in the European Integration Process, from the stand-point of activating civil society and citizens in the process. Namely, very often a large number of people believe that their engagement in the political sphere ends on the day of elections and their putting a ballot into the box. However, it is not like that and should not be like that, i.e. it could be much diff erent, with much higher quality, much more interesting for all and with much better results than the ones we have had so far. But in order to make it happen, it is very important that in this preparatory process political representatives, which means mayors, members of councils, assembly representatives, councilmen in local self-government, should also be aware of your need to take part in the processes in a quality and account-

121

able manner, with full contribution. Without that there can hardly be any success in process acceleration, or reduced deadlines.” In order that citizens and civil so-ciety could understand what it is about and what should be done, the method of communication is very important, as well as timely informing and setting forth individual activities. Th e main part of SCTM activities is oriented towards ca-pacity building of local self-government, for the purpose of making it as good and equal participant as possible in processes prior to the EU accession. In that process it is necessary to establish mutual trust and cooperation in the region. Neighbourhood programmes are of great importance, and in that context SCTM is working primarily on cooperation with their local self-governments. SCTM has a special project by the name of “Preparation of Local Authorities in Serbia for the European Integration Process”, in which are proposed activities for capac-ity building of local self-government for conducting such processes. Although there is discussion on the necessity to reduce the number of employees in the State Administration and local self-government, in many municipalities there is lack of suffi ciently educated persons who completed the necessary education and acquired the knowledge and skills indispensable for managing projects in the European Integration Processes, to the extent to which local self-government should take part in it. Employees in local self-government must also be ready to prepare adequate projects, to apply with them on time and in the manner required by them, but also to be prepared for the moment when the project is ap-proved, for project implementation, reporting in the course of the project imple-mentation and fi nal reporting. Education is therefore very important. It is also very important to conduct projects of empowerment of citizens’ participation in Serbia, in the fi rst place at the local level. SCTM has received support by Swit-zerland for implementation of a pilot project in a few municipalities, however, additional eff ects of such work are to initiate in those municipalities processes of citizens’ participation, participation of nongovernmental sector in preparation, implementation and application for corresponding means.

See power point presentation of Djordje Staničić

122

STANDING CONFERENCE OF TOWNS AND MUNICIPALITIES National Association of Local Authorities of Serbia

“Institutional Forms and Mechanisms

of Citizens’ Participation in the European

Integration Process”

Local Self-Government and European Integration Process Djordje Staničić

Zrenjanin, 3 February 2009

• • •Local Self-Government and EI

• In the process of approaching of Serbia to EU, through activities of Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (SCTM), local self- government (LSG) took part in preparations of laws and other regula-tions of importance for LSG, and harmonization of legal and political systems of our country with the EU legislation (“acquis communau-taire”); however, it was not included in the negotiation process re-garding conclusion of SAA.

• More active role of LSG is expected in the process of implementation of harmonized laws and other regulations with the EU legal system.

123

• EU accession, as well as adoption of “acquis communautaire” (Euro-pean legal system) have a signifi cant impact on national and local levels of authorities.

• Local authorities are a focal point of community life, in which political decisions and regulations directly aff ect each and every citizen.

• EU accession consequences have the most direct impact on econom-ic policy at the local self-government level, on public procurement, public fi nances and regulations in the sphere of utility services, ap-plication of environmental protection standards ...

Preparatory process:

It is very important that political representatives of towns and munici-palities are included into consideration of issues concerning EI and cor-responding processes at the national level.

They are very important in creating and expressing public opinion, and they are a proved method of stimulating interest and motivation of citi-zens for European Integration Processes, through intensive informing. Such campaigns in the sphere of public relations are very important when a citizen’s referendum precedes EU accession.

The most important preparatory measures for EI would be as follows:

Local self-government and citizens living in its territory should by all means be informed and consulted on the negotiation process devel-opment and creation of laws in domains directly referring to them. These domains are the following:

124

• Regional cooperation

• Economic criteria that refer to existence of socio-economic councils

• Integrated prevention and control of environmental pollution

• Protection against fi re

• Water protection and management

SCTM Programmes and Projects “Preparation of Local Authori-

ties in Serbia for the European Integration Process”

The aim of the programme is to establish understanding of impor-tance of EI in the Serbian society, by giving to local self-governments, as the authority level closest to citizens, a chance to take active part in the accession process to the European Union

Main activities in the Project

• Preparatory activities

• Development of Action Plan for preparation of local authorities for the European Integration Process

• Education and professional development

• Informing and promoting activities

125

SCTM Programmes and Projects “Support to Empowerment of

Civil Participation in Serbia – Phase Two”

• Starting point for this Project is the document Direct Participation of Citizens in Public Life at the Local Level, which is one of the results of Phase One of the Project.

