Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005

Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005

http://www.bosnia2005.org

Senior Advisory Board Wolfgang Petritsch Geneva Sonja Biserko Belgrade Lakhdar Brahimi Algiers Erhard Busek Brussels Daniel Cohn-Bendit Frankfurt Jovan Divjak Sarajevo Marrack Goulding Oxford Sonja Licht Belgrade Bozidar Matic Sarajevo Predrag Matvejevic Rome Tadeusz Mazowiecki Warsaw José Maria Mendiluce Barcelona Vreni Müller-Hemmi Zurich Manfred Nowak Vienna James C. O’Brien Washington, D.C. Jasmina Pasalic Bern Christian Schwarz-Schilling Berlin Ramesh Thakur Tokyo

International Conference for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Second Phase (2005)

Summary The Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005 was established in the fall of 2003 as a support mechanism to facilitate domestic and international dialogue on the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It provides a framework for analysts, scholars, and professionals to influence the policy process through policy-relevant research and debate. The Association gathers established figures as well as emerging voices in an internally-driven process that is closely focused on promoting ownership-oriented strategies during a period that will prove critical for the country’s future development and its very existence as a viable state. The Association aims to stimulate a debate based on facts, not partisanship. By facilitating informed debate rather than advocating specific solutions, it intends to act as a catalyst for effective, policy-relevant ideas to emerge and gain influence at a time when the country is in urgent need of a vision to achieve full, sovereign statehood. In 2005, a major international conference will mark ten years of peace, a milestone in any transition from post-conflict recovery to statebuilding and development. The process leading up to these outputs will in itself be an important achievement by steering research in a policy-relevant direction; this will be accomplished through the publication of papers emanating from the Association’s first research seminar, held in Sarajevo in May 2004, and through issue-focused task forces involving researchers and policymakers aiming to prepare the 20-21 October 2005 Geneva conference. These task forces will engage in original research on topics critical to the future development of Bosnia. A list of task forces can be found on p. 6 of this document.

1. Introduction p. 2 2. Vision and overall goals p. 4 3. Activities p. 6 4. Deliverables p. 9 5. Organisation p. 11 6. Monitoring and evaluation p. 13


2/13

1. Introduction 1.1. Background and context The process of political and social reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia) is at a crossroads. The massive international assistance that has supported the country’s recovery after the 1992-95 war is dwindling; many international agencies, non-governmental organisations, bilateral donors and think-tanks are reducing their field presence and have begun to hand over parts of their mandates to domestic counterparts. Bosnian political and administrative structures are gradually being entrusted with many of the tasks previously assigned to international bodies under the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia (GFAP), but often lack the capacity to effectively manage their expanded portfolios. Effective operations are also frequently impeded by political contestation, interference, and lack of transparency. The cumbersome system of governance created by the GFAP—notably its Annex 4, which contains the country’s constitution—is increasingly being recognised as an obstacle to the long-term development of Bosnia, and many analysts agree that the various government structures in Bosnia are in urgent need of fundamental reform. The approaching tenth anniversary of the GFAP in 2005 puts these issues in sharp relief but also provides an opportunity to take stock of past achievements and future challenges. The academic literature on transition processes often includes an implicit assumption that such transitions—from war to peace, from command to market economies, from single-party systems to open societies—are essentially completed within ten years. By year ten, post-conflict settlements have either consolidated and given rise to permanent constitutional orders, or deteriorated into all-out conflict. In Bosnia, the picture is murkier: while any immediate security threat seems fairly remote (especially with the recently concluded defence reform and the regime changes in Zagreb and Belgrade), the institutions of government have not uniformly achieved full legitimacy, and many reform projects are only taking place thanks to continued international pressure and support. While much progress has been made—notably in the fields of refugee return, property law implementation, administrative reform, and democratisation—much also remains to be done. These interconnected processes—the ongoing transfer of responsibility from international to domestic structures, the pressing reform of the institutions of government to gain legitimacy with the citizens of Bosnia, and the need to rethink the GFAP provisions in light of emerging challenges of long-term development—are all in need of sustained analysis and intellectual guidance. It is at precisely this moment that the international community needs to reaffirm its interest in a stable Bosnia, and regional stability in the Balkans more generally. Against this background, and in light of the upcoming anniversary of the GFAP, a number of individuals have joined forces to create a process for focused analysis and policy advice. In the short to medium term, analysis and advice will relate to a much-needed refocusing of international assistance policies and primarily target international policy-makers and implementers in Bosnia; in the longer term, it will help Bosnia find its place as a full member of the European comity of states and primarily assist Bosnia’s policy-makers. The framework for such an initiative was created in the form of the Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005, founded in September 2003 in Sarajevo following a panel discussion that was opened by the Swiss Foreign Minister, Mme Micheline Calmy-Rey. Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch, the previous High Representative of the international community in Bosnia, was among the panellists, and it is on his initiative that the Association was established.1

