Conference Report€¦ · vice providers. This crisis has put untenable pressure on transit and...

United Nations Development ProgrammeIstanbul Regional Hub

Conference Report

Migration, Displacement and Community Resilience 4–5 October, Belgrade

2

Conference Report

3

I. IntroductIon 1

II. PartIcIPants, agenda and objectIves 2

III. oPenIng remarks 3

Iv. mIgratIon, dIsPlacement and resIlIence:

Harnessing the long-term development benefits 4

v. resIlIence-based develoPment solutIons

the immediate impact of the migrant and refugee crisis

on host and transit municipalities 6

mainstreaming migration and displacement into

municipal service delivery planning 8

maintaining and advancing social cohesion 10

vI. managIng mIgratIon and dIsPlacement for PosItIve develoPment ImPacts

creating livelihoods and employment, and engaging the diaspora 12

fostering decentralised cooperation among municipalities 14

funding resilience and resilient budgeting 16

vII. closIng remarks 18

annex I: agenda 19

annex II: list of Participants 23

this report has been prepared on the basis of information gathered at the conference in belgrade, serbia on 4–5 october, 2016, and serves as a summary of the presentations, discussions and the conclusions reached by the participants. the views express-es do not necessarily represent those of the united nations, including undP, or the un member states.

author: susanna dakash

Contents


4

Migration and displacement are a rapidly growing phenomena that have diverse implications for the societies involved, resulting in both risks and oppor-tunities for origin, transit and host communities. UN-DP’s Guidance Note on migration and displacement defines migration as the voluntary movement of women and men driven by their search for a better life, economic opportunities, education, or desire to reunite with family members abroad. In contrast, dis-placement is the situation of people who are forced to leave their homes due to violence, disturbed pub-lic order, human rights violations or natural and man-made disasters. While the term migrant has been fluidly used by the media and international organi-sations as an umbrella term to refer to people mov-ing across international borders for various reasons, it should be noted that the refugees are specifically defined and protected in international law. Refugees are people outside their country of origin because of feared persecution, conflict and violence, and who consequently require international protection.

Migration and displacement are not new phenome-na in Southeast Europe, which has faced varying pop-ulation movement dynamics over time. The Western Balkans has experienced both forced population movements caused by the conflicts of the 1990s as well as large-scale outflows of citizens seeking em-ployment and better living conditions abroad. Tur-key, traditionally a country of emigration to Europe, also has a long history of immigration, displacement and asylum due to its geographical location.

Recently, in the wake of conflicts in Syria, Afghan-istan and Iraq in 2015, a rising number of refugees and migrants made the journey to the EU, travelling through Southeast Europe. The so-called Western Balkans route witnessed over 900,000 refugees and migrants passing through, with towns and munici-palities in Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia forming the main points of transit. Tur-key, on the other hand, is one of the largest hosts of refugees globally, with approximately 3 million registered Syrian refugees . Importantly, around 90 per cent of them live outside camps amongst Turk-ish host communities, depending on the local ser-vice providers. This crisis has put untenable pressure on transit and host municipalities and communities

in the region, threatening their stability and sustain-able development. Moreover, it has revealed some significant capacity gaps that local governments and communities need to tackle: the need to plan not only for sudden shocks and emergency response, but also to address existing, long-term migration dy-namics and their effects on the community.

UNDP understands that migration and displace-ment are long-term issues that also require long-term, resilience-focused solutions. Here, resilience is understood as the ability of a community to absorb shocks and stresses to its infrastructure, and its so-cial, cultural and economic fabric. A resilience-based development approach seeks to maximise the ben-efits and minimise the negative consequences of outward and inward population movements. This is achieved by ensuring that communities, munici-palities and local governments not only cope and re-cover from crisis but also improve their development prospects over the long haul.

A key framework for countries to make progress on addressing various migration movements is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Adopt-ed by all countries in 2015, the Agenda aims to en-sure prosperity for all, and calls for action on all levels: from central and local governments to private sector and civil society. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) fully recognise migration and displacement as core development considerations, and recognise that development goes hand-in-hand with strate-gies that build economic growth, governance ca-pacity and institutions, and address social needs, in-cluding education, health, social protection and job opportunities. Addressing migration, displacement and community resilience is closely tied to realisa-tions of SDG 3 of good health and well-being, SDG 5 on gender equality, SDG 8 of inclusive and sustain-able economic growth, SDG 9 on building resilient infrastructure, SDG 11 on safe, resilient and sustain-able communities, and SDG 16 on just, peaceful and inclusive societies. The SDGs also include specific targets to protect migrant workers’ labour rights, promote safe and secure working environments (target 8.8), implement planned and well-managed migration policies (target 10.7), reduce the transac-tion costs of migrant remittances (target 10.c), and

1 http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/3/56e95c676/refugees-migrants-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html2 http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=224

I. IntroduCtIon

5

produce high-quality, timely and reliable data disag-gregated among others by race, ethnicity, and mi-gratory status (target 17.18).

As outlined in UNDP’s 2009 Human Development Report, well-managed migration can have signif-icant positive impacts for human and economic development: migration can increase household incomes, improve access to services, and empower of traditionally disadvantaged groups, in particular women. Targeted services to migrants and displaced people increase their potential to contribute to the resilience, growth and development of the commu-nities involved. Migration also offers development opportunities to communities of origin in the form of investments and remittances.

Addressing the resilience of local communities re-quires a bridging of both humanitarian and develop-ment perspectives. A converged approach not only meets immediate humanitarian needs of people on the move, but also upholds their dignity, reduc-es their vulnerability and improves their self-reliance and protection. This means encouraging sustainable development and resilience building in a manner that benefits both the communities and the migrant and displaced populations. Recognising both the humanitarian and development challenges of mi-gration and displacement feeds into fostering transit and host communities’ self-reliance and resilience, a goal which is called for in the recent World Humani-tarian Summit’s core commitments.

UNDP understands that mi-gration and displacement are long-term issues that also re-quire long-term, resilience-fo-cused solutions. Here, resil-ience is understood as the ability of a community to ab-sorb shocks and stresses to its infrastructure, and its social, cultural and economic fabric.

conference report


6

The conference, Migration, Displacement and Com-munity Resilience took place 4–5 October, 2016 in Belgrade, Serbia, and brought together 125 partici-pants including representatives of 16 municipalities from eight countries (Albania, Croatia, Italy, Moldo-va, Serbia, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey), UNDP, international or-ganisations, international financial institutions, and non-governmental organisations.

The conference aimed to achieve three main out-puts:• mapping the support needs of host and tran-

sit municipalities and identification of capacity gaps;

• establishmentof an informalmechanismof in-formation-sharing between municipalities, im-proving coordination, response and contingency planning;

• collectionofgoodpracticesandlessonslearned,to form the basis for a guide for municipalities on bridging the humanitarian and development gap, implementing resilience-based develop-ment solutions, and managing the effects of var-ious migratory movements for positive develop-ment impacts.

The agenda (Annex I) started from the latest chal-lenges of the migration crisis and then moved to a longer-term perspective of building the resilience of municipalities. An introductory panel set the scene for the two-day discussions, followed by information exchange on the immediate effects of the migra-tion crisis, to take stock of the challenges and ex-periences as well as lessons learned. Subsequently, discussion moved on to municipal service provision and mainstreaming migration and displacement into municipal development plans. The first day also tackled the question of maintaining and advancing social cohesion in communities that face long-term migration or sudden displacement. The second day was dedicated to harnessing the de-velopment benefits of migration and displacement, moving away from the focus on reacting to the cri-sis to more proactive measures that can be taken to build up local resilience. The discussion centred on livelihoods and employment generation, comple-mented by a panel on decentralised cooperation and networking between municipalities. Finally, the last panel tackled the financial possibilities that are available for increasing resilience on municipality level.

Overall, the conference provided an opportunity to raise awareness of the impact of migration and dis-placement on local municipalities and communi-ties, and of their need for support in sustaining and advancing their development.

II. PartICIPants, agenda and objeCtIves

Conference Report

7

Ms. Irena Vojáčková-Sollorano, UN Resident Coordi-nator Serbia, pointed out that the conference reso-nates with a global calling for addressing migration and displacement issues on a local level. In Septem-ber 2016, the UN General Assembly hosted a high-lev-el summit to address large movements of refugees and migrants, with the aim of strengthening the governance of international migration and creating a more responsible, predictable system for responding to large movements of refugees and migrants. At the same time, the Third Global Mayoral Forum on hu-man mobility, migration and development, an annual gathering of mayors and city leaders, focused on the role of diaspora in furthering development in com-munities of origin and destination, and the inclusion and protection of migrants and refugees in vulnerable situations within urban centres. UNDP was active in both forums by showcasing ways that municipalities can address the disappearance of populations, new arrivals and irregular migration, while ensuring that all populations are safe and provided with basic services, regardless of their legal status.

Mr. Rastislav Vrbensky, Manager of UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub, stressed that the basis of this approach should be a commitment to finding durable solutions that harness the development potential of migration and displacement, identify the capacity gaps of tran-sit and host communities, and help alleviate the root causes of migration and displacement in communi-ties of origin, whether poverty, conflicts, disasters or poor governance. As more and more people globally are on the move, the trends of the movements are dif-ficult to predict and monitor. However, local munici-palities and communities can prepare by promoting integrated development solutions, effective service delivery and responsive governance.