• The aim of the Project is to improve democratic administration at the local level by including citizens into public life and by organizing a process in which citizens will be included for the purpose of consider-ing topics important for the local community.

Strategic Issues...

Models of town/municipal Statutes defi ne:

• Council for Monitoring of Ethic Code Implementation (behaviour in compliance with the provisions of the Code, opinion submitted to offi cials, citizens, media, bodies and organizations with reference to implementation of the Ethic Code)

• Youth Council: (initiates and participates in designing local youth policy in the domains of education, sports, leisure time activities, increased employment, informing, active participation, equal op-portunities provision, health care, culture, gender equality; initiates preparations of projects or participation of the Municipality in pro-grammes and projects for young people, encourages cooperation between Municipality and youth organizations and associations, and supports implementation of their activities)

126

DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS  ...

• Referendum

• Civic initiative

• Citizens’ meeting

• Referendum

• Citizens’ complaints

• Participation in elections

• Public poll

• Public discussion

• Ward self-government

• Council for community development (municipal, town’s)

• ETHIC CODE OF BEHAVIOUR OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

National Association of Local Authorities of Serbia

www.skgo.orgMakedonska 22, Belgrade

011/ 3223- 446

127

After presentations of the Government representatives and civil sector, a dialogue was initiated with representatives of local authorities and NGOs. Here are the questions and answers:

1. May integration with a city from the European Union, from Romania let’s say, because it is closer to me, contribute to higher availability of European Union funds?

Jelena Stojović: With EU funds are fi nanced activities conducted in the ter-ritory covered by the programme. If we speak about the cross-border cooperation programme with Romania, it is the North, Central and South Banat, Braničevo and Bor Districts from our side; Karash, Mehedinci, Turnu Severin from the Ro-manian side. So far, activities may be fi nanced only from areas encompassed by

128

the given programme. It means that if you started cooperation with a town outside this area, it would not be an activity fi nanced from the grant funds; nevertheless, you could, if you wished, fi nance it as one of additional activities in one of cross-border cooperation projects, in which case you would fi nance some activities from the grant, and the additional one from your own resources or from another source. In cross-border cooperation programmes partnership is obligatory. It means that you cannot conduct a one-sided project, i.e. conduct it on one side only. You defi -nitely must have a partner across the border.

Miljenko Dereta: Every time when you have a partner from the European Un-ion, your chances to get funds are incomparably higher. Often, the prerequisite for competing at all is to have, in any programme, a partner organization from an European Union member state, and in that context, big advantage for all of us are our traditional links with Romania and Hungary and Bulgaria, the new members.

2. How to solve the problem of inclusion of refugees and IDPs into local com-munities?

Djordje Staničić: Th e issue of refugees and IDPs is really a problem all over Serbia. Often, there appear organizations that off er pro-grammes for inclusion of refugees and IDPs into the community; they ask sup-port from local self-govern-ment and the whole com-munity for it. But very often there is no understanding in the local community as well. And multiculturalism is something that Europe is

129

working on, so there are numerous organizations and programmes in the Euro-pean Union. How and in what manner we will get included in it and possibly withdraw funds through specifi c projects still remains to be seen. You know, you may try to talk to people who are councilmen in your municipality or with people who are members of the municipal board, to see whether it is an integral part of the Statute or not, and in what way it could be improved. Simply, a system has to be made in the local community that will render support. Because all of you know how the European Union provides for funds – there are specifi c programmes, it is well-known who they are intended for, who may apply.

3. What is the position of disabled persons and their organizations in the EU Process?

Jelena Stojović: Regarding neighbourhood programmes, all such organizations are welcome to apply, of course. It is not necessary to get linked to a congeneric organization; however, it is certainly necessary to get linked to an organization, so that partnership should have sense during the project implementation. Of course, like all those who will take part in cross-border cooperation projects, you must have a cross-border partner. But for sure, all projects of the kind may be fi nanced from these funds.

Vladimir Ateljević: One of exceptionally important areas in the European Union and one of priorities for us when harmonizing legislation, in technical sense, is antidiscrimination legislation. I have to note that the nongovernmental sector and civil society organizations have to the greatest extent contributed to the development of antidiscrimination legislation and social inclusion issues in the European Union, but primarily with the support by the European Commission.

4. What is the future of local community centres, i.e. have they passed their use?

Djordje Staničić: No, local community centres have not passed their use. In our local self-government system municipalities are big, i.e. among the biggest in Europe. Maybe even the biggest, whereby we have a monotype local self-govern-

130

ment. Th at has been noted as a problem. One of the ways to solve the problem is to develop self-government at the local community centre level in a more quality manner than it used to be before, and with diff erent opportunities that should be off ered through statutes of local self-governments. Statutes in local community centre in a town or ward self-governments in a town, in town centre, essentially diff er from the ones organized in the territory of a settlement or a village. It has to be defi ned by appropriate norms in the very Statute of local self-government, and by appropriate decisions that are accompanying it, for which municipality is authorized. Key problem in our country, and not in our country only, is actually implementation of the subsidiarity principle, to which we as a country agreed when we signed the European Charter on Local Self-Government. It means that it is clearly defi ned what is whose competence, for what purposes there are funds provided by the law and not by political will or present position of a minister. Un-fortunately, it is something we are striving for but still do not have it defi ned in our internal legislation.

