Summary and Recommendations

Reporter: Jelica Minić
Belgrade, 14-15 December 2001

Introduction

International Conference Assessing Effects of Regional Initiatives in South Eastern Europe - Towards an Efficient Framework, is the final part of the project run by the European Movement in Serbia in cooperation with think tanks from Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania.The idea of the project was to make an assessment of growing number of regional initiatives having Balkan countries' participation. The main aim was to identify concrete instruments, mechanisms and contents to make them more effective and better coordinated. The motive of this endeavor was to increase the regional involvement and ownership of the process of SEE integration predominantly initiated and enforced from outside.

The book by the Yugoslav team leader, Dr. Duško Lopandić, Regional Initiatives in South Eastern Europe, 292 pages, was edited in Serbian and English, and distributed to all participants of the conference as the hosting institution input to the debate on regional cooperation. The book was promoted in the Media Center two days before the Conference. A book review was published in the Economist Magazine, no.79, November 26, 2001.

The main contributions to the conference, mostly by the authors from the region, were 15 conference papers, which are going to be published as conference proceedings. The project was suported by the East-East Program of the Fund for an Open Society and the European Commission.

112 participants and 16 journalists attended the conference. In two days, 27 speakers (19 foreign and 8 from the FRY) had their presentations. The participants were addressed by the Prime Minister of the FRY, Dragiša Pešić, Minister of National Minorities, Rasim Ljajić, President of the European Movement in Serbia, Ambassador Živorad Kovačević, Ambassadors of the EU and neighboring countries, Deputy Director General of the CEI, Ambassador Anton Rupnik, regional representative of European Stability Initiative, Mina Jarvenpaa, representatives of the World Bank, OESC, of regional and European think tanks and foundations, and other distinguished foreign and Yugoslav speakers.

Besides daily news, the conference was extensively presented in a special TV program and at four pages of the monthly supplement on South East Europe, Perspectives, in the Economist Magazine no.83, December 24, 2001.

Achievements

Regional initiatives in SEE are specific product at the geopolitical market of Europe, and their proliferation is a sign of existing demand and necessity. They are packing the region in different frameworks searching for the most appropriate one. Most of them are temporary, post-conflict, bridging the political and economic gap in Europe.

The general conclusion is that the existence and overall activity of various regional initiatives in South Eastern Europe were doubtlessly positive. The regional context provided the appropriate framework for the solution of bilateral conflicts and tensions. Regional initiatives provided decisive progress in the peace building process, contributed democratization, increased security, and supported macroeconomic stabilization and structural reforms, as well as integration of the region into the European structures and the rest of the world. Fighting organized crime, corruption, illegal migrations, radical extremism and international terrorism, especially after September 11, 2001, has been increasingly performed at the regional scale.

Regional initiatives gave impetus to regional integration, creating positive momentum for trade liberalization, foreign direct investment promotion and private sector sustainable development in SEE. To a certain extent they compensate for the declining share of the region and individual countries in the global economy, being a vehicle to enlarge individual countries markets and constituting a path for achieving greater international competitiveness. Open regionalism in SEE is compensating some deficiencies of the globalization process providing ground for development of missing geographical and ethno-cultural dimension, although through differentiated configuration of each specific initiative.

One of their major achievements is the sustainable and continuous political dialogue of the regional countries, between them and other European countries and with non-European countries and different international organizations being involved in the framework of regional initiatives. Practically all European and some major non-European countries are involved in solving problems of the SEE through regional initiatives. Institutionalization of the dialogue with the EU requires better communication between individual applicant countries in the region and those lagging behind, giving them ground to formulate and defend the most sensitive common interests of the region.

They encouraged cooperation amongst administrations and business and other circles in the region, facilitated communication and created networks of contacts and institutions. NGOs in the region are also playing the catalyst role in lowering tensions among various ethnics, religious and social groups as well as between governmental structures and civil society, with growing role in promoting social cohesion. The activity of regional initiatives affects public opinion and influence awareness on common goals. They help overcoming narrow-minded nationalism and the idea of the self-sufficiency of states.

Combining members at different level of social and economic development, regional initiatives provided transfer of know-how, sharing of good practice, assistance in infrastructure and economic development creating environment for collective prosperity. They facilitate the development of trans-border projects and attraction of international financial resources, mediating among those who need assistance, those who could provide it and those who could finance it.

The EU is the most important integrating factor in the countries and regional initiatives in the SEE. On the other hand, regional initiatives strengthen the process of European integration. For most of the countries involved, regional initiatives are instrumental for their individual inclusion into all-European integration processes, for bringing the whole region closer, for radical change in the traditional geopolitical context, for preserving and strengthening of some existing common structures facilitating European integration.

Many participants stressed that joining of the FRY to regional initiatives, will considerably contribute their future success and the completition of the regional frame for stability and prosperity.

Weaknesses

Regional initiatives in SEE were criticized because of the modesty of their objectives. As compared with Western European examples, none of the initiatives (except, in part, the Stability Pact) dares to proclaim a large-scale or attractive integration project, around which the entire initiative would assume structure. Spreading too thinly across too many initiatives and setting up as donors' co-ordination body, the Stability pact has created expectations that it cannot hope to meet, with consequent risk of disillusionment.

