MIGRATION ROUND TABLE REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

“MIGRATION – DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY OR ASYLUM CHALLENGE?”

Leskovac, 6 July 2011

CONTENTS:

I. Executive Summary

II. Statements from the Plenary Session

III. Report from the Working Groups and Recommendations

• Working Group I: Asylum – Necessity or choice?

• Working Group II: Opportunities, needs and best practices

IV. Annexes

• Annex I – Agenda

• Annex II – List of Participants

2

I. Executive Summary

Serbia is facing an intensifying debate on the pros and cons of migration; problems of asylum seekers from and to Serbia; and increasing concern and fears of the impact of the abuse of the asylum system and asylum seekers from Serbia on the European integration process. Concurrently, there is concern for the re-integration of returnees, the impact of the re-admission agreements, the weak economic situation of the country as a whole but especially in the south and the already burdened welfare system. Serbia is also facing problems due to an ageing population, under-development of certain regions and difficulties in the integration of refugees and IDPs.

Sustainable integration of refugees, IDPs and marginalized groups and re-integration of returnees is the basis for preventing irregular migration and possible abuse of asylum systems. Effective migration management can only be achieved with long-term policy planning. The State also needs to manage the perception of migrants and migration both within the country as well as the European Union.

PBILD contributes to prevention of emigration and to integration of migrants in southern Serbia through several activities that contribute to municipal capacity development to manage migration issues and to raise awareness on the importance of better migration management.

In the framework of its fourth component, “Migration Management”, PBILD organized a Migration Round Table: Development opportunity or asylum challenge?” in Leskovac on 6 July 2011 in the Competence Improvement Centre. The Round Table focused on two tropics:

• Asylum – Necessity or choice?

• Economic Development - Opportunities, needs and best practices

The objective of the Round Table was to raise awareness and understanding on the complexity of the migration issue faced particularly in south Serbia. The recommendations would enhance implementation of the Government of Serbia’s Migration Management Strategy, with a focus on the emerging asylum issue as well as on the region’s economic development.

The Round Table was aimed at all interested stakeholders in the migration issue. Ministry representatives, local authorities, international organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs), the Commissariat for Refugees, the Co-ordination Body, entrepreneurs, Chambers of Commerce, the Regional Development Agency, Minority Councils, Youth Groups, local authorities and institutions, university academics and the media were invited.

In the plenary, opening statements were given by the host, Mayor Kocic of Leskovac, Ambassador Hofer of Switzerland, Ambassador Asp of Sweden, UN Resident Co-ordinator William Infante, European Union Head of Political Section Thomas Gnocchi and Assistant to the Commissioner for Refugees of Serbia Ivan Gerginov.

After the plenary, 113 participants took active participation in the working groups and contributed their recommendations for better migration management in Serbia’s south.

Working group I Asylum – Necessity or choice? composed of representatives from local authorities, Centres for Social Welfare, local and national CSOs, the National Employment Service, Commissariat for Refugees and international organizations discussed the following topics: “White Schengen List” - what is it?; Social exclusion and lack of opportunities; Integration/Inclusion/Dialogue; Improving institutional capacities to govern migration; Improving institutional capacities to govern labour migration; Going from and coming to Serbia.

Working group II Development – Opportunities, needs and best practices composed of representatives from local authorities, local and national CSOs, Offices for Local Economic Development, National Employment Services, Regional Chamber for Commerce, Regional

3

Development Agency and international organizations discussed the following topics: Regional development – overcoming regional disparities; Entrepreneurship; Labour market conditions –education, training, skills development, recognition of qualifications; How and where can Diaspora add value to the development agenda in the country of origin?; Brain drain, brain circulation or brain gain?

After the working groups’ discussions the moderators presented their respective recommendations.

The Round Table attracted significant national and local media attention, including support by the following: Studio MT – Leskovac, TV Klisura Leskovac – Grdelica, RTV Aldi – Presevo, TV Protokol K-1 – Leskovac, TV 4S – Bojnik, TV Leskovac, Radio Glas Srbije – Beograd, Jugpress/Fonet, Radio Leskovac – Leskovac, Ok Radio – Vranje, RTS, Juzne Vesti – regional online, Blic/Deutche Welle. II. Statements from the plenary session

• Nicholas Hercules, PBILD Programme Manager

• Slobodan Kocić, Mayor of Leskovac

• H. E. Erwin Hofer, Ambassador of Switzerland

• H.E. Christer Asp, Ambassador of Sweden

• William Infante, UN Resident Co-ordinator

• Thomas Gnocchi, European Union

• Ivan Gerginov, Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia

Nicholas Hercules, PBILD Programme Manager

It is an enormous pleasure to welcome you here today. Thank you very much for joining us on an important discussion for the country, and especially for our region here in the South. In addition to your distinguished selves, we have an illustrious panel that will provide political analysis of the situation, and then we will move into the working groups. I am really looking forward to hearing your views and opinions of the challenges, and we hope therefore to be able to build consensus.

PBILD is a three-year programme in south Serbia, generously funded by Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We work in four areas: migration, which we are here to discuss today, economic development, which I think will also be under discussion, as well as on social cohesion and public services.

I would also like to thank our hosts today, the Competence Improvement Centre. There is a reason why we chose this venue today, besides being a lovely working place in creating the right spirit for our discussions. I think many of the issues we are going to discuss today are linked to skills and further education needs of the people, of the employers, of the region, and the Centre does a marvellous job in that regard. Thank you, Gordana, for hosting us.

Late this morning, we received word from Minister Dačić that he is unable to join us, unfortunately. He sends his apologies to you all.

And without further ado, welcoming all our Excellencies and our host the Mayor of Leskovac, I will hand the floor to Mayor Kocić. I am looking forward to hearing today’s discussions. Thank you very much! Slobodan Kocić, Mayor of Leskovac

4

Your Excellencies, Mr. Gerginov, Mr. Hercules, ladies and gentlemen, of course, first I would like to welcome you to the town of Leskovac, to this, in my opinion, very important meeting, the Round Table on Migration which has such an inspiring title – “Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge”. In that sense I would like to thank the organizer of this important meeting, the PBILD Programme, and Mr. Hercules himself.

Even though I think that this event is important at the national level, I will try to focus on this region where we live, on the south of Serbia, of our two districts, Jablanica and Pčinje, and I think that the problems in this region are a paradigm for the entire country. I think even that they are the most prevalent here. I think that problem resolution begins in the south of Serbia, and I fully agree with the notion that economic development and the

economy are the foundation of everything – of peace building, primarily, but also of state strategies. Personally, I do not want my country to come up with an ad hoc approach; I want a systematic approach and a serious state strategy for south Serbia where the problems of asylum seekers and economic under-development in general are the most prevalent. In this context, as the Chairman of the Assembly of the Regional Development Agency and the Centre for Development of Jablanica and Pčinje, I have always been advocating for an integrated approach to development.