5. Th e problem of payment of customs and VAT for donations from EU funds?

Jelena Stojović: Pursuant to the Law passed in 2000 and amended in 2001, exemption of customs duty does not refer to cars, i.e. custom duty must be paid. However, for that reason is important the Agreement signed and adopted in the Parliament in 2003, which refers to CARDS funds, and stipulates that all means procured in the scope of this programme are exempt from customs duty and VAT. Some customs branch offi ces know about it, some do not.

6. How to make citizens interested in more active participation in the work of local community centres and local self-government?

Djordje Staničić: Interest always presupposes interactivity. Th e essence of what should and could be done in a proper way is set forth in the Statute. Th e Statute of the City of Zrenjanin defi nes competences of local community centres, defi nes, for instance, how the local community centre in your ward works, whether it is a part of municipal administration or not, whether you may fi nish all your business

131

here, in this building, or not, it is one of the things that simply makes possible to recognize this local community centre as a place where life is organized in a proper way. On the other hand, exactly through the municipal budget, i.e. city in this case, should be provided funds for local com-munity centres. However, it has to be de-fi ned by a system, i.e. the Statute of the city and by appropriate decision on what a local community centre self-government is doing, by what method it elects its bod-ies.

Miljenko Dereta: In the work of a lo-cal community centre are taking part those who wish to achieve some interest. We suff er from a disease called all, all, all, and if all are not included we feel sorry for the ones who are not included. Th ere must be informing of citizens on oppor-tunities off ered by a local community centre, and they will decide for themselves whether to use the opportunities or not. If they do not use the opportunities, it is their own fault. How to motivate them? One of very stimulating methods is suc-cess, something achieved at the local community centre level, as success of a part of that local community centre. It will certainly be, if not for other reason then for the reason of our traditional envy, stimulating for someone else who has a similar problem.

Jelena Stojović: By promoting neighbourhood projects, you may fi nd in your ward something that is a problem or pleasure for the majority of inhabitants. Lo-cal community centres should put it on the paper as a project idea, given that the local community centre is a legal entity that may apply for EU funds. In that way some of them will have material benefi t, in that way some people from the same

132

ward will learn about it, and then get included maybe the next time already, and it is up to you to decide what would motivate them, what idea would encour-age them to get included.

7. Is the gender equality is-sue considered only as a formal issue, taking into account that there is still no Law on Gender Equality?

Djordje Staničić: It is a topic that we in the Standing Con-

ference of Towns and Municipalities often encounter when discussing with our partners, i.e. local self-government associations from other countries, particularly from the Western Europe. In those countries the gender equality issue is something fully implied, very much taken care of, but their legislators also take care of it, so their budgets are oriented towards the topic, and in that way, too. Th e problem with us is that we are far from all of it and simply cannot apply their present ex-periences on our own situation. It is therefore very important for us to try to see where we are, and to learn in a serious manner, with their support and the knowl-edge they have from the time when they started considering the issue, what the fi rst steps are, how to achieve a result. Bearing on mind that the last public debate on the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination in this country occurred four years ago, one may conclude that we do not have a clear commitment of the legislator, i.e. the Government or Parliament, to strive towards passing such a Law. Th e question of that Law is the question of consensus in the society. It is not only the question of political will and some Parliamentary majority.

133

List of Participants in the Public Discussion in Zrenjanin

NAME AND SURNAME ORGANIZATION/ INSTITUTION CITY

Predrag Stankov Assistant Mayor Zrenjanin

Miljenko Dereta Civic Initiatives Belgrade

Vladimir Ateljević European Integration Offi ce Belgrade

Jelena Stojović Ministry of Finance Belgrade

Đorđe Staničić Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities Belgrade