In practical terms, UNDP has supported municipalities in Turkey, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in their efforts to address the effects of the migration and refugee crisis by focusing on services under most strain: waste management and water sup-

ply. To take this on step further, and implement truly sustainable solutions, interstate cooperation, at both regional and local levels, is essential. True to the com-mitment to leave no one behind, whether refugee, mi-grant, returnee or host, the aim is to build communi-ties that are resilient, and that are prepared to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the current, unprecedented movement of populations.

Mr. Ivan Bošnjak, State Secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government of the Republic of Serbia, concurred that in Serbia, it was the local municipalities that shouldered the biggest burden during the migration crisis, and while praising the hospitality showed by local citizens, Mr. Bošnjak encouraged the authorities present to share their dif-ficulties in addition to best practices, in order to build a basis for increasing future preparedness. Mr. Nenad Ivanišević, State Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy of the Repub-lic of Serbia, also pointed out the existing experience in the region of hosting refugees in the 1990s, and the identification of the people with the plight of those who have been forced to leave their homes. According to Mr. Ivanišević, this may explain the equal treatment that the refugees and migrants enjoyed when arriving in Serbia.

In comparison to other Serbian municipalities, Bel-grade has had the largest resources to respond to the sudden arrival of refugees and migrants. Mr. Andreja Mladenović, Deputy Mayor of Belgrade, highlighted that even transiting people leave their mark on the municipal assets and services: the local authorities need to provide shelter, food and water, uphold waste management and transportation. The refugee aid centre in Belgrade offers, in addition to fulfilling ba-sic needs, services such as day-care and workshops for children.

III. oPenIng remarks


8

“For the first time, migration is not conceived as a development failure. The Agenda 2030 gives a formidable platform for a balanced intervention on migration that involves both origin and destination countries”Cécile riallant, JMDI

“We are speaking all the time of a crisis, but is it? The intensity was high but the response capacity was still more often the crisis than it should have been. The EU is more reactive than strategic… What we need is courage, leadership, and cautiousness in the face of upcoming elections” alain scriban, European Commission

Chaired by Ms. Sonja Licht, President of the Bel-grade Fund for Political Excellence, the introduc-tory panel defined resilience in the context of mi-gration and displacement, and introduced some characteristics of a resilient municipality. Moreover, it explored how migration and displacement be leveraged in favour of the development of a munic-ipality, and how the possibilities that newcomers provide can be recognised.

Mr. Matteo Biffoni, Mayor of Prato in Italy and Na-tional Appointee for Immigration Issues of the Na-tional Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI), noted that the trend of migratory movements is on the increase, which emphasises the need for municipalities to organise. Mr. Biffoni highlighted the role of mayors in dealing with migration and displacement, providing a good example of the SPRAR Project, a system of collaboration to pro-mote real programmes of integration for refugees and asylum seekers. Piloted by a number of Italian municipalities, the initiative aims to support and protect asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in need of protection. The SPRAR Project deals with the initial care and protection, but also integration. Its care services comprise of accommodation, sup-ply of food vouchers, and assistance in access to social, health and educational services. Moreover, SPRAR offers its beneficiaries legal protection and psycho-social services. Focusing on the long-term, the integration services provided include orienta-tion in relation to employment, training courses,

and support in looking for employment and hous-ing. These are steps that can help municipalities realise the value of newcomers in terms of their contribution to human capital and productivity, and manage migration and displacement in a sus-tainable manner.

Mr. Claude Cahn, Advisor to the UN Resident Coor-dinator in Serbia, made reference to the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights who took a stance against populist movements that incite fear and misunderstanding in people, and advocated for strong leadership to push back on these neg-ative sentiments toward migrants and refugees. In large-scale and sudden migration and displace-ment, it is necessary to underline the human rights of all people on the move, who, regardless of sta-tus, need some form of protection. All migrants and refugees are rights-holders, and as such are entitled to claim their rights. There is a critical need for comprehensive, human rights-based migration and asylum governance measures that include the voices of migrants as well as the communities into which they arrive. Mr. Cahn also underlined that instead of speaking of the costs of migration and displacement, communities should note that they cannot afford rejecting newcomers, especially in the Southeast European region where many mu-nicipalities are losing their workforce.

Drawing from the experiences in Jordan and Leb-anon, Mr. Jason Pronyk, Development Coordinator

Iv. mIgratIon, dIsPlaCement and resIlIenCe: HarnessIng tHe long-term develoPment benefIts

Conference Report

9

in the Sub-Regional Response Facility for Syria Cri-sis, UNDP Arab States Regional Hub, described the challenges that large-scale population flows can present to municipalities, and gave a definition of “good” resilience. A simple humanitarian response is no longer adequate to enable host communities to cope with migrants and refugees: for instance, in Jordan, long-term effects of protracted dis-placement are noticeable in decrease of resources due to strain on tourism and foreign investments, additional security costs, water shortages and in-creased waste management costs. With a third of the population in Lebanon and a fourth in Jordan consisting of Syrians, the host municipalities have also experienced increased poverty rates, and dis-ruption in social cohesion as different communities compete for housing, schooling and local services.

The long-term effects of displacement therefore re-quire a paradigm shift towards a resilience-based, more integrated approach. One example of this approach is the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), which enables an effective and coordi-nated response to address, through national plans, immediate vulnerabilities, strengthen social cohe-sion, and build the resilience of people, commu-nities and national systems. A resilient response centres around reinforcing local capacities, not re-placing them; planning with predictable financial costs, breaking financial silos and overcoming bu-reaucratic hurdles, and building coalitions to deliv-er a comprehensive cross-border response.

Linking migration with local development, Ms. Cécile Riallant, Head of Programme Management Unit of the Joint Migration and Development Ini-tiative (JMDI), stated that it is specifically the local context where this linkage is observed, as migrants and diaspora build bridges between territories of origin and destination. Globally speaking, migra-tion is a crucial aspect of development: in 2015, 10% of the global GDP was generated as a result of migration, which is more than if the migrants had stayed in their countries of origin. Migration is also an urban phenomenon, with 60% of migration tar-geting towns and cities. This raises the question of

which policies should be put to place to harness the benefits of migration. Research has suggested that diversity in communities has a positive impact on productivity and innovation. More than offering marginal support, subsidies, or isolated interven-tions, municipalities can capitalise on the cultur-al, economic and human potential of migrants by mainstreaming migration into their policies. JMDI finds that the most successful and sustainable in-terventions are those with strong anchorage with the local governments in countries of origin and destination, and where local authorities share a common vision with civil society partners, devel-op a sense of ownership over projects and sub-sequently commit time, energy and resources to them. JMDI has also identified locally-led migration and development initiatives that can be scaled up, and developed knowledge products and training tools for mainstreaming migration into local devel-opment, available on their website.

Speaking of the recent migration crisis, Mr. Alain Scriban, Principal Adviser in DG Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, called for a more holistic approach, as managing a sud-den population flow does not involve only one fac-tor: it requires coherent internal policies, political dialogue, border management, integration and security measures. So far the European Union has been more reactive than strategic in its response, and decisions have been made on a national level, ignoring the local dimension. Thinking long-term, it is crucial to recognise that cities and commu-nities are the places where policies are applied, making the strong involvement of the regional and local level indispensable. With respect to funding, the question is not the lack of money, but that it is not arriving to the regional and local level. Mr. Scriban proceeded to give successful examples of initiatives to integrate newcomers, from Germa-ny (Munich, counselling migrants and refugees), the Netherlands (Antwerp, one stop shops for lan-guage; Utrecht, “meet and eat” initiative to dine with refugees) and Poland (Gdansk, participatory and interdisciplinary way of dealing with newcom-ers).


10

““It is high time to see refugees not as a problem but a reality to be managed. Instead of protecting borders, we should be protecting humans. Instead of helping them we should work with them. The welfare of the disadvantaged reflects the welfare of the whole society. It is not a favour we do, it is a responsibility””Önder Yalçın, Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality

Chairing the session on the immediate impact of the refugee and migrant flow on municipalities in Turkey, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ms. Louisa Vinton, UN Resident Coordi-nator in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pointed out the different scale of the crisis in Turkey, where the situation is on-going, and the Western Balkans, where the emergency has subdued. How-ever, what these two regions have in common, is that the municipalities have been the first responders to the crisis, amidst a process of decentralisation.

In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there was a common feeling that the local population understood the situation of arriving refugees and migrants. However, as Mayor of Gevgelija Mr. Ivan Frangov described, the sudden arrival of refugees and migrants produced anxiety in the inhabitants of Gevgelija, and disrupted the normal flow of life as the municipality lacked contingency funds for maintain-ing infrastructure and accommodating the needs of the community. With the cooperation of UNDP and GiZ, the municipality was able to normalise its road network, as well as the water and solid waste man-agement. Currently, after the border closure, the Ministry of Interior has reported an average of 100 daily entry attempts.