In this introductory part, I would like to state two matters that I see as typical for this region. I am a cosmopolitan man, and I am not burdened by any sort of prejudice, be it national, racial, gender-based or any sort of prejudice. What I want my country to do, what I think that we must do as a country, is to bear the following in mind. When we speak about the Albanian national minority, for instance, about the full integration of the Albanian national minority into the state order and state institutions of the Republic of Serbia, we must bear in mind that the second key aspect, the issue of economic development, is equally troubling the Albanian national minority and the Serbian majority, as well as the Roma who are quite numerous in our region. I will not accept any ad hoc activities, I will not accept any ad hoc actions, especially during election campaigns, and I will not accept anything ad

hoc in nature. I am asking for a systematic approach in resolving the issue of economic – or any other – under-development of this region.

I am certainly grateful to the international community, the United Nations, the European Union, the bilateral donors and programmes that are being implemented here in south Serbia. I will use this opportunity to thank all of them, but still, I believe that the responsibility is on our country. We have this particular situation in south Serbia, and I am talking about the territory further south than Leskovac. I mentioned the problem of the Albanian national community, but the Serbian people itself is not in a much better situation. We have this very painful fact that the territory from the Macedonian border to the Bulgarian border, and then here to Corridor 10 and up north to Corridor E80, well, this territory is literally empty. We cannot look for other guilty parties, we are the ones to blame, and the biggest responsibility is on our country.

5

I had some painful experiences and painful talks with members of my own people. In the villages between Bujanovac and Preševo, I talked to people who are well into their 70s, and who told me they wanted to migrate from there, and they did not say that Bujanovac was their destination, or Vranje or Leskovac, no – the farthest south they wanted to go was Niš. And of course, the main targets are Belgrade and Novi Sad, and then the Western Europe, which opens a painful issue for our country, the issue of asylum seekers, and it must be resolved here, at the state level. Anyway, my compatriots have openly told me they managed to survive by selling a calf or a cow to an Albanian, because they had no systematic support from the state. You have a situation like the flood in Trgovište – for a few days it is the hottest topic ever, but then everyone forgets that Trgovište has ever existed, and if something happens, it is due to some individual ad hoc programme, such as the National Investment Plan and the like.

So there is no systematic approach, and I think that it is the key to the solution, with the full support of the institutions I mentioned – the United Nations, the European Union, and the bilateral donors, through programmes that they implement here in the South. I hope that with their support, and the efforts of all of us who live here, be it the Albanian and the Roma minorities or the Serbian majority, we will be able to get rid of the label of the “poor South”. And please do not let me forget – we who live here, we have our own share of responsibility, especially we who lead the towns and municipalities from the south of Serbia, because a lot depends on our own initiatives, on our own efforts, and I am sure that representatives of institutions who are sitting around this table will continue to support good projects, just like they did up till now.

I am an optimist, and I am sure that, in the near future, the South of Serbia will become an equally developed part of the Republic of Serbia and the European Union. Thank you very much, and again, welcome to Leskovac.

H. E. Erwin Hofer, Ambassador of Switzerland

Dobar dan, dear Mr. Mayor, distinguished Ambassador of Sweden, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen; I am very pleased to be back to Leskovac. It is more or less eight months ago, on 11 November 2010, when we opened these beautiful premises here, with the Mayor and the Madame Director of the Centre. When we did so, I was courageous enough to say to the trainee teachers providing the basis for permanent education: “This is the future, not only for this region, but also the future of Serbia”. And indeed, today you are hosting an event which is not just of regional importance, but of truly national importance, as it was stated by the Mayor. So, I am very pleased and happy to be here.

The issue is a very timely one. Seen from outside, as a non-member of the European Union, Serbia is firmly on track, on that road towards the European Union. There are some obstacles, there are some stumbling blocks, migration might be one, or perhaps also a chance, this is one element. Today for the first time ever the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is opening in Belgrade. So what we are doing here today, and the messages which we will convey, is being closely watched not only citizens nearby in the south and in Belgrade, but I would dare by Europe as a whole.

So this morning I would briefly share with you some experiences of my own country, and then try to draw some conclusions for you, and conclusions relevant for migration and asylum. Some time ago, Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. The only chance for people who hoped for an improvement in their life was to leave the country and migrate aboard. And this is why about 10% of the Swiss people are living aboard, in the United States, Latin America, and before the Revolution many of them went to Russia, and so on.

6

The situation turned when Switzerland started to evolve economically. It started with industrialization, people remained, and then over the years the trend was reversed. From a country with an out-going population, we became a country with an in-coming population, with a migration population. And this is one of the reasons why today the fourth most important language in Switzerland, after German, French and Italian, is not Romanche, but a language of which the politically correct name from some time ago was Serbo-Croatian. So you have a high percentage of people speaking Serbo-Croatian. Why is this so? The reason for this is very simple. When our economy grew, we had migrants in different waves. First came the Germans, then came the Italians, then came the Portuguese, and then came the citizens from former Yugoslavia who were helping to develop our country. And among them, from time to time, were asylum seekers. They all played a most important role for our country. Several famous Swiss brands, like Nestle for example, you all know it – the company has been founded by a German, coming as a migrant

worker from Germany to Switzerland. Some of our well-known branches in the watch-making industry have been brought into our country by migrants. Some of our most important intellectuals have been asylum seekers or migrants. And this brings me already to the first answer of this morning’s forum: migration – yes, migration is an economic opportunity.

How did this evolve? We have the same destiny as Serbia. For Switzerland, the European Union is the most important partner, by far. But the Swiss people choose, for the time being, not to join, but to develop a network of bilateral treaties with the European Union. This has a very important impact on the subject we are discussing today. One of the agreements we concluded with the European Union is an agreement on free access for persons in both directions. Members of the EU, I mean, citizens of the member states and the Swiss can move freely, on the two conditions – they need to have a workplace, movement can only be done if there is a workplace, or if you are retired and able to prove that you can finance yourself. But if you are an active person, you need to have a workplace before you can move to Switzerland, and vice versa as well. There are two exceptions – Bulgaria and Romania, the latest members, are not yet in that category. For them, there is a quota restriction.

All citizens of the EU have a clear preference. If non-citizens of the EU want to move to Switzerland, and again, I repeat, this can only be done if you have a guaranteed workplace, if then you want to move to Switzerland, you need somebody who makes an application to get legal access to Switzerland. And by doing so, that company, that office has to prove that they were not able to find a Swiss national for the job, and they were not able to find a citizen of the European Union to carry out that job. This means that the filter for citizens of non-member countries of the EU to come legally to Switzerland has been tightened very much and you can only come legally to find a workplace if the company or the employer has no chance to find somebody else qualified enough to do the job. So this was a huge change which took place in the last couple of years, and this is the situation we are living in. This has the following impact. All countries of this region, all countries – Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, and also Kosovo and Metohija, are considered safe countries. That means, to put it very concretely, there is almost no chance today to get the legal status as asylum seekers if you come from those countries. The chance is mostly equal to zero. This is the situation today.