1 Mačov Dragan Branch Union Confederation “Independence” LSV Zrenjanin

2 Marina Davidovac KTV Television Zrenjanin

3 Vesna Piščević Zone of Improved Business - BID Zrenjanin

4 Nenad Nikolić Citizens’ Association “EKO-Talas” Tomaševac

5 Vijatov Anđa Women’s Association Tamiški cvet (the Tamiš Flower) Tomaševac

6 Darko Vukoje Municipal Assembly Sečanj Sečanj

7 Nada Sikimić Centre for Social Work Sečanj Sečanj

8 Aleksandar Stojkov NGO Union “Roma Decade” Kikinda

9 Jozef Nikolić NGO “Zvezda Vodilja” (Lodestar) Zrenjanin

10 Dobrila Nikolić City Administration – Roma Issues Coordinator Zrenjanin

11 Dragoslav Reljin Multicultural Banat Kikinda

12 Žurko Tanja CIRS Nova Crnja

13 Uzalac Biljana Romnjako Ilo Ečka

14 Kolarov Tanja Roma Association of Novi Bečej Novi Bečej

134

15 Mirjana Kiš Roma Association of Novi Bečej Novi Bečej

16 Stanislav Pančić Technical Faculty Zrenjanin

17 Jelena Sokref Centre “Živeti uspravno” (Living Upright) Novi Sad

18 Igor Pejin Centre for Eco-Rural Development Aleksandrovo Aleksandrovo

19 Lučić Nedeljko Youth Association “Vojvoda Stepa” Vojvoda Stepa

20 Kasa Čaba Youth Club Nova Crnja Nova Crnja

21 Snežana Lakić Municipal Administration Žitište Žitište

22 Aleksandar Tomin Youth Initiative Kikinda Kikinda

23 Tijana Šaldić Youth Initiative Kikinda Kikinda

24 Svetlana Marčeta Youth Initiative Kikinda Kikinda

25 Željko Radu Economic School Parliament Kikinda

26 Tijana Velemirov Youth Initiative Kikinda -KIM Kikinda

27 Aleksandar Đokić Youth Initiative Kikinda Kikinda

28 Biljana Stojanović Youth Initiative Kikinda -KIM Kikinda

29 Gordana Perunović Fijat CPŽ Kikinda - Municipal Assembly Kikinda Kikinda

30 Nikola Krnić CPŽ Kikinda Kikinda

31 Mišković Ivan KPD Roma Sonta

32 Srđan Balog KPD Roma Sonta

33 Antun Čonka Municipal Assembly of Apatin Apatin

34 Buheker Ervin German Association “Bečkerek” Zrenjanin

35 Nađ Andrea Women’s Union Zrenjanin

36 Milica Jovanov Women’s Union Zrenjanin

37 Steva Jovanov Women’s Union Zrenjanin

135

38 Sanja Koso Women’s Union Zrenjanin

39 Maja Milanov Women’s Union, Association of Women of Southeast Europe Zrenjanin

40 Danuc Mata Society of Romanians “BEGA” Zrenjanin

41 Aleksandra Čubranović “EUPROGRESS” Novi Sad

42 Radomir Čubranović “EUPROGRESS” Novi Sad

43 Jelena Mihajlov Zrenjanin Education Centre - ZEC Zrenjanin

44 Marjana Ivančevića Zrenjanin Education Centre - ZEC Zrenjanin

45 Radovan Vuletin Association “Veljko Vlahović” Zrenjanin

46 Rašković Biljana Novi Sad Humanitarian Centre Novi Sad

47 Ponjičan Zoenko Citizens’ Association “Photoexpo” Aradac Aradac

48 Vladimir Matejin Citizens’ Association “Photoexpo” Aradac Aradac

49 Marjana Ječmenica Local Community Centre “Mala Amerika” (Little America) Zrenjanin

50 Miroslav Meržan Citizens’ Association “RROMA-ROTA” Kikinda

51 Miodrag Veldi Roma Association “URMA” Mokrin

52 Dragana Padejski Citizens’ Association “SIGA” Perlez

53 Dragana Bogojević Citizens’ Association “SIGA” Perlez

54 Zorka Obradović Citizens’ Association “SIGA” Perlez

55 Trajan Pankaričan Ombudsman of Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

56 Dragana Radlovački Deputy Ombudsman Zrenjanin

57 Janković Slobodan Citizens’ Association “SPAS” Zrenjanin

58  Steva Prujović Citizens’ Association “SPAS” Zrenjanin

59 Snežana Ubović City Administration – Offi ce for Local Economic Development Zrenjanin

60 Alma Fevhat City Administration Zrenjanin

136

61 Zdravko Stojanov City Administration Zrenjanin

62 Murselin Danica Association of Tourismologists ZR Zrenjanin

63 Predrag Vrzić Association of Tourismologists ZR Zrenjanin

64 Sanja Vrzić National Museum Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

65 Gordana Bulatović Municipal Assembly of Kikinda Kikinda

66 Belošev Stevan Municipal Assembly of Kikinda Kikinda

67 Aleksandra P. Hrubik Citizens’ Association “Harmonija” (Harmony) Aradac Aradac

68 Ljiljana Babović City Administration Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

69 Vesna Mađarov Elementary School “Đura Jakšić” .Zrenjanin

71 Vera Damjanov Elementary School “ Dr Jovan Cvijić” Zrenjanin

72 Marijana Mauka Russian Society Zrenjanin

73 Alisa Kockar Students’ Parliament, Youth Group Hou ZR Zrenjanin

74 Rudolf Tot Society of Slovenians “Planika” Zrenjanin

75 Zoran Novaković JP. Radio Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

76 Margareta Vojin Society of Romanians “BEGA” Zr Zrenjanin

77 Kalina Rajović Municipal Assembly of Žitište - Municipal Administration Žitište