The crisis revealed the importance of completing the decentralisation process in the region. Mr. Zoran Damjanovski, Mayor of Kumanovo, highlighted the difficult position of the municipality, since the cen-tralised system leaves the local community in the margins of decision-making. This is why the people arriving at the height of the crisis were left to their own means, and hid from the authorities fearing for

the consequences of their irregular entry. The unor-ganised movement of refugees and migrants result-ed in unfortunate casualties as they made their way, for example, in darkness on railway tracks. While the closure of the route was not unproblematic, the role of the EU was also brought to question, as the ca-pacity of the municipalities in the region is limited. While Kumanovo supported the central intervention that was prompted by the international communi-ty, the municipality itself lacks the capacity to deal with similar crises independently. Mr. Damjanovski affirmed the importance of involving local authori-ties in discussions on funding the resilience of local communities.

These experiences resonated with Mr. Robert Fejsta-mer, Mayor of Kanjiža, across the border in Serbia. Kanjiža was initially left to its own means to deal with the sudden arrival of refugees and migrants, as no crisis was officially announced. Health and se-curity capacities of the municipality were stretched, and the infrastructure burdened. The municipality is still facing the aftermath of the population flow. Mr. Fejstamer called for continued cooperation between municipalities, as a way to improve their resilience and further their development.

The role of media and politics in the national reac-tion was raised by Mr. Andrija Rudić, Mayor of Kuti-na in Croatia. Kutina was not on the migration route, but it hosts a centre for asylum seekers. There is a dissonance between the local experience and the politicised aspect of the crisis: while the people on the grass-roots level took the initiative to welcome the refugees and migrants, the national response was a political one of closing up. Uncertainty among

v. resIlIenCe-based develoPment solutIonsTHE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE MIGRANT AND REFUGEE CRISIS ON HOST AND TRANSIT MUNICIPALITIES

Conference Report

11

the local population resulted from the media and ef-forts by certain authorities to achieve short-term po-litical gain. However, Kutina managed to counteract the threatening images in the media, and provide humane treatment for all. As a point of criticism, Mr. Rudić pointed out that local communities were ig-nored at the national level, and information about the numbers, needs and services required was not provided in time to municipalities. Financial inde-pendence was emphasised as key in offering the whole community, including new arrivals, the same rights to shelter, food, education and health.

While Gaziantep in Turkey currently hosts 400,000 Syrian refugees, Mr. Önder Yalçın, Head of Migration Office, rejected the notion of refugees as just num-bers or statistics, and called for the responsibility to treat everyone with humanity. Municipalities have a large role in providing services for its citizens, and lack of services can generate tension. A crucial step in increasing the capacity of a municipality is gather-ing data: what cannot be measured cannot be man-aged. In Gaziantep, for example, a needs-analysis and

data collection was the basis for mobilising resourc-es from the Directorate of Migration Affairs. Now the municipality provides the refugees with indiscrimi-nate health, education and social services. There is close cooperation with the central government, and the municipality has been consulted in questions of education and access to labour market. Moreover, Mr. Yalçın pointed out the strength and innovative-ness of newcomers, and the benefits of integrating them into the labour market on building the social resilience of the municipality. The process of refugee and migrant integration requires close collaboration with NGOs and the local community that needs to feel heard in the formulation of the solution.

The example of Turkey inspired the question wheth-er the same could be replicated for the current or future refugee and migrant populations in the West-ern Balkans. While the participants showed willing-ness to undertake such measures, it was also stated that the people migrating saw the Balkan states as a transition route only.


12

“After satisfying the basic needs, comes education: children need to be involved in attending school”abdullah aksoyGaziantep

“Reinforce institutional capacity to deliver services in a transparent and efficient manner… Standards and operational procedures should be introduced, for all stakeholders along the Balkan route” valentina aleksovskaKumanovo

Chaired by Ms. Fiona McCluney, UN Resident Co-ordinator Montenegro, this session addressed the question of mainstreaming migration and dis-placement into local service planning, in order to ensure that a community moves from immediate, short-term responses to long-term development solutions, in line with human rights standards.

Mr. Abdullah Aksoy, Head of Health and Social Service Department in Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality, Turkey, presented the measures tak-en by the municipality to provide social services to its citizens and the Syrian refugees, along with statistics of the numbers of beneficiaries. Service provision has been under tremendous pressure since the population growth exploded, exceed-ing the original estimates for 2023, and making it paramount to consider the population spike in the planning of services, including water, sewage, sanitation, infrastructure, waste management, en-vironmental health, parks and green fields and transportation. The social services policy of Ga-ziantep pairs humanitarian response with devel-opment interventions and capacity building, plan-ning for both short and long-term. To develop the institutional capacity of municipality, the Director-

ate of Migration Office, an organisational structure concerned with the Syrian refugees, was estab-lished. It supports the municipality in delivering effective social service based on human rights and social justice, and ensures coordination between the municipal units working with Syrians and with international institutions, universities and NGOs. The help of Social Research Centre SARMeR has been employed to prepare a social risk map of Ga-ziantep, analyse the current situation and conduct a needs assessment. With the obtained data, the municipality is able to conduct studies on families who are in need of urgent help and keep relevant departments informed.

Moreover, Gaziantep has two information and edu-cation centres for Syrian refugees. Schools for Syri-an children were established in order to eliminate the risk of creating a lost generation. The centres focus on students who have limited financial re-sources and no access to education. The municipal hospital and medical centres provide health care to around 50,000 Syrian refugees free of charge. The Ensar Community Centre offers services for Syrian women and children living outside the camps, focusing on human rights with a view to

MAINSTREAMING MIGRATION AND DISPLACEMENT INTO MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING

Conference Report

13

social cohesion and inclusion. Regarding liveli-hoods, while Turkey has issued the law of access to labour market, most refugees lack qualifica-tions; vocational trainings are provided to facilitate employment, in addition to language courses in Turkish and English. In terms of protection of vul-nerable groups, Syrian women and children who are victims of violence are offered shelter in mu-nicipal centres, and can benefit from psychosocial support and counselling services. An important as-pect is informing refugees of their rights and ser-vices, and this is done through briefs distributed in day-care centres and hospitals, as well as through personal contact with the refugees.

In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there are two transit centres in Gevgelija and in Tabanovce that provide basic conditions for the refugees and migrants in the country. However, as Ms. Valentina Aleksovska, Secretary General of Kumanovo, expressed, these do not provide a per-manent or all-encompassing solution. Since the services provided at the centres fall under the um-brella of centralised services, local authorities lack the institutional reinforcement required to deliver these services in a transparent and efficient man-ner. Personnel on the ground should be afforded training on managing crisis situations, and clear standards and operational procedures to clarify work share between different stakeholders. Lack of information flow between central and local au-thorities was also indicated as a point of develop-ment – for example, the Ministry of Internal Affairs could provide local governments better data on irregular border crossings, and local authorities should have a clearer voice in legislative matters.

In some cases, the historical context in the Western Balkans helped local communities cope with the need to provide services for newcomers. Mr. Ivica Jović, Assistant Chairman, Head of the Council for Migration and Durable Solutions in Šid, Serbia, ex-plained how local action plans developed during the time of the former Yugoslavia helped in chan-nelling funds to deal with the sudden influx of ref-ugees and migrants. At the height of the crisis, this municipality of 35,000 inhabitants saw 700,000 people passing through. This generated exces-sive amounts of waste, strained the water supply, and damaged road networks. With a third of the population of the municipality with refugee back-ground themselves, there was a general sympathy toward the refugees and migrants. While Šid has been able to avoid incidents between the locals and the newly arrived, the municipality has also organised activities that bring people together to prevent conflicts, such as children’s weeks and sports events. Currently, about 2000 people re-main in the municipality, unable to move forward, and are provided with basic services. As to infor-mation-sharing between different stakeholders, it

has happened relatively quickly, with the help of the Commissariat of Refugees and the Red Cross.

The importance of ensuring the human right stan-dards of refugees and migrants living in transit and asylum centres, or in local communities, was brought up by Ms. Ivana Buljan Ajelić, Legal Ad-visor to Ombudswoman of Croatia. The Ombuds-man examines citizens’ complaints pertaining the work of local, regional and state governing bodies, but also works to promote human rights and pre-vent discrimination in contexts where people may be deprived of their liberty. For example, upon the closure of the Hungarian border, teams started vis-its to the border control points and asylum centres to observe whether human rights were respected, and if not, gave oral recommendations. Ms. Buljan Ajelić also emphasised the important role of local communities play in the integration of refugees and migrants – in incorporating newcomers into local planning, providing services such as accom-modation and health care, and maintaining social cohesion. The disparity between the local and na-tional levels was once again raised. In the Croatian context, the citizens were first to react and assist, organising themselves out of solidarity from their own experiences in the 1990s. On the national lev-el, however, the outdated migration policy did not reflect the new situation, information exchange between the central and local authorities was scarce, and local communities bore the biggest burden.

Continuing the discussion on legal frameworks, Ms. Francesca Bonelli, Senior Field Coordinator in UN-HCR Serbia, underlined the importance of distin-guishing in general discourse between migrants, a term that has not been legally defined, and refu-gees, who fall under international protection. Blur-ring the two terms takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require, such as protection from refoulement and from being penalised for crossing borders without authorisa-tion in order to seek safety. This does not of course mean that the universal human rights of migrants need not also be respected. However, from a legal point of view, the international norms concerning refugee protection are tools to be used to improve municipal service provision, to include shelter, pro-tection and health for all. These norms also need to be observed in relation to unaccompanied minors: the Balkan route, for example, witnessed groups of 12- to 15-year-old boys travelling without their legal guardians, and without authorities taking appro-priate note. On the other hand, Ms. Bonelli saw the crisis as an opportunity for municipalities, as up-holders of peaceful coexistence, to increase their capacity and improve their social systems, and en-couraged local authorities to use the international community to highlight their needs to central level decision-makers.