Regional initiatives and forms of multilateral co-operation have not to date really crucially helped Balkan countries to ensure integration into the EU or to change the political, economic or social environment in the region in a more essential manner. Sub-regional initiatives have on the whole yielded only limited concrete results. The reconstruction of Bosna and Herzegovina has been one of the most disappointing experiences.

Co-operation amongst neighbours is rather limited, which is a typical characteristic of economically peripheral regions. In that sense, there can still be no talk of any essential change in the state of affairs of economic and social sub-regional links to which regional initiatives would contribute as compared with the period hitherto.

The Stabilization and Association Process has created a new division into states formed after the breakdown of Yugoslavia on one side and Bulgaria and Romania on the other, whereby the European Union has not properly supported the creation of a single Balkan market. There have been many initiatives for a free trade zone in the Balkans, but most of them will remain unfeasible all until the EU continues to favor the policy of bilateral approach to the states of the region.

With the exception of the SEECP, none of the other six analysed regional initiatives represents an autochthonous product of the Balkan countries themselves. This lack of autonomous integration initiatives has, amongst other things, led to the reorientation of Balkan countries to similar, successful projects outside of SEE. Even up to the present day, the Balkans has not become an organised regional entity.

The majority of regional initiatives in South Eastern Europe represent a supplement to European architecture and not a substitute for the inclusion of SEE countries into the EU and other pan-European organisations. Therefore, the lagging behind of the SEE region in the process of integration in the EU also has a boomerang effect on the role and results of regional initiatives and their impact of the state of affairs in the region.

Other weaknesses identified:

• Work programmes are similar and cover the same fields;
• Lack of clear goals and work plans;
• Insufficient influence of the SEE countries on the process of shaping various initiatives and planning projects;
• Dominant influence of administrative structures - "top-down" not a "bottom-up" nature;
• Orientation towards the holding of meetings instead of project activities;
• Vast and sometimes unclear mechanisms;
• Numerous structures which have not found an optimal way to co-operate in common areas (duplication and overlapping);
• No financial resources of its own;
• Administrative procedures of the international finance institutions considerably slowing down the process of final disbursement of funds for projects;
• Concrete results achieved are less visible than expected;
• Growing number of same countries countries have become participants of different initiatives;
• Initiatives have more or less the same partners in European and international organisations;
• Insufficient administrative experience of the member states, etc.

Generally, the main concern was the proliferation of sub-regional groupings in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe with partly overlapping memberships and agendas indicating lack of complementarity, and growing competitiveness among them. There are visible efforts to consolidate or even to further strengthen them and expand the scope of their activities and institutional structures, wasting limited resources in the region.

Recommendations

The recommendation had three levels and two main sets of issues. First level is the SEE region itself, the second, stratification of regional initiatives and their mutual cooperation, and finally, cooperation between the regional initiatives and the EU. The debate was more focused on the mechanisms, forms, institutions and general framework of cooperation provided by regional initiatives, than on substantial issues like real needs, interests, priorities, expectations and feasibility of common projects.

1. Regional integration - a large-scale or limited project?

In assesing integration concepts a gradual approach, using concrete achievements is prefered. The experience of European integration has been that breakthroughs in a few concrete areas were more valuable than pursuing integration for its own sake across a wide range of issues. The key concept is functional integration, creating a stable institutional framework of co-operation in areas in which states have an interest in working together to realize concrete benefit. Once established, the incentives and habits of co-operation are expected to spill over into other areas. Coordinated development of regional infrastructure could become a backbone of SEE integration (like European Community for Coal and Steel), with simultaneous development of common market in energy, transport and telecommunications.

It is not expected to have uniform SEE cooperation schemes. They necessary have "variable geometries" including different number of countries, and in some cases, even bordering EU countries. There is a difference between the "core initiatives" (such as SAP, SP and SEECP) and some outside "supporting initiatives", such as SECI, Central European Initiative, Adriatic-Ionian Initiative, Black Sea Economic Cooperation, CEFTA etc. in respect of their influence on the building up of "regioness". However, all of them are expected to help in some aspects of cooperation in the SEE.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 and the war on terrorism impose new challenges that need to be taken into account. The issue of the regulation of security in the narrower and broader senses ("soft security issues") has been seen more and more as one of the key problems in the Balkans, which cannot be resolved only with economic or social measures, as it also requires specific methods and solutions on a regional level. The Kosovo crisis 1999, has led to the launching of a number of "frameworks of cooperation" on the level of ministers of defense or internal affairs of SEE countries.

Administrative structures and business community have been engine of regional cooperation, with increasing importance of new players - NGOs, media, local communities, educational institutions, culture and sports. However, it was recommended that the emphasis should remain on economic issues.

The European Commission recommendations for the BSEC priority objectives are basic for any other regional initiative in the SEE, being instrumental to market extension of individual countries and the EU:

• The promotion of political stability and dialogue, and the strengthening of human rights, democracy and the rule of law;
• Transit through the region and the development of the region's transport, energy and telecommunications networks, including connections to European networks;
• Regional commercial cooperation and the creation of favourable conditions to attract EU and other foreign investment, including in small and medium enterprises, while ensuring the compatibility of any new arrangements with existing regimes;
• The reduction of drug trafficking, smuggling and illegal immigration throughout the region.