78 Viorel Gereu Municipal Council of Žitište Žitište

79 Jonel Filip Municipal Assembly of Žitište Žitište

80 Aranka Molnar Radio Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

81 Đurica Danilov Vorgić Cattle Breeders’ Association “Perlez” Perlez

82 Lekić Kosara Cattle Breeders’ Association “Perlez” Perlez

83 Smiljka Momirov Local Community Centre “Centar” Zrenjanin

84 Vesna Rajković Citizens’ Association “Ukrštanje” (Interweaving) Novi Sad

137

85 Vladimir Teofanović Cerebral Paralysis Association Novi Bečaj

86 Igor Markov Youth Union “Krug” (Circle) Melenci

87 Ana Farkas Municipal Commission for Gender Equality Kovačica

88 Novica Trajković Municipal Commission for Gender Equality Kovačica

89 Ivana Perić Jazas Youth Žitište

90 Novica Nedić Jazas Youth Žitište

91 Robert Sabo NGO “Bonafi de” (under foundation) Mužlja

92 Sandor Balanji Feher To - DNTE Lukino Selo

93 Stankulov Đura Feher To Lukino Selo

94 Solija Škorić Volunteers’ Centre Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

95 Gordana Nikolić Women’s Studies and Researches Zrenjanin

96 Danijela Bogdanov Television Santos Zrenjanin

97 Dragomir Ignjatov Television Santos Zrenjanin

98 Mile Novaković RTS Zrenjanin Zrenjanin

99 Miroslava Rudar Newspaper “Danas” (Today) Zrenjanin

100 Branka Jajić Newspaper “Zrenjanin” Zrenjanin

On behalf of Civic Initiatives

1. Dejana Mitev Civic Initiatives Belgrade

2. Branislav Lovrenski Civic Initiatives Belgrade

138

139

Recommendations

Th e European Integration Process of a country, approaching the EU mem-bership, which presupposes, in the fi rst place, its internal transition, in many diff erent ways has an impact on the civil society development. Th at impact, ac-cording to experiences of countries that already terminated the Process, primar-ily the ones from Central and Eastern Europe, is diverse in diff erent phases of the Process, and it is possible to model it into four models of impact, with their specifi c features.

Th e fi rst way or model of impact that the Process has on civil society is through the necessity of the country to meet political criteria for EU member-ship, as the fi rst and basic element of the Copenhagen Criteria (1993). Th e need to respect the rule of law, improvement of the protection of human rights, and democracy development, have a direct impact on the development of civil society as well, in countries that are on their path to achievement of these aims. However, experience of the majority of countries that became member states show that this opportunity was not used to a great extent.

From its side, the European Commission is monitoring the development of civil sector in the country, both essentially and with reference to the fi nancial support, and it presents its fi ndings in the annual Progress Report. EU acknowl-edges that civil society plays an important role in the EU approaching pro-cess, that for success of this process is necessary both political will and citi-zens’ support, and that civil society organizations may assist in achievement of these aims. Nongovernmental organizations are spreading the European spirit by promoting basic values of democracy, human rights, good public administration and rule of law. In this context, it is evident that civil sector in Serbia still aff ronts challenges that have to be dealt with and solved, while further eff orts require deepening of the freedom of association and facilitated development of civil so-

140

ciety organizations. Local NGOs, neglected to a great extent, need training, as well as capacity building, in order to play an eff ective role in the European Integration Process. EU may render its assistance to a wide range of civil society organizations, such as the ones working on interethnic relations, minority rights protection, including the Roma rights, poverty reduction, environmental protec-tion and social development. Th ese organizations play the crucial role in con-solidation of democracy, but also in social, economic and political life. Th rough regional cooperation and good relations with civil society in neighbouring coun-tries, civil society plays an important role in regional stability and in im-provement of relations between countries in the region. For achievement of all these aims must be provided favourable conditions for civil society develop-ment, the legal base of which would be a comprehensive law that should create good conditions for establishment and functioning of civil society.