14

“This is not a crisis of migration, but a crisis of the governance of migration… Fears are fed by ignorance.”ugo PoliCEI

“Most new arrivals need help in language and skills, not pity. The expectations we have matter. Stop talking about giving people something to do – do something for real. New arrivals need support in getting into the labour market – not something to do! Do the possible – not just the necessary”Patrik möllerströmTrelleborg

Social cohesion is undermined by discrimination, xe-nophobia, exclusion, and unresolved tensions between different groups of people. This session explored what measures can be taken to strengthen the social resil-ience of communities that face returning populations, migration or displacement.

To begin with, chairman of the panel Mr. Ugo Poli, Proj-ect Manager in the Central European Initiative (CEI), took the opportunity to introduce the activities of the CEI in relation to migration and displacement. CEI, a regional intergovernmental forum committed to sup-porting European integration through cooperation of its Member States, has recently undertaken activities and commitments to fill the gap between the gov-ernance of the migration flow, and its potential ben-efits for shaping the resilience of affected territories. Mr. Poli reiterated the importance of exchanging ex-periences and good practices, and the establishment of networks to strengthen the awareness about suc-cessful models. Examples of relevant work facilitated by CEI are a conference on “Acting together in migra-tion management – enhancing coordination among central and local level” in collaboration with Migration, Asylum, Refugees Regional Initiative (MARRI) and the

Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe (NALAS); and an international seminar on the “Cooperation on the Governance of Migration in the Western Balkans and Central European Countries”, organized by Alda Skpoje. The latter resulted in rec-ommendations on emergency reception, integration policies but also, as related to the topic of the session, on intercultural dialogue and public reception.

Combatting xenophobic discourse and discrimination can be achieved through grassroots initiatives at the local level that counterbalance social fear and closure, and combine face-to-face activity with wide-reaching campaigns through traditional media and social me-dia. Moreover, local authorities can contribute to a pos-itive public perception by promoting physical integra-tion of refugees and migrants in the public space, and avoiding the concentration of migrants in collective centres – these tend to have a negative impact on the life of migrants and on the attitude of the local com-munities where such centres are situated.

An excellent example of integrating migrants and ref-ugees into the local community was presented by Mr. Patrik Möllerström, Head of Unit of the Department

MAINTAINING AND ADVANCING SOCIAL COHESION

Conference Report

15

of Labour in the Municipality of Trelleborg, Sweden. In the end of 2015, the harbour city of Trelleborg received 45,000 refugees, out of which 10% were unaccom-panied minors. From a crisis response perspective, these 4000–5000 children fell under the protection of minors, and were afforded accommodation, food, security and information. However, from a long-term solution perspective, placing these young people among local minors under protection, those with so-cial issues, is counterproductive – instead, they should be viewed and treated as any normal citizen. The mu-nicipality developed an innovative approach, “8 The-ses for a Better Reception of New Arrivals”, to create structures and processes for children and young peo-ple arriving on their own that will get them to make independent decisions regarding their future as soon as possible. For example, the municipality has initi-ated mentorship programmes in collaboration with the private sector that not only teach young people skills, but more importantly help them create the net-works that they lack in a new country. Through small changes to the mind-set of the community, more ac-curate choice of words, and introduction into Swedish society, the municipality believes it can reach far with the recently arrived competencies. All new arrivals are initially assumed to be able and willing to contribute to their own, as well as to society’s development. They are expected to contribute to the support afforded at school, establishments and networks. This approach is different from seeing new arrivals as needing care, as-sessment or investigation by social services.

Nevertheless, changing existing institutional struc-tures requires courage. For the reception of new ar-rivals to be more efficient and sustainable in the long term, administration of newcomers needs to be re-moved from the social services act and to be handled by authorities in the livelihoods and training sectors. Moreover, efficient reception requires one party taking full responsibility throughout the process: the current distribution of responsibility between state and mu-nicipality does not work, as what is primarily the state’s responsibility is practically offloaded onto the munic-ipality which, in its role as first-line responder, meets the individuals. While in theory the Swedish state is fully responsible for the reception and establishment of new arrivals, in reality costs, measures and adminis-tration are shouldered by the municipalities.

In terms of advancing social cohesion, words that are used to speak of new arrivals matter. Meeting healthy and motivated people with care plans and social sup-port gives the wrong signal both to the newcomers and the local community. The 8 Theses approach thus advocates for a normalisation of treatments of refu-gees and migrants, acknowledging their strengths and competencies, and treating them simply and without over-elaboration.

This empowering perspective was echoed by Ms. Mersiha Smailovikj, Legal and Protection Officer in Macedonian NGO Legis. While being in a vulnerable position, refugees and migrants are strong people that can in fact push the hosting society to improve. Even

though Macedonians are a diverse people, the sudden arrival of refugees and migrants in 2015 instigated fear and xenophobia in the local population. The first rem-edy to this is to increase eye-to-eye contact among different groups in the community, and bring refu-gees and migrants away from transit centres that are located outside towns and cities. Migrating children and youth need to be provided with education to pre-vent creating a lost generation. The general discourse should also be changed: while the new arrivals have been portrayed as a financial burden, many locals in fact benefited either in the form of offering services to the refugees and migrants, or through the interven-tions of the international community that improved living circumstances for everyone in the community. Ms. Smailovikj also emphasised the strength of wom-en, who need to be empowered to be part of society, and not just seen as victims.

Finally, Mr. Žarko Petrović, Portfolio Manager at UNDP Serbia, presented the results of a public opin-ion research “Attitudes towards the Impact of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis on Serbia’s Municipalities”. This quantitative research targeted the general adult population and local administration representatives, covering two groups of municipalities, those severely affected and those moderately affected by the migra-tion crisis in 2015. General findings indicated that an overwhelming majority of informants (93%) perceived war and lack of safety as reasons for the migration and displacement in 2015, while better living standard was seen as a motive by half of the respondents (52%). Most citizens believed that developed EU countries were the final destination for refugees and migrants, however a quarter of respondents believed those who would fail in their attempts to reach the EU would remain in Serbia. The majority of respondents were against the establishment of accommodation facil-ities for refugees and migrants close to their home. Attitudes were characterised by mixed feelings, with respondents feeling compassion but also fears and concerns about potential terrorists or inability of refu-gees and migrants to fit in the society.

Attitudes toward long-term integration differed from one region to the other. In the north of the country, the attitudes towards refugees and migrants surfaced as cold and rational, mostly defined from a humanitar-ian and security perspective, while there was a higher degree of empathy in the south for people who have lost their homes. Poverty and underdevelopment were seen in both the north and the south as the primary is-sues impeding migrant integration, there was no clear idea of how refugees and migrants could contribute to development of local communities, and international donations were perceived as the only potential, short-term benefit to local communities. As a conclusion, preconditions that would decrease the resistance of receiving communities toward integration would be an even distribution of refugees and migrants, direct benefit of local population from assistance given to new arrivals, and the consultation and education the local population about the allocation of refugees and migrants in their region.


16

Local economic development, including livelihood op-portunities is crucial for building the resilience of com-munities that face migration and displacement, and to counter their aid dependency. This session explored what can be done to create conditions in which mi-grants and refugees can strive towards self-sufficien-cy, but also how remittances can be harnessed to the benefit of communities of origin.

Moderators Ms. Sheila Marnie, Programme Advisor in the Sustainable Development Team of UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub, and Mr. Riad Meddeb, Policy and Pro-gramme Specialist for Economic Recovery at UNDP New York, set the tone of the discussion which moved from emergency response to sustainable solutions. They highlighted the importance of both vertical and national policies that would provide a strong frame-work for municipal interventions, and of encouraging remittances and private partnerships in the integra-tion of migrants and refugees into the labour market.

Starting with the Western Balkan context, Ms. Son-ja Licht, President of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence, stated that most countries in the region have now concluded the re-admittance agreements with the European Union, and around 20,000 Roma

are expected to return in the next years. The Roma, traditionally a population on the move, have either re-turned voluntarily, not featuring in official statistics, or have been returned forcibly. The Roma communities have shown creativity in solving problems and are or-ganising themselves, for example by founding a Roma Cooperative, and Roma Association that has worked, for example, to legalise settlements – an important message to Roma that their homes would not be de-stroyed. In summary, Ms. Licht suggested that while local level and European engagement to re-integrate the Roma population is notable, the national level commitment is still lacking.