What does this mean, now, for this seminar? This means that migration indeed is an excellent tool for economic development, but today, for Switzerland, and I venture to say we will hear similarly from the Ambassador of Sweden, for most countries of Europe, it is a managed migration. So, it is a

7

migration where the countries are looking for people with very specific backgrounds, with a very specific qualification. And if you do not fall into this category, there is no chance – today we have to say this very realistically – to be in those countries on a legally sound basis. So what happens if you are there without a legally sound basis? It is also clear. My Minister of Justice signed with Deputy Prime Minister Dačić two years ago a Re-admission Agreement. This Agreement between our two countries is working very well. Those not having a title for staying longer than three months according to the Schengen Agreement are sent back to their country of origin. And what we also have to say, there is no more funding to relieve their return to their country of origin. All this has been put very clearly and excellently in the PBILD Migration Survey. So this is a starting point.

Now, as I said, we Swiss, we owe a lot to this region, Serbo-Croatian is our fourth language, we have a very important Diaspora, they were very helpful to develop our economy, they are instrumental for having created our well-being. So we feel an obligation to be helpful here, in this region in particular, but also all over Serbia, to support your development, to help you to come out of a situation which, as described by the Mayor, is perhaps not the best, as seen in a wider European context. And this is the reason why our partnership, the Swiss partnership with Serbia, is a long standing one. We started 20 years ago with this co-operation, we shifted the focus of co-operation to the South, and we are present here with this programme, which we like very much. We also like the partnership, the Mayor, UN, Sweden, Spain and Norway – for us, this is an excellent team, and we intend to continue with this partnership. We know that some members of the EU have scaled down their bilateral activities, we Swiss we will not do so, we intend to be on your side, and we intend to do so all the way along you are travelling towards the EU, the faster you are, the better it is for us.

Thank you very much.

H.E. Christer Asp, Ambassador of Sweden

Mr. Mayor, Ambassador Hofer, colleagues, dear participants, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be here in Leskovac, because it is the first time that I am here. I am quite certain that it is not going to be the last time.

Having listened to Ambassador Hofer, I realized that Sweden and Switzerland have a very similar historical experience when it comes to migration. I do not know which country was poorer a hundred years ago, Switzerland or Sweden. Both of us were very poor countries, and between, for instance 1880 and 1920, twenty percent – 20% - of the Swedish population emigrated. And they emigrated because of the very poor economic conditions. Simply, they emigrated because of poverty. Most of them went to the United States, and many of them became very prominent members of their new country – businessmen, politicians, artists. And looking back, we would have been very happy in Sweden if we had had programmes a hundred years ago, that would have made it possible for these people to stay in Sweden, because they would have been equally very prominent citizens of their own country.

Now, Sweden participates in the PBILD programme, and wishes to see that the human resources of Serbia remain here in Serbia, and that the human resources are part of the development of Serbia. And this is important to us; this is why we give such a great importance to the Swedish participation in PBILD. Because all the projects in which Sweden participates here in Serbia originate from our belief

8

that Serbia must become a member of the European Union. So my country very strongly supports the accession of Serbia to the EU, and indeed that process has already started. The EU train with Serbia on board is already moving ahead. And we gradually move faster and faster. So the bilateral aid that Sweden has set aside for different projects is indeed the sign to level the ground for the train as it moves forward. I am very pleased to hear from Ambassador Hofer that Switzerland has no intention of scaling down the support, and certainly Sweden has no intention of scaling down the support that we provide to Serbia. In this respect, we do it in two different tranches – one is, of course, through the common EU funds, to which we contribute, and the other tranche is exactly what we are doing here, through our bilateral aid to Serbia.

Now, the focus of our participation in this particular project is manifold. First of all, we would like to see strengthening of capacities, skills and knowledge of the human capital of the region, in particular focusing on disadvantaged persons. We would like to see more equality, and improved access to public services and welfare benefits. Thirdly, we would like to see increased overall economic prosperity of the region and reduced discrepancies in wealth and employment between ethnic groups, and with other parts of the country. And fourthly, migration management. Here, I would like to add that migration management is of course something extremely important. It is very hard to pass it over in this project. But there has been a new, a very unfortunate dimension added to migration management. Ambassador Hofer has already touched upon it. Back in December 2009, Sweden held the presidency over the EU, and we were very proud at that time to be able to sign, on behalf of the EU and all the Schengen countries, including Switzerland, the visa liberalization regime with Serbia. It was a very important regime, and it remains a very important regime, because it brings our countries closer together. And by bringing our countries closer together, it contributes to building peace on our continent. And this is something that we have to safeguard.

Unfortunately, some people have abused this system. In Sweden, last year, there were more than 6,000 people who clearly abused this regime. I should add, of course, that the great majority of the Serbs who can benefit from the regime are doing so, and using the regime exactly the way it is supposed to be. But more than 6,000 people abused the regime only in Sweden, last year. That cost my Government €50 million, and that is only the administrative cost to manage this extra flow of false asylum seekers. Now, since then, the figures are coming down, they are coming down quite substantially, but until this day, from January this year, we have still close to 1,000 false asylum seekers in my country, still costing the Swedish tax-payers and the Swedish government quite a lot of money. All these people will be sent back. There is no such thing in Sweden, or anywhere else at the moment, which you can call ‘economic asylum’. So all these people will be sent back. There is no economic benefit in going to Sweden, trying falsely to seek asylum in my country, or in any other Schengen country. The only economic benefit that the false asylum seekers in Sweden may get is a daily allowance that is not even sufficient to buy a bus ticket in Stockholm. All the rumours about the economic benefits or economic advantages, believe me, they are totally false rumours. The false asylum seekers will be sent back.

And I must also add that we have been working very constructively, since this problem began to emerge, with the Ministry of Interior and Minister Dačić in Belgrade, and I think that this co-operation has helped in order to try to start to resolve this problem. But it is still there, and there is still a lot of work to do. And there is a risk that the false asylum seekers will contribute very negatively to this visa liberalization. We should have that said. So I think that it is extremely important that we all do whatever we can in order to completely eradicate this problem. And I think that PBILD, which we are part of, is exactly designed to help to do that. It is not going to alleviate the problem today or tomorrow, maybe even not next week, but it is a beginning when you start to emphasize and support the human resource that you have in your country, and that will surely be a productive part in the

9

future development of Serbia – Serbia which will surely be part of the family of the EU nations in the future.

Thank you very much.