Moreover, there is also the need for an intensive dialogue between civil society organizations and both central and local authorities. Despite intro-duction of diff erent forms of consultations between authorities and civil society organizations in Serbia, as well as good cooperation with some ministries during implementation of specifi c projects (a good example is implementation of Pov-erty Reduction Strategy, the dialogue about legislation organized by the Parlia-mentary Committee for European Integration and implementation of projects that make part of the National Youth Strategy), this cooperation still remains on irregular, ad hoc basis, while the system dialogue has not been developed so far. Th e executive authorities, in order to be more effi cient in the European Inte-gration Process, must systematically get civil society included into processes of policy creation and decision making, but nongovernmental organizations, too, must get coordinated among themselves. Moreover, other organizations and interested parties that are part of civil society, such as trade unions, social organizations, organizations for the protection of environment, should also have the opportunity to take active part in the process of institutionalization of cooperation with the Government.

141

Empowerment of local and regional organizations, as well as their net-working, have a developmental eff ect for local self-government and regional bod-ies, and are doubtlessly an important part of the European Int egration Process of a country. Namely, these subnational authorities are very important in the Euro-pean Integration Process, primarily in implementation of legislation harmonized with the EU standards – as far as 60% of that legislation is implemented by local and regional authorities (depending on the decentralization level), particularly in the segments of environmental protection, but also infrastructure, transport, social policy, employment policy and agriculture.

Th e indispensable element is that the public should be as much as pos-sible informed by main implementers of the European Integration Process, in order to be motivated to take part in the accession process and for citizens to recognize their obligations. Very often there is situation when citizens posi-tively and in high percentage declare to be for European Integration, which is an expected result of trying to achieve a broader social consensus. Experiences in Serbia (in the fi rst place through activities of the European Integration Offi ce) show that much can be done regarding education of journalists, organization of a larger number of trainings, primarily for journalists from local media, study tours for journalists to new member countries. A traditional award for journal-ists has been established, in order to direct the attention of media to concrete ev-eryday life issues related to European Integration. What becomes ever more im-portant in later Integration phases, and was used in former cases of EU accession, is communication through a mediator, i.e. through message transferor, where nongovernmental organizations, i.e. civil society organizations are key partners, as well as media and business community. For such a harmonized performance it is necessary to have a consistent strategy of accession process communication, in order to conduct all information activities as successfully as possible, particularly for target groups represented by those nongovernmental organizations, given the fact that credibility of information obtained by the nongovernmental sector is higher than of those provided by the executive authorities. Key challenge is how

142

to maintain public’s interest without raising, on the one side, non-realistic expectations and, from the other side, without producing disappointment in the entire process. Here, too, may help experiences of others – organizing dis-cussions within civil society organizations is very useful in the preparatory phase, because representatives of older members and of the European Commis-sion may both transfer knowledge and encourage, as well as point to the fact that civil society is actually the key actor in the pre-accession process. Th erefore, the pre-accession phase, although very diffi cult, is actually the best period for civil society development.

Th e strength of civil society also demonstrates the impact through the European Commission, which is applied during preparation of the annual Progress Report of a country in the European Integration Process. Th e impact is much better and performance stronger if there are platforms and networks acting together. It had an impact in many countries on changed role of nongov-ernmental organizations, which are now rendering social services as well, but are also the driving force of changes in public policies (they prepared drafts of a large number of public policies and laws that enabled EU membership, as was the case in Romania). Th ey are also promoters of democratic development, have particular impact on the protection of children’s rights, changes of electoral laws, presentation of local communities and interest of citizens, public procurement. Condition for such a changed role of civil society is that there was established a structural dialogue with the Government, and that consultations with civil society were raised to the highest level (mainly through the Prime Minister’s Cabinet). It was also proven to be useful to form consultative bodies with civil society at the ministerial level, which had a special role in the process of mem-bership negotiations, particularly in spheres in which they themselves had built expertise. It mainly refers to spheres such as democracy and human rights, rule of law, Constitutional reform, electoral system, struggle against corruption, but also training of journalists, civic education in schools, environmental protection, cultural heritage, health care, corporative and social accountability.

143

Th e second way or model of impact has proven to be of much greater ben-efi t and assistance, particularly at the beginning; it refers to EU programmes and funds as support to development of democracy and civil society (excel-lent examples are the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania as well). As one enters deeper into the European Integration Process, the European Union is increasing inclusion of civil society into the consultation processes regard-ing fi nancial and technical assistance to countries. Regarding assistance to civil society, in the phase of a potential candidate, EU renders assistance to all segments of civil society through the central system of processing of require-ments for assistance, through the general instrument – IPA and EIDHR, which is the programme initiated by the Commission Delegation in the given country. Th is kind of assistance to the Western Balkans in the period 2008-2010 is almost three times higher than the one in the period 2005-2007, and the fi gures show that there is a real desire to increase fi nancing in this sphere. Th e proof for it, but also addition to assistance programmes, is the newly created Civil Society Facil-ity, which directs the fi nancial assistance through three main channels: the fi rst one are civic initiatives and capacity building, then programmes for individuals, and fi nally, diff erent partner activities.