In the Moldovan context, according to Mr. Vasile To-fan, Mayor of Vorniceni, outward labour migration and the consequent population depletion can pose a chal-lenge to smaller municipalities, that find themselves struggling with upholding basic services. Vorniceni, a town of 5000 people has witnessed a lot of migra-tion due to lack of employment and development opportunities, low income and high living costs. En-couraging returning migration and investment of re-mittances to maintain municipal services for the pop-ulation left behind became of primary importance. In collaboration with UNDP and the Swiss Agency

vI. managIng mIgratIon and dIsPlaCement for PosItIve develoPment ImPaCtsCREATING LIVELIHOODS AND EMPLOYMENT, AND ENGAGING THE DIASPORA

“The Roma are returning to a country declared safe – but not free of discrimination, and with slim chances of finding work”sonja lichtBelgrade Fund for Political Excellence

“It is important to keep contact with [emigrated] migrants and increase their trust in local authorities and their will to return”vasile tofani, Vorniceni

Conference Report

17

for Development and Cooperation, the municipality established the function of a migration focal point, whose task is to maintain a migration database that includes information on migrated citizens, their coun-tries of destination, their family members left behind and their contact details. By keeping communication with the migrants and their families, the municipality has demonstrated its investment in the families, thus increasing the trust of the migrants in the authorities, and encouraging their return. A hometown associa-tion also functions as a bridge between the migrated and local community, by supporting families, hosting common activities, and serving as a platform for idea sharing, innovation and migrant engagement in local development. Moreover, migrants and their families have been included in the long-term socio-econom-ic planning of the municipality, and council meetings are broadcast online, to render all public and admin-istrative activities are transparent. The next step is to initiate an online crowdfunding platform dedicated to infrastructure projects, to help complement the strict-ly allocated central funds.

Sharing some good practices of involving diaspora in local development from the Mexican context, Ms. Jes-sica Hagen-Zanker, Research Fellow at The Overseas Development Institute, pointed out that engaging mi-grants in the development of their home communi-ties gives them a sense of belonging and link to their origin. With the Mexico–US migration corridor being the largest in the world, remittances form a big part of support to the communities left at home. Mexico is an example of engaging both local and central level in harnessing the benefits of remittances, through the 3 to 1 programme, which pledges federal and munici-pal authorities to give one peso for local development toward every peso given by an individual migrant. This initiative has revived so-called ghost towns by allocat-ing remittances into local development, education, health and infrastructure. The evaluation and approval of investments is done by a committee that consists of hometown associations, and local and federal gov-ernment representatives – thus the scheme includes collaboration between three different levels of stake-holders. However, the model is not an effective pov-erty-reduction method, as collective remittances are still dwarfed by individual investments (around 1% of funds sent home), and as poorer and less-populated municipalities remain outside the reach of remittanc-es. In conclusion, diaspora can indeed be beneficial for the development of the community, though this will not address pre-existing inequalities. It was noted that Moldova had experimented with a similar initiative; however, more efficient national policies to leverage migrant income into local development is required.

Moving to employment creation and engaging pri-vate partnerships, Mr. Yannick Du Pont, Director of the Dutch NGO Sparks and Co-Chair of Solution Alli-ance on Private Partnerships, underlined the impor-tance of vertical policies: without national policies, any local initiative has low impact. Nevertheless, it is up to political will of local drivers, namely mayors and community leaders, to have a vision and scale

up initiatives with support from government agen-cies. Regarding horizontal partnerships, Mr. Du Pont recommend learning lessons from the private sector, which is better positioned to move quickly for results in project implementation. In terms of employment of migrant populations, focus should be on entrepre-neurship: currently top performers of SMEs in Europe are migrant enterprises. Examples of successful initia-tives include matching of entrepreneurs and sponsors and start-up funds, and Dutch employment agencies investing in employing Syrian refugees in Turkey. Mi-grants and long-term refugees should be seen as de-velopment actors: through long-term planning and legalisation of access to labour market, it is possible to tap into the economic potential of human mobility for development. Scattered ad hoc schemes should be evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness. Moreover, it is imperative to involve the migrant community throughout the process, from planning to implemen-tation.

Continuing with the theme of national policies for more efficient local response, Ms. Berna Bayazit, Pro-gramme Manager at UNDP Turkey, presented the case example of Turkey. Of the 2.5 million Syrians living in Turkey, 90% live outside of camps and have a huge impact on service delivery. About 50% of the Syrian population live in border towns, which have their own challenges regarding employment and education. In the absence of a central government response, what other stakeholders such as local NGOs can do has a limited impact. One step is to speed up work permits and registration of refugees and migrants. Otherwise, the absence of a proper registration system leads to an expansion of the informal market. Line ministries need to take an active part in employment policies and their capacities need to be expanded. Presenting the findings of a UNDP study on the “Labor Absorption Capacity for Syrian Workforce in Southeast Turkey”, Ms. Bayazit concluded that the Syrian population in Tur-key is characterised by a low educational level, limited labour skill set and young demography. To absorb the Syrian influx effect, around 400,000 new jobs will have to be created in the region in the next three years. The smooth integration of the Syrians under temporary protection into the labour market depends largely on intervention tools targeting social and business infra-structure, skill development for the Syrian population, investor attraction, SME support and corporate social responsibility.


18

“Cooperation can sometimes be seen as problem, discussions are lost in translation of bureaucracy, and people have no time to sit down and build a common strategy – but this is a technical problem. There is no need to invent the wheel again: if there are mechanisms [in other municipalities], they should be used”shqiprim arifiPreševo

“Networking itself is a way to cooperate: pool resources, share knowledge and best practices, set up twinning of local administrative partners and shadowing programmes… there are also examples of strategic alliances between municipalities that joined forces for fund acquisition and awareness-raising and gave a credible partner for donor communities”joachim rothNALAS

Mutual support between municipalities that expe-rience different forms of human mobility is ben-eficial in managing migration and displacement effectively. The discussions in this session revolved around increasing the dialogue and cooperation between municipalities and regions to generate in-novative, effective and inclusive development solu-tions.

Migration is often portrayed as the movement of populations from across the borders of countries, when in fact, as session moderator Ms. Cécile Rial-lant, Head of Programme Management Unit at the Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI), illustrated, migration rather involves the movement of a group of people from one specific location in

the country of origin to another location in the country of destination. The way in which migrants act as bridges between localities is not appropri-ately captured in policies at the national or local level. There are global examples of good practices of cooperation and partnership of migrants not just within the boundaries of a country, but between countries of origin and destination. It is therefore interesting to explore how cooperation can take place throughout the migration cycle, and not only look at the perceived final destination. For example, in Costa Rica and Nicaragua, where national lev-el cooperation is not necessarily easy to conceive, local level collaboration has managed to mobilise authorities to address the shortcomings of central level decision-making.

FOSTERING DECENTRALISED COOPERATION AMONG MUNICIPALITIES

Conference Report

19

To begin the discussion, Mr. Shqiprim Arifi, Mayor of Preševo in Serbia, went back to the crisis of 2015 and observed the issue from three perspectives: the global, the local, and the perspective of refu-gees and local inhabitants. According to the may-or, displacement is a worldwide phenomenon that requires global thinking to address, however local the action may be. In the context of Preševo, the municipality saw 8–10,000 of refugees daily at the height of the crisis, and being a post-conflict, mi-nority area, this influx created instability and threat-ened the service delivery of the municipality. From the perspective of the ordinary people, there was a welcoming solidarity culture in the municipality, and local citizens along with NGOs did their best to handle the situation. While Preševo received the help of the international community, Mr. Arifi un-derlined that the municipality has to be more pre-ventive and prepared for similar situations. There is indeed a demand for cross-municipal cooperation in strengthening municipal capacity, especially in border locations such as Preševo, which was the next stop from Macedonian Kumanovo on the Bal-kan route.

To shed some light on the mechanisms of municipal cooperation, Mr. Cemal Baş, Economist in the Union of Municipalities of Turkey, spoke of joining forces to generate more income from central tax shares and to advocate for local needs to the national level. Cre-ating local municipal associations is extremely ben-eficial for the individual municipality. By pooling re-sources into an association and engaging experts to design effective interventions, all parties concerned fare better than with individual efforts. The challenge in bringing municipalities together: MoUs, protocols and common projects may well exist, but the next step to take is institutionalising the local associations into a legal entity, a local government association (LGA) that can lobby common causes, deliver accu-rate needs-assessments and indicate funding gaps to the central government. Municipalities may also create theme-based LGAs concerned with one spe-cific topic such as tourism or migration. What is im-portant is choosing the leadership of the LGA based on merit, and involving not only politicians but also experienced municipal personnel. To ensure income generation for the LGA, fees can be collected before central tax share distribution. Moreover, to engage all municipalities, it is important to keep the activ-ity clearly non-politicised. Mr. Baş gave an example from Turkey, where the joint effort between political parties on the local level enabled a common law suit against the government, resulting in noteworthy amount of income for the municipalities. Political differences were overcome by negotiating stances to different questions in a representative, executive board. Finally, the LGA facilitates communication and aligned advocacy toward the international com-

munity, and enables participation in global local actors such as United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG).

Mr. Matteo Biffoni, Mayor of Prato in Italy and Na-tional Appointee for Immigration Issues of the Na-tional Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) also agreed that there is need for inter-municipal collaboration to exchange best practices for more efficient integration of migrants and refugees. To-gether, municipalities can collect data, create and manage a common database for improved service delivery, organise education and promote local net-works. The model of scattered reception of refugees and migrants SPRAR, piloted in Italy, is one example of cooperation between municipalities. Local associ-ations can also press the central governments to act in cooperation with each other more than they have now. Moreover, local authorities should have more direct access to funding.