William Infante, UN Resident Co-ordinator

Mayor Kocić, distinguished guests, it’s a pleasure to be with you on behalf of the United Nations. I’ve spent the last week in New York where the Secretary General and much of the UN’s leadership impressed on us the role that the United Nations plays in empowering lives and in building resilient nations, and that’s precisely what the United Nations is about it Serbia. And I could very proudly and very confidently talk about the work that the Mayor has done here, in Leskovac, that the PBILD Project is doing in Pčinje and Jablanica, that the Progress Project, that is financed by the EU, is doing across South and Southwest Serbia, and I believe firmly that we are helping to empower lives and to build a more resilient nation that’s comprised of more resilient communities.

In looking at this whole issue of asylum and migration, Ambassador Hofer talked about the motivations for Swiss emigration in the past, and Ambassador Asp talked about the same motivations for emigration from Sweden. My own experience, my own history, is that my grandfather left Italy at the turn of the 20th century because of the same reasons. They were economic. I would hazard that the lion share of emigration across the continuum of history has been motivated principally by economic interest as opposed to any other, that this would be the single most significant reason. And from the data that Nicholas collected through the PBILD team, we know that this is precisely the circumstance here in the South, and in Leskovac, and in the two districts of Pcinja and Jablanica. Most of the people who left, left because of jobs. The overwhelming majority said it is either economics or jobs, which to me is exactly the same thing.

We know that in Leskovac 13% of those who were polled said they wanted to leave. They either wanted to leave temporarily or permanently. Further south, the numbers are not quite as good. 30% of those interviewed in Medveđa, Bujanovac and Preševo want to leave because they cannot get a job, they cannot support their families, and they cannot support their lifestyles. So the evidence, the empiric data that we have over very long periods explains very clearly why people want to go. We need to begin to look not why they want to go, but why they should stay, and this is why they should stay in Serbia, why they should stay in the South, why they should stay in Leskovac. A lot of these questions, I think, we can find in the PBILD programme, in companion projects, the Youth Employment and Migration Project, and in all the hard work that the Mayor and his team are doing. And I guess in my own reading of the tea leaves that the things that are going on here in Leskovac and the South are exactly the right things. The Mayor is creating jobs. He will be signing an investment agreement tomorrow that will bring jobs to Leskovac and to the region. We know that the Mayor of Niš is doing the same, we see other firms locating in the South. Why are they coming here to invest? Because it is a good environment. The must be able to overcome bureaucracy with the Mayor’s intervention or because of other initiatives at the national level. They are also coming here because of the people. The single greatest cost factor in the business function is labour. Labour costs the most. And if it is not productive, you are not going to buy it. Why would you come to South Serbia? Because it must be pretty productive. Why is it productive? Because the schools must be doing a good job. And I think that the schools will continue to do a good job, an even better job, because of the interventions

10

delivered by PBILD, by the Ministry of Education, by the Government, to train teachers in modern paradigms, to revamp the curriculum so that it is well equipped, to prepare students not only to function here in Leskovac, but equipping the students to serve as the next generation of leaders and thinkers, when Leskovac, when Pčinje and Jablanica, when Serbia joins the European Union. Because this is what is going to be your competitive challenge. It is not about competing for jobs in Jablanica any more, or in Leskovac. Kids from Leskovac are going to be competing with kids from Belgium, with kids from France. And training them now to be able to sustain that competition is what we are going to need to look at. And what we certainly hope to sustain.

Beyond education, my own experience at looking at why people have secondary reasons for leaving, it is about access to services. Ambassador Asp talked about this a little bit. The access to services, I think, is significantly improved, and it is improving – access to health, access to education, access to registration, access to licensing, and all of these things that make it possible for people to stay. And here is when again we’re looking at the PBILD programme. More than 600,000 records were digitized under the PBILD programme, making it possible for people to function in Serbia. PBILD has helped pretty close to 2,000 people either to get their birth registration or subsequent registration which entitles them then to an ID card and all other documents that permit them to get a job. Without these basic rights protected, without the basic registration documents, it is not only that people cannot get a job, it is that they, quite frankly, do not have an identity. And so, giving people this identity, giving people the ability, through procurement of a license, to get a job, to access services, to put their kids to schools, is what helps knit a fabric of a community that is cohesive, that is integrated, that sticks together, and that rises as one.

But again, it comes back to the jobs. Under PBILD, they are working to train metal-workers, carpenters, bakers and cooks, they are training people to fill the positions that are coming up in the industry that is locating here. But as we talked about it in a lot of other contexts, inasmuch as filling these current jobs is very important, what we want to do is train people to function at ever higher levels, so that they are innovating, so that they are learning and building knowledge. And here I would argue that some of the reasons for migration that Ambassador Hofer mentioned are associated with knowledge. We do not want people from the South or anywhere in Serbia moving for economic reasons. We want them to have their jobs here. But it is valuable to reach outside of Serbia to get ideas, to get knowledge. And we hope that the reasons for these people to return and bring those

11

good ideas and knowledge back so that we can build a more vibrant, robust, resilient country, will continue to grow over time.

And over time, Serbia will move towards the European Union. The United Nations, throughout all of our projects – the EU-funded PROGRES project, the PBILD programme which is very generously supported by the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Spanish, and the Swedish – is hoping to make that kind of a difference. And so we, through these projects, through our other efforts, will continue to work to support the empowerment of lives in Leskovac and the region, and to build a resilient nation that moves toward the European Union.

Thank you.

Thomas Gnocchi, European Union Delegation

It is a pleasure to be participating in this Round Table on Migration on behalf of the Delegation of the European Union. I would like to thank the UN-PBILD for organizing what is, we think, a very useful and timely debate on the issue of migration and asylum. We see this as an awareness-raising event on the issue of migration and visa liberalization, which we are happy to participate in together with the Serbian authorities, Mr. Mayor, and also the ambassadors from different member states and members of the Schengen area. So I am very pleased to be able to participate today.

As events in Northern Africa are showing, migration is really the heart of the political debate in Europe nowadays, and the Western Balkans is also part of this debate, as the issue on asylum seekers has shown. And it is really a question of balancing the positive effects, the opportunities which migration can give, with the more, let us say, the other elements, the security elements. So there is a fine balance to be struck in defining the right migration policy. And that is why it is maybe at the centre of such a heated debate. There is also a strong human rights element, and I think the European Union and countries like Switzerland want to ensure that those who need to be truly protected have the ability to find protection in our countries. The justice and home affairs more broadly, and within that migration, is becoming an increasingly important policy area for the EU. The Acquis, or not to use jargon, the body of European law in this area, is probably the one which is developing most rapidly in the recent years. And future member states, like Serbia, will be expected to adopt, in bulk, all these laws. So there will be more and more work in this area, and more and more co-operation between the EU and Serbia in this area. This year, as many of you know, we have the Opinion on Serbia’s application to join the European Union. Within this Opinion, we will be looking in particular to issues related to justice and home affairs, as well as migration, and we will see where Serbia stands and how Serbia is ready to meet the challenges in these fields. We had a particular mission at the end of April, looking into both the post visa liberalization monitoring, but also looking into the implementation of a number of areas which were required for the visa liberalization regime back at the end of 2009. And what we found was that in some areas implementation has slipped a little, between the date on which the visa liberalization was taken and when the mission took place. One of the key requirements for visa liberalization was putting in place of a Migration Management Strategy, but after that there was not too much done in order to implement that Strategy. One specific aspect of this was to put in place an Agency for Migration. The idea would be to convert the Commissariat for Refugees into this Agency,

12

and we hope that the authorities can make progress in doing so as soon as possible. For the moment, there are several – about six or seven – different ministries dealing with the issue of migration, and all this needs to be co-ordinated properly. From the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Economy, and the Ministry of Diaspora – all have some sort of a role in managing migration. And there is a weak spot in the co-ordination of all these policies. So the idea is that the Agency for Migration, once it is established, plays a vital co-ordination role.