Experiences in countries of Central and Eastern Europe show that there, too, the European Commission formed similar methods of assistance, such as for instance the Foundation for Civil Society Development (in Romania in the fi rst place, but in other countries, too), which directly provided funds for non-governmental organizations; however, those funds were not directed through executive authorities. Th e management structure was fully in hands of civil soci-ety, very transparently, and the aim was to build civil society capacities through training, fi nancing, grant awarding, researches and consultations, for the pur-pose of improving lives of people and of local communities. Th rough these grants were conducted researches for the non-for-profi t sector and for the needs of the European Commission, whereby was promoted the idea that it is the civil sector that should be trusted by citizens. Th e experience has proven that it is nec-

144

essary to deal with networking, but also with linking of nongovernmental organizations, so that they would be able to have partner projects with the public administration and local authorities, for the purpose of better and more effi cient participation in these programmes. Such programmes exactly are the example of the best practice, because there was no corruption in their implementation and the level of funds absorption ranged from 96% to 99%.

Th e third way or model of impact is harmonization of legislations and par-ticipation of civil society organizations in the creation of new legal frame-work, harmonized with EU, in a short period of time. Th e speed of approaching the Union, in terms of harmonization of laws, however, bears within itself an im-portant problem, which is the lack of time for public discussion on the proposed legal solutions, particularly in the domain of evaluation of eff ects of such laws on citizens and civil society. In solving this important problem, one may use the ex-perience of EU itself, i.e. the requirement for transparency in work of its institu-tions, which was regulated in 1997 by the inter-institutional protocol of European communities. Namely, by this requirement, in all stages of the decision-making process there is an opportunity for participation of all interested subjects, and the European Commission is obligated to invite nongovernmental organizations addressing the given topic to take part in the process; thus citizens may through their organizations have the most direct impact on creation of common policies of the Union. Th is experience, actually, stimulates that in the country, too, should be created a similar mechanism in the European Integration Process, some kind of memorandum of the place and role of civil society organizations in creating public policies.

However, the structured cooperation is a challenge for civil society itself be-cause it requires representatives of participants in it, meaning that civil society has to be suffi ciently mature in order to consolidate and decide who will repre-sent it and highlight individual diff erent segments in the scope of thematic ar-eas of civil society. When negotiations on membership start, they become very technical and require specifi c technical expertise, therefore it is good that

145

already in the preliminary phase of preparations of the framework for their conducting should be included civil society organizations, because that will bring added value to the contents of the Process, but it will also make it legiti-mate. In the course of such preparations in some countries (Bulgaria) emerged the idea of conducting an independent civil report on supervision, where the at-tention of monitoring was directed towards the issues that appeared as a problem in the European Commission’s report, meaning that these are issues that could have jeopardized, actually slowed down accession of the country to the European Union. Th e main purpose of these reports was to make an assessment of state of aff airs in the country, independently from the Government and from the Euro-pean Commission, but also to create the opportunity for citizens to be properly informed. Th e methodology of those independent reports implied that the Gov-ernment should prepare an action plan in order to respond to recommendations resulting from the Commission’s report; the action plan consisted of diff erent measures that were projected for the purpose of solving shortcomings, and su-pervision was directed towards evaluation of the level of implementation of these measures. Th e implementation evaluation had four levels (applied, not applied, mainly applied, mainly not applied measures) but, of course, before evaluating a measure in terms of application, fi rst had to be made an assessment whether it had been adequately planned; therefore, the methodology also implied a discre-tion evaluation of the measure’s plan adequacy. Th e indispensable condition that such supervision could be realized is unlimited access to information; to what is going on, and what the executive authorities are actually doing. In the case of Bulgaria, it was exactly the main negotiator who approved access to meetings of the Council and to all documents resulting from these meetings, which opened to civil society access to information important for carrying out these activities. During monitoring of implementation of liabilities from the action plan expert groups were formed (covering issues from copyright to agriculture), in whose structure there was experience and expertise of the nongovernmental sector and universities, but also of the executive authorities. It resulted in reports evaluating progress in implementation of liabilities assumed by the State. Findings of the

146

reports were presented before ambassadors of member states, before the broad-er public, before diff erent target groups. Th e conclusion of the supervision tells about current implementation of measures, gives recommendations to the Gov-ernment how to secure higher transparency and accountability, and of course, gives the fi ndings to media, for the purpose of better informing of the public (in the form of a press release).

Th e fourth way or model of impact Th e infl uence of the European Inte-gration Process is totally diff erent when the country becomes an EU member, because then its civil society becomes a part of a broader network of European organizations, and the fi eld of infl uence moves towards Brussels, as the decision-making centre, in that way having an impact on policy creation and decision adoption in EU, which have a feedback impact on citizens, countries and societies of the Union member states. An individual in EU is in the fi rst place a citizen, with all his/her civic political rights, but also a consumer in the market economy, which must protect all his/her rights; he has rights as an employee, as an employ-er, and eventually as a commercial law subject. Besides, he/she has the right to take part in elections for the European Parliament and local elections, the right to petition, as well as good administration, therefore his/her role of monitoring is very important.