Another perspective on municipal association net-works was introduced by Mr. Joachim Roth, EU Of-ficer and Integrated Expert CIM/GiZ at the Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe (NALAS). NALAS is a network that brings to-gether 16 associations that represent roughly 9000 local authorities, directly elected by more than 80 million citizens of the region. It promotes the pro-cess of decentralisation, builds partnerships in order to contribute to the reconciliation and stabilisation process in the region and through that contributes to the process of the European integration of the whole region. NALAS focuses primarily on local fi-nances, urban planning, waste management, insti-tutional development, and energy efficiency. As an example, NALAS has provided a set of indicators for the region for the process of fiscal decentralisation, which is the most essential step in the decentralisa-tion process. This was highlighted during the migra-tion crisis, when the central government delegated responsibility to municipalities but did not provide the mental or financial competencies required. Na-tional associations proved irreplaceable, as smaller municipalities asked for their help, and they could provide municipalities with needs-assessments, shared experiences, and awareness raising of the role of the local governments. While the communi-cation from the central level was, according to Mr. Roth, somewhat dismissive, local authorities were left to their own means regarding emergency funds, tools and machinery and concrete help. Now that the issue of migration, displacement and resilience has been raised, local authority associations and networks can actively seek new resources, create employment and through that new funding oppor-tunities, and keep the momentum going to institu-tionalise the human rights and inclusive approach to their local planning.


20

“There are many investors out there who really want to be involved in these kind of human issues, of course they want return but a really moderate return – they really want to achieve positive changes in society, and they have a much longer time span in mind when thinking of these investments… I really encourage you to identify the goals which can be achieved in the next 5–10 years, and then find those investors who are willing to step in”mika PyykköSitra

The final session of the conference dealt with fi-nancing municipal efforts to increase resilience and implement sustainable development solutions. Moderator Ms. Steliana Nedera, Deputy Resident Representative at UNDP Serbia, proposed three guiding thoughts for the panel discussion: first, mu-nicipalities are learning from the crisis to build and create new units and add new capacities; second, an interdepartmental response that connects silos is important; and third, planning long-term is inherent in building resilience.

The discussion began with an introduction of the innovative mechanism of impact investing. As ex-plained by Mr. Mika Pyykkö, Head of Focus Area, Impact Investing at the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, impact investing is a funding and operating model that develops new solutions to address the challenges that society faces, whether on national or local level. Stepping up collaboration among the public and private sectors and social enterprises, the model steers private equity towards projects aimed at promoting societal well-being. The rationale be-hind this model is that public and private sectors are too distant from one another: the financial and so-

cial costs of social issues are mainly being borne by states and municipalities that are increasingly inca-pable to cope with such costs. Simultaneously, there is a growing number of investors who are willing to invest not only for financial return, but from a sense of social responsibility. In this model, all activities are funded by the private sector. Once the public sector identifies the specific need, plans the activities and indicators for measuring success, the private sector gets involved through so-called social impact bonds. A return on investment is only paid after certain predefined investment objectives have been met. Similarly, the state or a municipality will only pay for achieved, measurable outcomes. Impact investing provides the public sector with the tools it needs to manage growing costs and save money. It also en-ables a focus on prevention and promotion: instead of repairing and taking care of symptoms, it enables dealing with root causes of societal challenges.

Mr. Matteo Rivellini, Head of Division, Public Sector, Slovenia, Croatia and W. Balkans from the European Investment Bank (EIB), started by introducing the European Union’s bank: EIB works closely with oth-er EU institutions to implement EU policy. As the

FUNDING RESILIENCE AND RESILIENT BUDGETING

Conference Report

21

largest multilateral borrower and lender by volume, EIB provides finance and expertise for sound and sustainable investment projects that contribute to furthering EU policy objectives. EIB helps catalyse in-vestments by lending and offering guarantees, com-bining EIB finance with EU budgeting and advising in the preparation, evaluation and support of project implementation. During the migrant and refugee cri-sis, EIB carried out a needs assessment by contacting key public and private counterparts hit by the refu-gee crisis to understand their financial needs both in short and medium and long-term. Subsequently, EIB offered debt – instead of grants – for refugee-related expenditures. As an overall approach, EIB aimed to address migration and displacement in Europe and along the refugee routes, as well as the root causes in the countries of origin. It was observed that funding for refugee-related expenditures was still very much grant based for short-term needs, and politically sen-sitive – the conclusion being that blending loans and grants, and investment benefitting migrants, refugees and local population alike was needed.

However, the public sector actions were still driven by emergency with no long-term planning. This led to the new resilience-focused initiative with the aim to support regions outside of Europe affected by the migrant and refugee crisis, and to address the root causes of migration. Building economic resilience for migrants, refugees and host communities is seen to happen by addressing the aggravated need for infrastructure and related services, and by boosting employment opportunities for host and migrant and refugee communities by providing support to the private sector (SMEs, corporate and microf-inance). Regarding target volumes, 7.5 billion is al-ready planned, along with 6 billion of additional EIB

lending, catalysing totally 15 billion EIB investment, and mobilising totally 35 billion of investment, with the timeframe of 2016–2020. Focus sectors are water, sanitation and waste, post-disaster/conflict recovery and risk reduction, SMEs and microenterprises, ener-gy, transport, health, education and housing.

The final speaker of the panel presented the Euro-pean Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), a multilateral development bank set up to foster transition to sustainable economies. Ms. Susan Smith, Principal Adviser for Policy and Partnerships, outlined EBRD’s focus on private sector development and market-based solutions. EBRD is not a donor agency, nor a humanitarian agency, but can work to improve resilience of municipalities and commu-nities by promoting jobs and economic growth. In terms of the current migrant and refugee situation, EBRD has issued a financing package that focuses on the Syrian refugees in Jordan and Turkey. The funds are directed to municipal response and provision of services in municipalities (e.g. waste, water, urban transport). As local authorities are the key to the suc-cess of municipal resilience, EBRD aims at strength-ening the local level, and favours direct loan to mu-nicipalities instead of working on the central level. Currently direct collaboration is done with well-de-veloped municipalities, but the EBRD has also sup-ported entrepreneurism and small businesses, and established credit lines targeting municipalities, as-sisting the entire community – not just funding in-terventions for migrants and refugees, but endorsing municipal investments that reach everyone. The pri-vate sector can be incentivised to support the inclu-sion of migrants and refugees into the labour market. The goal is to create an ecosystem of inclusion that will survive when donors exit the scene.


22

Mr. Rastislav Vrbensky, Manager of UNDP Istan-bul Regional Hub, congratulated the participants of the conference on a lively discussion full of posi-tive examples of hands-on work that has been done concerning migration, displacement and building municipal resilience. The two days took stock of challenges of the migration and refugee crisis on the local level, and gave a platform for sharing mayor-al experiences. The discussions also underlined that resilient municipalities go hand-in-hand with the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. What was often repeat-ed was the necessity to proceed with the decen-tralisation process, and increase independency and leadership role at local level. Measures that can be taken to create livelihoods involve the private sector, access finances creatively and collaboratively, and are born from an analysis of labour market skills and needs. Financing can be sourced in innovative ways, and by involving the private sector. Employment is also crucial in maintaining social cohesion: work has to be done against discrimination and xenophobia. In conclusion, Mr. Vrbensky hoped that successful cooperation between participants will continue, and that the discussion on municipal resilience will broaden from concerning migration and displace-ment to other sources of shocks and stresses.

Ms. Irena Vojáčková-Sollorano, UN Resident Coor-dinator Serbia, concluded by stating that shocks can

sometimes be useful for a community, as it awakens people to critically inspect the traditional ways of op-erating and make changes to them. The migration crisis provided a momentum for different actors to come together to the conference and discuss the cri-sis, but also the long-term solutions needed. Migra-tion and displacement are concerns for all the coun-tries in the region, whether in the form of incoming migrants and refugees or people leaving the region. Over the two days it was also noted that many great ideas do not need upfront funding: sometimes it is enough to inspire people with innovative ideas and attract funding in the long run.

It was concluded that the conference succeeded in providing a platform for improved coordination between municipalities and increased information and knowledge-sharing for better contingency and recovery planning. The active and extensive partic-ipation was a demonstration of the importance of municipal resilience to development in the region, the impact of UNDP work at local level, the strength of partnerships and the importance of the focus on municipal resilience. It was decided with the EU representative and participants that this should be-come a yearly event. For UNDP, the conference re-affirmed the need to continue its support for local level governance and development in the migration domain, and municipal resilience in the region.

vII. ClosIng remarks

Conference Report

23

annex I agenda

08.30 – 09.00 Registration

09.00 – 09.20

Opening Remarks

mr. rastislav vrbensky, Manager, UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub mr. Ivan bošnjak, State Secretary, Ministry of Public

Administration and Local Self-Government of the Republic of Serbia mr. nenad Ivanišević, State Secretary, Ministry of

Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia mr. andreja mladenović, Deputy Mayor of Belgrade

Chair: ms. Irena vojáčková-sollorano, UN Resident Coordinator Serbia

09.20 – 09.40 Family Photo and Press Statements

october 4th – DAY 1


24

Introductory Panel

09.40 – 11.10

An introductory panel discussion on two themes:

migration, displacement and resilience How can resilience be defined in the context of migra-tion and displacement? What are the characteristics of a resilient municipality? How can municipalities prepare for various types of migratory movements? How do mi-gration and displacement tie into the 2030 Agenda and Social Development Goals?