I would like just to touch on two specific issues. One is the re-admission process, which is, I think, particularly important in this process, and I think the foundation for visa liberalization is that, if there is no functioning re-admission process, then visa liberalization cannot work. And on the whole, we found that the re-admission process does work. There is a community agreement with Serbia, an EU-Serbia Agreement of Re-admission, there are bilateral national protocols on re-admission, and on the whole these work quite well. Where there are perhaps some weaker spots at the beginning of the chain, that is, where there are people without any documents, and many of the rejected asylum seekers in the European Union are in that position, there the system does not work so well, and at the end of the chain, when it comes to re-integration of the people who are sent back with the re-admission agreement to Serbia, and in spite of efforts of the Commissariat which is working hard on this, there is a lot to be done on re-integrating the returnees. The other issue is asylum, and as Serbia approaches the European Union, as it integrates into the European Union, naturally Serbia will become more and more of a target for asylum seekers. We have already seen the figures rise, and more and more people will be transiting through Serbia to go to the European Union. Therefore, both the capacities and practices need to be reinforced. There is in particular the need to create an Asylum Office within the Ministry of Interior, which needs to function independently. This is an important step. Coming to the visa liberalization issue more particularly, this was, and I agree with previous speakers, this was a momentous decision, and really, perhaps, one of the most important aspects of European integration that we will see over the next few years. But, as was mentioned, there was abuse of the system. Again, I would like to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of Serbian travellers did this in full respect of the regulations, and I think benefited fully from this aspect. But there were certain countries of the European Union, in particular Belgium, Sweden and Germany, which were targeted by asylum seekers, and these asylum seekers predominantly sought asylum on the basis of economic grounds.

The authorities tackled this issue in three ways, first of all by reinforcing the exit control; secondly by looking, through investigations, into who is organizing these movements, because there is reason to believe that these are organized movements; and thirdly by organizing awareness raising events, and participating in awareness raising events, such as this one. But we feel that these moves, while

13

they are, I think, welcome, and have, to a certain extent, addressed the problem, and we see a slight decline in numbers, they have come rather late in the day. The authorities should really continue to look into this issue very closely, in particular because after the summer there could be another wave, and we need to watch the figures carefully in this respect.

Now, the European Commission has made a legislative proposal to introduce what is called ‘the safeguard clause’ in the visa liberalization regulation. Now, this does not target any particular country, but it could be used in the case of Serbia if the situation does not improve. I hope, as I said, that the numbers will decline, and that we will not see the figures rise after the summer. As I said, we will continue to work with our member states, and with the Serbian authorities, in passing the message on visa liberalization, and in particular, perhaps, to answer the question of the first panel – ‘what is the white Schengen list?’ – The white Schengen list is about short-term travel to the Schengen area, and this is for period of 90 days, for purposes of study, business or tourism. I would like to stress that in no case will asylum be granted on economic grounds. This has to be made clear. I would also like to emphasize, and this has been mentioned by the Swedish Ambassador, that those who abuse the system are really doing this to the detriment of the many thousands of genuine asylum seekers who are there in the world, and drawing resources away from these people who are in genuine need of protection.

But finally I would like to conclude by touching on the theme of the second panel, which is that of development, because really the solution to all of this, as it has been emphasized before, is really to address the root causes of these movements, to address the under-development, to address the lack of opportunities that there are in many of the communities of origin, and therefore to stress that the solution for this lies in promoting development of these regions. The EU does not fund the PBILD programme, but as Mr. Infante said, we do fund the PROGRES programme, again in partnership with the UN and the Swiss Government, which totals €18 million, and which is also working in this region and addressing many of the same challenges as the PBILD programme.

Since previous speakers have said this, I will also say that the EU has no intention of reducing its resources for co-operation with Serbia. We are really focusing on the next few years, which we hope will be very positive in the context of Serbia’s further European integration. We hope that with the Opinion later this year the next big step will be taken, so we hope we will enter a new phase of European integration with Serbia. I hope that this will bring partially some of the solutions also to these problems, but I would like to stress, in closing, that perhaps ultimately international partners can do a lot, but it is really up to the authorities to engage, and the central authorities in particular, to engage in the region and promote the development of these areas.

Ivan Gerginov, Assistant to the Commissioner for Refugees of Serbia

Dear chairpersons, dear participants, I would like to greet you on behalf of the Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia. The Commissioner, Mr. Vladimir Cucić, also sends his greetings, as unfortunately he is not able to join us today due to his numerous and important obligations.

At the very beginning, I would like to thank Mr. Hercules and the PBILD programme for organizing this round table, and for choosing a topic which is so important for us. In the past few years, the Republic of Serbia has faced some minor challenges in the field of migration. It is about our citizens who go to the EU countries and seek asylum there on economic grounds. Later on, they return in line with Re-admission Agreements, because, as we have heard here for the nth time, it is not possible to get such asylum. However, on the other hand, it is also about asylum seekers from African and Asian countries, primarily from Afghanistan, in Serbia.

Your presence here today, as well as the selection of working group themes, indicate an important fact – the fact that the problem of false asylum seekers cannot be viewed separately from

14

the issues of vulnerable groups inclusion and economic standard. Therefore I hope that today’s meeting will encourage discussion on specific measures of economic empowerment, which will consequently prevent the secondary migration. As a member of the Commission for Monitoring of Visa Liberalization Regime with the EU, I can assure you that a set of measures to reduce the trend of false asylum seekers has been set forth. These measures have already given some results – albeit rather modest – as the number of asylum seekers from Serbia was reduced in some countries. While we are sure that these measures will be effective, we need to resolve the root of this problem, and that would be to achieve adequate living standards, as only then people will not feel the need to abuse the asylum system in the EU countries. The Republic of Serbia adopted the Strategy on Re-integration of Returnees in line with Readmission Agreements, as well as the pertaining Action Plan for its implementation. It also established the Council for Re-integration of Returnees and the Team for Strategy Implementation, and this concluded the normative and institutional framework for re-integration of returnees. The Strategy on Re-integration of Returnees in line with Re-admission Agreements foresees a set of recommendations and measures in the field of education, access to social and health protection, employment and schools, and all the other things a normal man may need in order to live a normal life.

