Migration – Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge

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, 6July 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

Migration – Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to Migration – Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge

Similar to Migration – Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge (20)

More from Milijana Merdovic

More from Milijana Merdovic (9)

Migration – Development Opportunity or Asylum Challenge