Harnessing the development potential of migration and displacement How do migration and displacement stress a communi-ty, and what points of development and capacity gaps does the fluctuation in populations help identify? How can migration and displacement be leveraged in favour of the development of a municipality? What are the pos-sibilities that migrants, returnees, diaspora and refugees offer?

Panelists: mr. matteo biffoni, Mayor of Prato, National Appointee

of the ANCI for Immigration Issues mr. claude cahn, Advisor to the UN Resident

Coordinator, UN Office of the Resident Coordinator in Serbia mr. jason Pronyk, Development Coordinator, Sub-

Regional Response Facility for Syria Crisis, UNDP Arab States Regional Hub ms. cécile riallant, Head of Programme Management

Unit, JMDI mr. alain scribain, Principal Adviser in DG Migration

and Home Affairs, European Commission

Moderator: ms. sonja licht, President of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence

11.10 – 11.30 Coffee Break

Conference Report

25

Resilience-based development solutions

11.30 – 13.00Session 1understanding the immediate impact of the migrant and refugee crisis on host and transit municipalitiesPanel with representatives from affected munic-ipalities across the region. What were the chal-lenges presented and capacity gaps exposed by the migrant and refugee crisis? What examples of best practices of crisis management did the municipalities find?

Panelists:

ms. francesca bonelli, Senior Field Coordinator, UNHCR mr. robert fejstamer, Mayor of Kanjiža mr. Ivan frangov, Mayor of Gevgelija mr. andrija rudić, Mayor of Kutina mr. Önder Yalçın, Head of Migration Office, Gaziantep

Moderator: ms. louisa vinton, UN Resident Coordinator, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 – 15.30

Session 2focusing on the long-term: mainstreaming mi-gration and displacement into municipal ser-vice delivery planning and building resilient municipal servicesMainstreaming various forms of migration and displacement into local service planning ensures that a community moves from immediate, short-term responses to long-term development solu-tions, in line with human rights standards. This session addresses how institutions can strength-en their capacity to deliver services consistent-ly, transparently, efficiently, and in line with the varying needs of affected women, men, and chil-dren..

Themes: Ensuring the rights to water and sanitation for all

through waste management and water supply; Realising the right to health, including access to health

services for women and girls; Identification of the needs of the most vulnerable:

women, children, persons with disabilities and refugees, to address their needs through appropriate municipal services and interventions; Raising human rights standards in providing legal aid

and psychosocial support to migrants and vulnerable groups in the host communities.

Panelists:

mr. abdullah aksoy, Head of Health and Social Service Department, Gaziantep ms. valentina aleksovska, Secretary General,

Kumanovo ms. Ivana buljan ajelić, Legal Advisor to

Ombudswoman of Croatia mr. Ivica jović, Assistant Chairman, Head of the Council

for Migration and Durable Solutions, Šid dr. santino severoni, Coordinator, Public Health and

Migration, WHO Regional Office for Europe

Moderator: ms. fiona mcCluney, UN Resident Coordinator Montenegro



26

16.00 – 17.30

Session 3maintaining and advancing social cohe-sionSocial cohesion is undermined by discrim-ination, xenophobia, exclusion, and unre-solved tensions between different groups of people. These may vary from individuals who have emigrated and decide to return, to internally displaced people, international migrants, and refugees. What measures can be taken to strengthen the social resilience of communities that face returning popula-tions, migration or displacement? How can the gender perspective be included in com-batting the discrimination, attitudes and ex-clusion experienced by men and women?

Panelists:

mr. Patrik möllerström, Head of Unit, Department of Labour, Municipality of Trelleborg mr. Žarko Petrović, Portfolio manager, UNDP Serbia ms. mersiha smailovikj, Legal and Protection Officer,

Legis

Moderator: mr. ugo Poli, Project Manager, Central European Initiative

20.00 Reception at Top of the Hub

Conference Report

27

09.30 – 11.00

Session 4Creating livelihoods and employmentEstablishing livelihood opportunities is crucial for building the resilience of communities that face migration and displacement, and to count-er their aid dependency. What can be done to create conditions in which migrants and refu-gees can strive towards self-sufficiency? How can remittances be harnessed to the benefit of the origin communities? What steps can be taken to reintegrate returnees? The session will include discussion on innovation and creating partner-ships, empowerment of vulnerable groups, and the recent UNDP Turkey study “Absorptive Ca-pacity and Potential of the Local Labor Markets”.

Panelists:

He mr. arlind Zeqiri, Minister for Foreign Investments, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ms. berna bayazit, Programme Manager, UNDP Turkey mr. Yannick du Pont, NGO Sparks, Co-Chair of Solution

Alliance on Private Partnerships ms. jessica Hagen-Zanker, Research Fellow, The

Overseas Development Institute ms. sonja licht, President of the Belgrade Fund for

Political Excellence mr. vasile tofan, Mayor of Vorniceni

Moderators:ms. sheila marnie, Programme Advisor, Sustainable Development Team, UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub mr. riad meddeb, Policy and Programme Specialist, UNDP New York


october 5th – DAY 2

Managing migration and displacementfor positive development impacts


28

11.30 – 13.00

Session 5

fostering decentralised cooperation among municipalitiesMutual support between municipalities that ex-perience different forms of human mobility (re-turnees, migrants and displaced people) is ben-eficial in managing migration and displacement effectively. How can increased dialogue between municipalities and regions generate innovative, effective and inclusive development solutions? How can local governments join their forces to develop their service delivery? What shared goals can be identified?

Panelists:

mr. shqiprim arifi, Mayor of Preševo mr. Cemal baş, Economist, Union of Municipalities of

Turkey mr. matteo biffoni, Mayor of Prato, National Appointee

of the ANCI for Immigration Issues mr. joachim roth, EU Officer, Integrated Expert CIM/

GIZ, Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

Moderator: ms. Cécile riallant, Head of Programme Management Unit, JMDI

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 – 15.30

Session 6

funding resilience and resilient budgetingHow can municipalities finance their efforts to increase their resilience and implement sustainable development solutions? In which ways can municipalities increase the predictability of their public financing to in-clude the fluctuations of population? What innovative solutions can be shared?

Panelists:

mr. mika Pyykkö, Social Impact Bonds, SITRA mr. matteo rivellini, Head of Division, Public Sec-

tor, Slovenia, Croatia and W. Balkans, European In-vestment Bank ms. susan smith, Principal Adviser, Policy and

Partnerships, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Moderator: ms. steliana nedera, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Serbia

15.30 – 16.00Closing Remarks and Way Forward

mr. rastislav vrbensky, Manager UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub

Conference Report

29

annex II lIst of PartICIPants

NAME POSITION INSTITUTION/COUNTRY

1 Dr. Aksoy Abdullah Head of Health and Social Service Department

Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality, Turkey

2 Ms. Aleksovska Valentina Secretary General Municipality of Kumanovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

3 Mr. Arifi Shqiprim Chairman of the Municipality

Municipality of Preševo, Serbia

4 Mr. Baş Cemal Economist Union of Municipalities of Turkey

5 Ms. Bayazit Berna Programme Manager UNDP Turkey

6 Mr. Biffoni Matteo Mayor of Prato, National Appointee of the ANCI for Immigration Issues

Municipality of Prato, Italy

7 Mr. Bizel Nicolas Head of Section Operations Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia

8 Ms. Bonelli Francesca Senior Field Coordinator UNHCR Representation in Serbia

9 Ms. Bonja Ledia Director of Local Competences Sector, Prefecture

Municipality of Korça, Albania

10 Mr. Bošnjak Ivan State Secretary Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government of the Republic of Serbia

11 Ms. Boyer Glaucia Policy Specialist, Partnerships, Reintegration and Livelihoods

UNDP Geneva, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support

12 Ms. Bradić Donatella Regional Project Manager International Organization for Migration (IOM)

13 Ms. Brendel Sabine First Secretary Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Republic of Serbia

14 Mr. Buljan Ajelic Ivana Legal Affairs Advisor to the Ombudswoman

Ombudsman Office of Croatia

15 Mr. Cadjo Sinisa Project Management specialist

USAID

16 Mr. Cahn Claude Advisor to the UN Resident Coordinator in Serbia

UN Office of the Resident Coordinator

17 Ms. Cazacu Olesea Project Manager UNDP Moldova

18 Mr. Chaigneau Yohann Corporate Planner European Investment Bank


30


19 Ms. Cuković Anne-Maria UNV Education in Emergency Officer

UNICEF

20 Ms. Dakash Susanna Consultant, Governance and Peacebuilding Cluster

UNDP Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS

21 Mr. Damjanovski Zoran Mayor of Kumanovo Municipality of Kumanovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

22 Ms. Demšer Gordana Legal and Political Advisor, Head of Office of the Secretary General

Regional Cooperation Council

23 Mr. di Marco Christophe Sector Fund Manager, Open Regional Funds for South-East Europe - Modernization of Municipal Services (ORF MMS)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