The Commissariat for Refugees co-ordinates and organizes the primary and urgent reception of returnees, and it creates conditions for a successful re-integration of both categories of population. To this purpose, we collaborate on various projects with SDC, PBILD, IOM, UNHCR and many other organizations. However, the issue of re-integration of returnees requires a co-ordinated effort of institutions at the local level, in order to allow the returnees to become economically empowered and fully integrated in their communities, with the purpose to prevent secondary migration. To that

goal, the local Migration Councils have a key role in providing services to returnees in line with Re-admission Agreements, and therefore it is extremely important to define special budgetary lines at the local level for programmes of integration of marginalized groups, especially for the re-integration of returnees.

All of us are more or less from the same branch, and the majority of you know that in the past two years the Commissariat for Refugees, together with its partners, spent roughly €30 million to resolve the housing issue and to economically empower refugees and IDPs. This was accomplished through the system of local action planning, in which the Commissariat for Refugees, along with IOM, OSCE and UNHCR, has invested a large amount of funds.

Therefore, the Migration Management Councils and the permanent solutions on the municipal level are extremely important. When it comes to Councils, we succeeded to involve municipal presidents among their members, as well as chiefs of police stations, people from education, healthcare, social welfare centre, people who matter at the local level – because only local people can assess the dimension of the problem, scan the problem, and at the end of the day propose a solution. When we are in Bujanovac, and you say “our problem is this big, and I have this amount of resources”, it is the local action planning that helps us to find the resources that are lacking.

15

At the moment IOM and the Commissariat are working with some 20 municipalities to expand the local action plans so that they involve other vulnerable groups, primarily the returnees in line with Re-admission Agreements. When we speak about re-admission, it is important to note the difference between two categories of returnees – those who abused to opportunity provided by the visa liberalization and received assistance in their countries of destination before being sent back to Serbia, and those who are returned after many years spent abroad, who are extremely vulnerable because they have completely lost touch with their country of origin, and a lot of them do not even speak the language, neither Serbian nor Romani. In the recent migration dialogue that we had with the representatives of the Swiss Federal Migration Office, we have concluded that we must solve the issue of false asylum seekers together, that the Republic of Serbia must do all it can in order to eliminate this trend, but that the destination countries must also abolish the benefits they give to asylum seekers, because these benefits are causing this trend in the first place. I would add that, along with the international collaboration, all the actors in Serbia should acknowledge their common interest in this field, so that we could develop initiatives and projects which will help us reduce the number of our citizens who go to the EU countries for this reason.

The other segment of migration challenges is related to asylum seekers in the Republic of Serbia, even though by and large these migrants see Serbia as nothing but a transit zone. The Commissariat provides accommodation to all asylum seekers in its two centres for asylum seekers: the old one in Banja Koviljača, which has existed since 1965, and the recently opened centre for asylum seekers in Bogovađa – it was opened on 20 June this year. Given that the number of asylum seekers is growing, at the moment we are working on opening a third centre which will look like centres for asylum in the EU countries.

In the end, I would like to express my gratitude to SDC, IOM, UNHCR and PBILD, and other organizations that we are collaborating with.

Thank you.

III. Report from the Working Groups and recommendations

• Working Group I:::: Asylum – Necessity or choice?

The working group session was attended by a wide range of participants from local and foreign institutions and organizations (local self-government, the police, Trustees for Refugees, local NGOs, international donors and NGOs), which had a dual effect on the work of the working group:

1. On the one hand, various experiences and different perspectives of the problem could be heard, which contributed to the broad quality of the working group.

2. On the other hand, the scope and multi-dimensionality of the problem requires additional time for discussion and exchange of experience in order to gain a sufficiently detailed and clear perspective of all standpoints.

An important observation made during the working group session was that further dialogue

among different institutions and organizations dealing with the same issue was still needed, as it turned out that their representatives do not have many opportunities to communicate and gain insight into what others are doing in the same field. Moreover, certain tensions and differences

between various institutions and organizations are noticeable (for example, between the Roma National Minority Council and Roma NGOs, then between non-governmental organizations representing the returnees and institutions whose task is to enable the returnees to exercise their civil and human rights). Therefore, the exchange of opinions and elimination of tension is necessary so

that the mentioned parties would not perceive one another as “opposing” sides but as the

stakeholders engaged “in the same team”.

16

Round table participants talked about different experiences based on specific activities and projects, local research and policies, thus making the exchange of information and experience in these fields both valuable and essential.

1) Prevention of the visa liberalization abuse

During the first plenary part, the working group participants had a chance to hear a lot of information about asylum seekers from Serbia in the Schengen area and about the fact that obtaining such asylum is almost impossible. Nevertheless, a number of Serbian citizens still leave to seek asylum, thus, creating a major problem both in the country where they seek asylum and in Serbia. Therefore, during the first part of the discussion, the participants were invited to, based on their work and experience, express their opinion on how to discourage these people from the mentioned process.

1. Most participants mentioned that those who migrate in search of asylum have insufficient

information about the consequences of their actions and that different types of campaigns should contribute to raising awareness of the fact that the damage they cause to both themselves and the country is much greater than that expected benefits. The experience of the representatives of the police and NGOs working with returnees indicate that some of them did not know that there was a possibility to be returned to Serbia, that what they do is illegal or, even if they knew they did not expect it to happen. Therefore, it is necessary to inform the citizens through the media or “door to door” campaign (in case of Roma settlements) that they cannot obtain asylum sought on the basis of economic status.

2. The participants feel that there are not only individual and spontaneous migrations of individuals leaving with the families, but that there is a large number of intermediaries, who exploit the ignorance of people, take their money and send them abroad in an organized manner. It is also believed that it is “known” within the local communities who the organizers are and that one of the solutions to this problem is their strict sanctioning.

3. It is believed that repressive measures, such as denying a passport, cannot have adequate

and long-term effects; however, they should be considered as a last resort. This particular issue was briefly discussed between those who believe that such action represents a violation of human rights and those who believe that this is the only way to prevent illegal emigration from Serbia, which indicates that there is no unified standpoint regarding this method, in comparison with the unified standpoint regarding the previous two theses.

17

2) Who are the migrants and what are the motives for migration?

Answers to the previous two questions point towards the ways how to proceed in terms of migration management, combating illegal migration and motivating citizens to remain in the country and create their future in it.