In case of the Balkans, regional initiatives are also expected to contribute to the proces of European integration and to the build up of the "regioness".

2. Regional initiatives - competition, cooperation or coordination?

The problem does not lie in the number of regional initiatives, but in the best way to coordinate them and divide work. A certain degree of specialization is encouraged, assuming that each of them would concentrate on what it does best and is equipped to do best in terms of financial and human resources. Ultimately, the question might arise of the "merging" of several initiatives, in which a considerable number of member countries are the same.

There is a consensus about basic need for more concerted activities of different regional initiatives and between their launched projects, to act in more harmonized manner in order to create synergy and to avoid duplication, overlapping and unnecessary loss of already limited human and other resources. Participating countries are invited to better coordinate work of the officials in their Foreign Ministries in charge of different regional initiatives.

It is necessary to identify key areas for strategic initiatives where they can make a decisive contribution, articulate concrete agenda, engage necessary resources, and lay down a clear time frame.

The practice of fund-raising for a wide variety of different, small-scale projects should be discontinued. Future funding should be highly targeted to mobilize resources for the priority initiatives, and should only be scheduled once concrete multi-annual programs have been devised.

The problem does not lie in the number of regional initiatives, but in the best way to coordinate them and divide work. A certain degree of specialization is encouraged, assuming that each of them would concentrate on what it does best and is equipped to do best in terms of financial and human resources. Ultimately, the question might arise of the "merging" of several initiatives, in which a considerable number of member countries are the same.

The participants of the conference encouraged further gradual and spontaneous development of a specific network of contacts, information sharing and mutual cooperation amongst the initiatives themselves (mutual participation at meetings in the capacity of observers, information exchange, expert contacts, joint high-level meetings in individual domains, such as transport, the fight against organized crime, etc.).

The Stability Pact should be redefined, refocused and limited. It should serve as a kind of "interface" between SAP and other regional initiatives, better performing one of its main tasks of channeling and coordinating regional cooperation initiatives. The OSCE was also mentioned as a possible "umbrella" organization.

To sum up, it is recommended that regional initiatives should:

• Increase regional ownership;
• Be more focused and better profiled;
• Have more structured time frame (short, medium, long-term tasks);
• Improve links and coordination with corresponding sources of financing at the international, regional or national levels;
• Initiate a dialogue among themselves on general topics, specific issues and necessary transformation and adjustments;
• Provide better division of labor and synergy;
• Establish common website with driving issues of each initiative and coordinated agenda;
• Improve PR and approach to wider public.

3. EU and regional initiatives - international involvement vs. regional ownership

There is the need to continue international involvement in solving the problems of the SEE. It is in the interest of the whole international community to keep the existing regional cooperation structures functioning and to develop them further. Should the countries of the region be willing to work towards supranational institutions in selected sectors then these should be integrated from the outset with European Union institutions.

As the region of South Eastern Europe will most probably remain in the waiting room of the EU during this decade, in addition to the European prospective, it needs some regional prospective - more articulated and determined build up of regional cooperation schemes - in order to overcome obvious problems that it has been facing since the break up of Former Yugoslavia (peace, security, reconstruction, development, more cohesion...). This aim will not be achieved unless there is a full involvement of the EU and its Member States in the process.

The SAP of EU should overcome its inherent contradiction between bilateral approach and regional support by integrating and developing elements and instruments of multilateral cooperation, in parallel to the Stabilization and Association Agreements. It could be done by continuing and possibly enlarging the approach of the Zagreb summit (EU plus five Western Balkans countries) including Bulgaria and Romania. The SAP should progressively develop elements of some pre-accession strategy for all countries involved.

In order to achieve successful stabilization and development in the region, the EU also has to develop and elaborate a long-term and stable strategy of relations with SEE, including the strategy of the inclusion of all countries of the region into its membership.

Cooperation among countries of South Eastern Europe, through regional initiatives that would have an authentic international capacity, clearly specified jurisdiction, better elaborated internal structure and its own budget could overcome the gap that exists between the needs for the trans-national regulation of certain issues (ranging from environment to crossing borders) and the still uncertain time of the expansion of the EU into this region.

In the EU - SEE relationship:

• Dialogue with the EU should produce concrete mechanisms for economic integration of the region;
• Multilateral relations should be prioritized comparing to bilateral;
• Policy of conditionality should be more supplemented with strengthening of dialogue;
• Dynamic, open, outward looking approach should be promoted connecting the region with EU and the world economic system.

The region is supposed to become an articulated entity imposing the principle of dialogue to the developed Europe in order to narrow the gap between the interests and expectations of the Balkans on one side, and Brussels on the other. The establishment of a Coordination Committee comprising of the Stability Pact Special Coordinator, the CFSP High Representative, the Commission, the EU Presidency and a member of the South Eastern Europe Cooperation Process is considered as a promissing sign of emerging partnership between Brussels and the Balkans.