After acquiring the candidate status, there are no more too many funds for nongovernmental organizations, because traditional donors turn their attention to less developed societies; therefore it is visible that civil society organizations under EU membership conditions often struggle to survive. Th e main reason for that is the fact that in the previous phases of Integration they were dependent on one source if fi nancing, oriented towards EU; therefore, it is necessary to teach them to balance and to have several sources for providing their fi nancial resourc-es. At the same time, it presupposes that the State has previously provided an institutional framework and established a stimulating environment for civil society development, as well as conditions for civil society fi nancing from do-

147

mestic sources (by establishing funds and foundations, fi nancing from the budget, tax relieves, encouragement of philanthropy in the broadest sense).

Under conditions of being an EU member country, capability of nongovern-mental organizations to have an impact on the authorities is advanced, in the fi rst place because of a good legal framework and the rule of law principle. Th ere-fore, the executive authorities are forced to be transparent and to regularly publish the data on their webpages. In this way is also created a mechanism, which in some spheres works very well, which manages to link civil society, local administration, State administration, in terms of further progress, because more expertise is useful even when a country becomes an EU member.

Out of all these processes may be summarized lessons learned in the course of their duration in practice of other countries:

It is very important to secure independence, own expertise, and to provide diff erent sources of fi nancing of civil society organizations.

In terms of informing, it is necessary to bear in mind the need for diversifi -cation of messages – if you wish to speak about the legal situation to representa-tives of EU members states, but also to your Government and public, it cannot be done in the same manner; diff erent language has to be used. Events, development have to be monitored very carefully – one must be prepared and have clear mes-sages and interpretations.

It is important to make use of the emphasis that EU gives to civil society, to unify with other organizations (e.g. with trade unions and employers’ com-munities) if one wishes to fi nd solutions for problems in socio-economic sphere.

Civil society organizations must also focus on legislative changes in the country, by using a number of opportunities, because during the EU approach-ing process the executive authorities are under strong external infl uence. Such activities specially imply work on introduction of the Law on Associations and Foundations, Law on Social Agreements, introduction of measures of strug-

148

gle against corruption, quality law on grants awarding, on public procure-ment, but also on Constitutional changes.It is necessary to create a broad co-ordination platform for nongovernmental organizations, to encourage creation of “umbrella” organizations, or even federations in this sector, in order to secure unanimity in performance of nongovernmental organizations.

Very important is development of strong partnership with local authori-ties, and working together with them for the benefi t of citizens – it is always good to form a network of offi ces for giving advice to citizens, which would be present in every town and in a large number of villages, where citizens could get free advice. For conducting all these activities, it is primarily important to preserve expertise within the civil sector framework.

Publisher:Civic Initiatives, Belgrade

For Publisher:Miljenko Dereta

Proofreading: Katarina Krajinović

Design: Ivan Valenčak

DTP and printing: Yu TOP Agency, Novi Sad

On Civic Initiatives

A group of eminent NGO activists included in the antiwar movement and non-na-tionalist democratic opposition analyzed and evaluated relative failure of democratic movements against Milošević’s regime, and in May 1996 founded Civic Initiatives, a citizen’s association for democracy and civic education. The set aim is to contribute to creation of a social, civic base that could support democratic changes by educating citizens about their rights, democracy, civil society, and how to be active citizens, in order to be able to make decisions on their own lives.

Our vision is a society of equal and active citizens who make decisions on how to live their lives in a democratic country with a rule of law, and with full respect of human rights.

Our mission is to empower civil society through education, promotion of democracy and support to active citizens’ status.

Our main values are equality and equal opportunities, sharing with others, commit-ment, tolerance, solidarity, care for people, creation of links and partner relations with others, without imposing, as well as permanent education for all. People are the great-est values and resource of our organization.

CI strategy is that only by eliminating regional, national, ethnic, religious, gender and social barriers it is possible to build a stronger, more effi cient and potentially sustaina-ble NGO community, and thereby contribute to development of the society in general. We strive to overcome fear and isolation, inherited from the past and increased dur-ing the Milošević’s regime, by linking people who would not meet otherwise, which encourages cooperation, joint activities, exchange of ideas, learning from each other.

For that reason Civic Initiatives focus their activities on nongovernmental organiza-tions outside Belgrade, establishing relations with smaller towns and rural localities all over Serbia, because they believe that it is important to link local groups with the ones in the capital. We decided not to open local offi ces of Civic Initiatives but to base our work on cooperation with strong and independent local partners.