The participants agreed with the findings of PBILD’s Migration Survey which showed that economic motives prevail in all national communities in south Serbia. However, representatives of the Albanian minority in Presevo also mentioned that one of the reasons for migration was the lack of social and political inclusion of Albanians as well as their discrimination, particularly in the field of employment1. Similar remarks could be heard from the representatives of the Roma minority -

economic motives are caused by the lack of employment, which is in turn, according to the

Albanians and Roma, often caused by discrimination in hiring minorities. It is obvious that, as far as minorities are concerned, apart from economic motives, we should consider the very core of the problem of their full involvement and perception or actual discrimination they are exposed to.

3) How to proceed with the re-integration and inclusion of returnees?

The last part of the discussion was the most comprehensive, with the most specific proposals and recommendations referring to the re-integration of returnees in south Serbia.

1. It was emphasised several times that the problems of returnees should be solved systematically by adopting

strategies and mechanisms for their implementation at

the national level. However, it was constantly stressed that the systematic solutions made at the central level require local application and appreciation of specific

situation of each municipality and types of migrants in

them.

2. It was pointed out that capacity building of local

Councils for migrations should be conducted by empowering and providing work resources, as well as by developing, implementing and evaluating local Action

Plans for migration management.

3. The need for better co-ordination of central institutions in the process of migration management and adoption and enforcement of regulations was emphasised; it was mentioned that the establishment of the Agency for Migration (the plan is for the Commissariat for Refugees to become this Agency) would be very useful since it would serve as an umbrella organization dealing with all aspects of migration.

4. Exchange of experiences and co-operation between municipalities and cities in south Serbia could be of great benefit, especially having in mind that during the working group session, the participants could hear certain interesting experiences of the local governments (Vranje) related to migration management and the engagement of local authorities in this field.

5. It is also necessary to sensitize employees in state institutions to pay particular attention to returnees, due to the specific nature of their position and status (they are often semi-literate or illiterate; some do not know or speak the language poorly, etc.).

1 A participant refered to examples showing that Albanians in Presevo are not employed in public facilities or it is

done far less considering their population proportion in this municipality.

18

6. Work with returnees in terms of preventing secondary migration - most of the participants emphasized that the returnees they had contact with, still consider attempting to migrate. Consequently, there is a special need for their re-integration primarily through obtaining proper documents and creating opportunities so that they can exercise all the rights they are entitled to.

7. Work on continuous research and analysis of the returnees’ situation by creating a local database of returnees. This need arises from the already mentioned fact that each municipality has more or less a unique migrant structure.

8. Continuous education of returnees in the form of additional training and retraining is a necessary step if they are expected to find employment and integrate. It was emphasised that education should be adjusted to economic needs and development areas, so as to make the re-education process economically worthwhile for those undergoing the process.

• Working Group II:::: Opportunities, needs, and best practices

The general conclusion of the working group dealing with the topic “Opportunities, needs and best practices” was that the economic backwardness of south Serbia and the impossibility of finding employment were the main reasons for emigration from south Serbia into larger centres in Serbia or Kosovo2 or Western European countries.

Slow finalization of the privatization process and the need for speeding up bankruptcy

proceedings were identified as the main problems leading to migration.

Participants in the discussion mentioned the apparent lack of information and interest of people

in various programmes funded by national and international institutions, aimed at supporting job

creation through the establishment of small and medium-sized enterprises or self-employment. On the other hand, the lack of information is also observed regarding potential investors in the municipalities and towns in south Serbia.

The lack of communication between institutions and users as well as among the institutions at

the central and local level was perceived by the participants as a great obstacle to attracting

investors. This lack of communication complicates and slows down obtaining basic information and permits required for potential investment in south Serbia.

2 As per UNSCR 1244

19

On the other hand, the participants also noticed a lack of institutions in terms of professional

services that could quickly and efficiently respond to the interests of potential investors. The inertia of local and state authorities was perceived as an important factor that does not contribute to the economic development of the region of south Serbia.

What was also noticed was the lack of awareness of the existing natural and human capacities

and apparent depression of the young population lacking initiative to find a solution to existential

problems. The issue of non-recognition of qualifications obtained in Kosovo by young Albanians was highlighted as a specific problem related to a particular community. However, the question was raised whether they would be able to find work in municipalities where they live even after the problem with diplomas was resolved. The common conclusion was that the problem of economic backwardness

and inability to find employment is basically the same for everyone, regardless of their nationality.

The lack of practical knowledge was highlighted as an important factor affecting employment

opportunities or starting one’s own business.

One conclusion is that there are a lot of opportunities as well as excessive caution, which prevents people from south Serbia from taking initiatives to improve their economic position.

Discrimination that Roma people experience when applying for a job, despite having the same education and qualification as members of other nationalities, was also pointed out.

The participants called for:

1. Balanced development is necessary so that all regions have equal chances.

2. Greater involvement of the state in incentive measures for local and foreign investors in

south Serbia.

3. Conditions for normal life had not been provided for the returnees, who either return due to eviction from settlements near Gazela in Belgrade, or through the re-admission process or as asylum seekers.

4. Women entrepreneurs were highlighted as positive example whose support and empowerment is one of the proposed measures for solving the identified problems.

5. Youth entrepreneurship is also one of the proposed measures.

6. Association of local self-governments, citizens and communities with the aim of joint action.

7. Raising awareness was highlighted as a very important segment.

8. The importance of supporting the development of rural areas was emphasized as one of the essential measures for improving living conditions and preventing further migrations of the population from this region.

9. Some of the proposed measured involved the completion of privatization, accelerated

bankruptcy procedures and faster and more efficient information.

10. Turning Leskovac and Vranje into university centres would be an effective measure against economic backwardness.

11. Training for approximately hundred young people expressing willingness to remain in their

towns or villages was proposed as a specific measure. It was suggested to organize the training in Switzerland and Sweden so that young people could see specific examples of starting one’s own business in those countries.

All participants concluded that comprehensive balanced development of the whole region is

necessary in order to create equal opportunities for all.

20

IV. Annexes

Annex I: Agenda

AGENDA

MIGRATION ROUND TABLE: DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY OR ASYLUM CHALLENGE?

Leskovac, Wednesday, 6 July 2011, 10:30, the Competence Improvement Centre, Leskovackog odreda 6

10:30 – 11:00 Registration of participants

11:00 – 12:00 Opening Statements

Moderator: Nicholas Hercules, PBILD Programme Manager

Slobodan Kocic, Mayor of Leskovac; welcome participants

� H. E. Ivica Dačić, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior of Serbia

� H.E. Erwin Hofer, Ambassador of Switzerland

� H.E. Christer Asp, Ambassador of Sweden

� William Infante, UN Resident Co-ordinator

� Thomas Gnocchi, Delegation of EU in the Republic of Serbia

� Ivan Gerginov, Deputy Commissioner for Refugees of Serbia

12:00 – 12:30 Refreshment and break into working groups

12:30 – 14:00 Working groups

� Working group I – Asylum – Necessity or choice?