24 Mr. Dimitrov Vladica Chairman of the Municipality

Municipality of Dimitrovgrad, Serbia

25 Mr. Dokuzovski Dejan Migration and Development Advisor

UNDP the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

26 Mr. Dragisić Miodrag Assistant Resident Representative

UNDP Montenegro

27 Mr. Du Pont Yannick Director SPARK

28 Mr. Đukanović Ilija Member of City Council, Social Issues

Municipality of Subotica, Serbia

29 Mr. Đurov Zoran Deputy Chairman of Municipality

Municipality of Dimitrovgrad, Serbia

30 Ms. Dzuteska-Bisheva

Vesna Employment Advisor, Sustainable Development Team


31 Mr. Fejstamer Robert Mayor Municipality of Kanjiža, Serbia

32 Mr. Frangov Ivan Mayor Municipality of Gevgelija, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

33 Mr. Gavrilović Dejan Intern UNDP Serbia

34 Ms. Gerdovci Yllka Portfolio Manager for Inclusive Growth Team

UNDP Kosovo*

35 Dr. Hagen-Zanker Jessica Research Fellow The Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

36 Ms. Hansen Eriksen

Sondre Intern Embassy of Norway in the Republic of Serbia

37 Mr. Hisashi Yamasaki Analyst on Economic Affairs Embassy of Japan in the Republic of Serbia

38 Mr. Husein Orhan Team Leader of RCC Roma Integration 2020

Regional Cooperation Council

* References to Kosovo shall be understood to be in the context of Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).

Conference Report

31


39 Mr. Ikonomi Estevan National Programme Officer UNDP Albania

40 Mr. Iskin Mehmet Programme Assistant UNDP Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS

41 Mr. Ivanišević Nenad State Secretary Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia

42 Ms. Jasarević Marijana Operations Officer The World Bank Serbia

43 Ms. Jeremić Borka RC Coordination Specialist UN Office of the Resident Coordinator

44 Mr. Jović Ivica Assistant Chairman of Municipality

Municipality of Šid, Serbia

45 Mr. Kita Kletjon General Director of Local Taxes and Fees

Municipality of Korça, Albania

46 Mrs. Koller Brigitte Team Leader Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

47 Ms. Koracević Verica Head of Office Spark

48 Ms. Kuchar Brigitte Programme Manager for Migration

Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia

49 Mr. Lacko Robert Coordinator for Migration Affairs; President of the Local Community

Municipality of Kanjiža, Serbia

50 Mr. Lapa Aurel Vice Mayor Municipality of Gjirokaster, Albania

51 Ms. Lecardonnel Margaux Partnership consultant, EIB Focal Point

UNDP Brussels

52 Ms. Leonardi Severine Deputy Representative UNICEF Serbia

53 Ms. Licht Sonja President Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence

54 Ms. Maric Luković Jelena Resilience Programming Assistant

UNDP Serbia

55 Ms. Marković Momira Communication Assistant UNDP Serbia

56 Ms. Marnie Sheila Programme Advisor, Sustainable Development Team


57 Mr. Masayoshi Yamato First Secretary Embassy of Japan in the Republic of Serbia

58 Ms. McCluney Fiona UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative

UNDP Montenegro

59 Mr. Meddeb Riad Policy Advisor, Economic Recovery

UNDP Headquarters

60 Ms. Miculescu Simona-Mirela

Representative of the Secretary-General, Head of Office

UN Office in Belgrade


32


61 Ms. Milković Anica Technical Advisor UN Women

62 Mr. Mladenović Andreja Deputy Mayor Municipality of Belgrade, Serbia

63 Mr. Möllerström Patrik Head of Unit, Department of Labour

Municipality of Trelleborg, Sweden

64 Ms. Mörel Burcu UNV Programme Focal Point

UN Volunteers Turkey

65 Ms. Nedera Steliana Deputy Resident Representative

UNDP Serbia

66 Ms. Nègre Dubravka Head of Regional Representation for the Western Balkans

European Investment Bank

67 Ms. Pantović Olivera Senior Project Manager Migration for Development


68 Mr. Perović Marko International Organization for Migration (IOM)

69 Mr. Pesić Dimitrije Associate Protection Officer UNHCR Representation in Serbia

70 Mr. Petronijević Vladimir Executive Director Group 484

71 Mr. Petrović Žarko Portfolio Manager, Rule of Law and Access to Justice

UNDP Serbia

72 Ms. Petrović Monika Project Officer International Organization for Migration (IOM)

73 Mr. Poli Ugo Project Manager Central European Initiative

74 Ms. Pozder-Čengić

Adela Sector Leader for Rural and Regional Development

UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina

75 Mr. Pronyk Jason Development Coordinator, Sub-Regional Response Facility to The Syria Crisis

UNDP Arab States Regional Hub

76 Mr. Pyykkö Mika Head of Focus Area, Impact Investing

The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra

77 Ms. Račić Višnja Member Development Manager

National Agency for Local Economic Development

78 Ms. Raković Marija Programme Coordinator UNFPA

79 Ms. Rebić Milica Project Manager Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

80 Ms. Remiga Oksana Senior Programme Manager UNDP Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS

81 Ms. Riallant Cécile Head of Programme Management Unit

Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI)

82 Mr. Rivellini Matteo Head of Division, Public Sector – Slovenia, Croatia and Western Balkans

European Investment Bank

Conference Report

33


83 Mr. Roth Joachim EU Officer, Integrated Expert CIM/GIZ

Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe (NALAS)

84 HE Mr. Ruch Jean Daniel Ambassador Embassy of Switzerland in the Republic of Serbia

85 Mr. Rudić Andrija Mayor Municipality of Kutina, Croatia

86 Mr. Samec Michael Project Leader Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

87 Ms. Sander Jasmin Sustainable Economic Development Specialist

UNDP Serbia

88 Mr. Scriban Alain Principal Adviser in DG Migration and Home Affairs

European Commission

89 Ms. Sever Radovanović

Danijela Communication Consultant UNDP Serbia

90 Dr. Severoni Santino Coordinator, Public Health and Migration

WHO Regional Office for Europe

91 Mr. Shusterman Jeremy Emergency Specialist UNICEF Regional Office

92 Mr. Skarin Jeffrey Deputy Director USAID Office of Democratic and Economic Growth

93 Mr. Slavko Petrović

Dragan National Representative of the Republic of Serbia

Migration, Asylum, Refugees Regional Initiative

94 Ms. Smailovikj Mersiha Legal and protection officer Legis

95 Ms. Smith Susan Principal Adviser, Policy and Partnerships

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

96 Mr. Staničić Đorđe Secretary General Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

97 Ms. Stanisavljević Nataša Head of the City Secretariat for Social Protection

Municipality of Belgrade, Serbia

98 Mr. Tatalović Stevan Consultant UNDP Serbia

99 Mr. Tatalović Stevan Junior Migration Analyst Consultant

UNDP Serbia

100 Mr. Tofan Vasile Mayor Municipality of Vorniceni, Moldova

101 Ms. Tomić Marija Emergency Relief Coordinator

Ana and Vlade Divac Foundation

102 Ms. Topić Nina Procurement and Administration Associate

UNDP Serbia

103 Ms. Torov Sanja Policy Officer, Rule of Law/Migration

British Embassy Belgrade

104 Mr. Tyndall Graeme Operations Centre Manager UNOPS Serbia

105 Mr. Vasilev Petar Governance Department Swiss Development Cooperation


34


106 Ms. Vegova Ubavka Director of Communal Enterprise

Municipality of Gevgelija, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

107 Ms. Velimirović Svetlana Deputy Commissioner Commissariat for Refugees and Migration

108 Ms. Vidović Stanislava Senior Project Manager, National coordinator for Serbia


109 Ms. Vinton Louisa Resident Coordinator, Resident Representative

UNDP the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

110 Ms. Virani Zahira Deputy Resident Representative

UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina

111 Ms. Vojáčková-Sollorano

Irena Resident Coordinator, Resident Representative

UNDP Serbia

112 Mr. Vrbensky Rastislav Manager UNDP Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS

113 Mr. Vujadinović Milimir Project Manager, Regional Group for Migration

Municipality of Subotica, Serbia

114 Mr. Vujasinović Stevan Communication UNDP Serbia

115 Mrs. Vukelić Zorica Deputy Secretary General Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

116 Mrs. Vukmirović Aleksandra Head of Unit for EU Integration and International Cooperation

Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

117 Ms. Vuksanović Nemanja Intern UNDP Serbia

118 Mr. Williams Brian Resident Coordinator, Resident Representative

UNDP Albania

119 Ms. Wolff Valerie Migration and Development International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)

120 Mr. Yalçın Önder Head of Migration Office Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality, Turkey

121 Mr. Zaharijev Vladimir Chairman of the Municipality

Municipality of Bosilegrad, Serbia

122 Mr. Žarev Danijel Member of the Municipal Council

Municipality of Bosilegrad, Serbia

123 Ms. Zecević Jelena Intern UNDP Serbia

124 Mr. Zivković Milos Project Coordinator Ana and Vlade Divac Foundation

125 Dr. Zveržhanovski Ivan Programme Specialist, Citizen Security & SGBV


Conference Report

35


36

20

Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Conference Report€¦ · vice providers. This crisis has put untenable pressure on transit and...

Documents