Moderator: Milos Mojsilovic

Main topics for discussion: “White Schengen List” what it is?; Social exclusion and lack of opportunities; Integration/Inclusion/Dialogue; Improving institutional capacities to govern migration; Improving institutional capacities to govern labour migration; Going from and coming to Serbia.

� Working group II – Development – Opportunities, needs, and best practices

Moderator: Ljiljana Stojanovic

Main topics for discussion: Regional development – overcoming regional disparities; Entrepreneurship; Labour market conditions –education, training, skills development, recognition of qualifications; How and where Diaspora can add value to the development agenda in the country of origin; Brain drain, brain circulation or brain gain?

14:00 – 14:30 Rapporteur from each WG presents recommendations to the plenary

Moderator: Milijana Merdovic, PBILD Co-ordinator for Migration

14:30 – 14:45 Closing Remarks

14:45 – 15:30 Lunch

21

Annex II: List of participants

Name Organization/Institution

Agon Islami NGO, Odbor za ljudska prava - Bujanovac

Aliti Avni Presevo Municipality

Angelov Anani Bosilegrad, Municipality, Trustee

Antic Srdjan Roma Co-ordinator Vlasotince

Aralica Dusan UNHCR

Asanovic Lima NGO Otvoreno romsko srce ,Leskovac

Ašim Šeitović Roma Co-ordinator, Leskovac

Askov Vlajko NES, Bosilegrad

Azizi Fadil Presevo Municipality, Trustee

Azizzi Fatmir Presevo Municipality

Bogdanovic Dragana Lebane Municipality, Trustee

Božilović Jasmina NGO The Initiatives, Belgrade

Budic Smilja NES, Vlasotince

Cvetanovic Ljubinka CSW, Vlasotince-Crna Trava

Cvetkovic Ljiljana NGO Optimist, Bosilegrad

Dekic Srdjan Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry Leskovac

Demirovic Ramadan Bujanovac Municipality

Demirovic Salim NGO, Civilni resurs centar ,Bujanovac

Demirovic Sukrija NGO, Romski humanitarni centar Bujanovac

Despotovic Jelena PBILD

Dimitrijevic Milena NGO, Nexus

Dimitrijevic Nebojsa CSW, Bojnik

Dinkic Larisa Crna Trava Municipality

Djenic Bojana Bojnik Municipality, trustee

Djordjevic Vesna Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry Leskovac

Djurovic Petar NGO, Narodni Parlament Leskovac

Driton Rexhepi Bujanovac Municipality

Ernst Manuela PBILD

Garvida Trisha Commissariat for Refugees

Gerginov Ivan Commissariat for refugees

Gusic Jovana IOM

H.E. Christer Asp Ambassador of Sweden

H.E. Erwin Hofer Ambassador of Switzerland

Hercules Nicholas PBILD Programme Manager

Ignjatovic Momcilo CSW, Vlasotince Crna Trava

Isakovic Milena UNDP

Ismailovic Jovan NGO, Edukacioni centar,Leskovac

Ivanovic Olivera Competence Improvement Centre, Leskovac

Janjic Marija V. Han Municipality, trustee

22

Jankovic Goran NES, Leskovac

Jovanovic Ivana NGO, Praxis

Jovic Stanislav Surdulica Municipality

Jun Shirato UNHCR

Kasumi Ilijaz NGO, Romski Humanitarni Centar, Bujanovac

Kirilov Kiril NGO, Optimist, Bosilegrad

Kocic Igor Leskovac Municipality, Trustee

Kocic Slobodan City of Leskovac

Kostic Milos NGO, The Initiatives, Belgrade

Kovacevic Sinisa Bujanovac Municipality, Trustee

Krstic Nenad Trgoviste Municipality

Medarovic Jelena NGO, Praxis

Mehmeti Abdulla Presevo Municipality

Mehmeti Nedzmedin Presevo Municipality

Memeti Ismail NES, Bujanovac

Merdovic Milijana PBILD

Mitrovic Olga Commissariat for Refugees

Mustafovic Goran NGO Zivot

Nakic Nenad PBILD

Nedeljkovic Radivojica Trgoviste Municipality

Nedzmedin Ahmeti Presevo Municipality

Nesic Bratislav City of Leskovac

Nevena Kostic NGO, Zene za mir

Nikolic Jovica NES, Bojnik

Nikolic Slobodan Ministry of Interior Affairs, Surdulica

Nikolic. S. Tatjana PBILD

Osmanovic Ibrahim NGO, Presevo

Osmanovic Safet NGO, Narajan, Presevo

Osmanovic Sejda NGO, Udruzenje Roma, Presevo

Peric Zorica VranjeCity, Trustee

Perovic Marko IOM

Petrovic Dragoslav Trgoviste Municipality

Popovic Branislav Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry Leskovac

Radetic Aleksandra PROGRES

Rakic Danilo NGO, Grupa 484, Beograd

Rakic Ljiljana Commissariat for Refugees

Ramadanovic Ramadan Roma Co-ordinator, Bujanovac

Rasitovic Kenan NGO, Ofer Bujanovac

Ristic Dejan Ministry of Interior Affairs, Leskovac

Rodic Milica Co-ordination Body

23

Salihu Enis Bujanovac Municipality

Saric Svetlana Vlasotince Municipality

Savic Jelena PBILD

Selmani Misini Lirije PBILD

Sunter Daniel NGO, Euro-Atlantic Initiative

Simonovic Zvonko NES, Surdulica

Sinobad Jasmina NGO, Grupa 484

Skenderi Mustafa PBILD

Sokolovic Grozda NES, Medvedja

Spasic Miroslav Ministry of Interior Affairs, Leskovac

Stankovic Biljana Regional Development Agency

Stankovic Djordje City of Leskovac, LED

Stankovic Gordana Competence Improvement Centre

Stankovic Ivana Co-ordination Body

Stankovic Zoran Vlasotince Municipality, Trustee

Stanojev Ivana Co-ordination Body

Stojancic Branimir Vranje City

Stojanovic Igor Vladicin Han, Municipality

Stosic Vujica Ministry of Interior Affairs, Vranje

Thomas Gnocchi EU Delegation in Serbia

Todic Snezana NES, Lebane

Toroman Djuro NGO, IDC

Trajkovic Marija Vladicin Han Municipality

Trisic Vedrana UNDP

Uka Daut Medvedja Municipality

Urosevic Miron IOM

Vasic Nenad Roma National Minority Council

Vasilev Petar SDC

Vlahovic Radomir Medvedja Municipality, Trustee

Vukicevic Vladimir NGO, Asylum Protection Centre

William Infante UN Resident Coordinator

Zivkovic Dejan Roma National Minority Council

Zivkovic Zvonko Roma National Minority Council

Zlatanovic Lidija NGO, Zivot, Vranje