1 http://www.bosnia2005.org/organization/doc/asbo05stat.pdf.


3/13

1.2. Problem statement The infusion of massive resources into Bosnia after 1995 has brought a measure of stability to the country and helped achieve important results in specific sectors—among them refugee return, property restitution, and administrative and judicial reform—but has failed to put the country on an irreversible course towards independent, sovereign statehood. In too many ways, Bosnia today is still desperately dependent on external resources, both financial and political. It has not returned to a politics of the normal, where party cleavages and policy disagreements dominate the political process, but rather finds itself stuck in interminable debate based on narrowly-defined identity politics. The most mundane issues are construed as a threat to the survival of one’s own group, frequently resulting in policy paralysis and prompting the High Representative to impose a solution. While there is no reason to believe that this condition is terminal, there is also no evidence that it will change spontaneously, without an external stimulus. Such stimuli have recently emerged in the form of Euro-Atlantic integration and the incipient re-thinking of the international presence in-country, both of which will require a change in the way domestic politics function. While a modification in the international community’s approach to and in Bosnia seems at hand, it is by no means clear that it will not simply reproduce the division among key actors that has afflicted their efforts over the last eight years and diminished their effectiveness. In fact, such division, ranging from operational issues to the very concept of the desirable end state of peace implementation, is a main culprit (together with domestic obstruction) for the unimpressive results that nine years of massive assistance have yielded in Bosnia. Many of the pressing problems Bosnia is facing today result from an incomplete and in places failed process of building stable, legitimate, accountable, and effective institutions of government. Support to civil service reform, tax reform, the restructuring of armed forces and the creation of new ministries and administrative structures, as well as billions of euros in reconstruction aid and assistance to returning refugees, have not resulted in a government that enjoys much legitimacy with its constituents. While the GFAP ended the war in Bosnia and provided security to its citizens over all these years—which constitutes a major achievement in itself—it did not create the conditions for successful post-war development and has made governance ineffective. The absence of any coherent vision on the part of the international support structures relating to the nature of the state that should be built has contributed considerably to the current situation. A specific sub-set of this general problem is the failure of international bodies to strategically engage with domestic actors in any meaningful way and to responsibly manage the process of gradual disengagement and transfer of authority. Some international agencies have initiated projects that are based on partnership with local government, while others continue in their customary top-down approach. This again diminishes the effectiveness of sectoral interventions and sends mixed signals to domestic institutions. It is only in the most recent period that coherent partnership approaches have been adopted in key areas of development, approaches that have not received sufficient attention on the part of analysts and policy-makers. While the failure of international support to build a viable state in Bosnia is not entirely of a conceptual nature, the lack of a coherent vision relating to the ultimate goal of the international presence in-country has rendered even well-designed and ably executed sectoral programs somewhat haphazard when considered as a whole. In other words, while the technical aspects of support programs were often implemented well, there existed no clear concept of how this fit with the overall goals of the international community in Bosnia—the creation of a fully sovereign and independent Bosnia that enjoys legitimacy with its citizens. It is in this respect that forward-looking analysis may prove most useful.


4/13

2. Vision and overall goals: 2.1. A vision and a concept: promoting partnership and ownership enhancing strategies The decline in financial resources has prompted a re-assessment of the effectiveness of past and ongoing assistance by international bodies, especially asking whether it has resulted in enhanced capacities of local structures. The balance is not favourable, and more innovative mechanisms must be found to complete the process of refugee return, to jump-start strategic economic development, and to improve governance more generally. A number of recent initiatives recognise that necessity and have been designed to achieve better results by systematically working with local structures in the articulation of sectoral needs, the design of relevant interventions, and their funding, implementation, and evaluation. For example, the SUTRA2 partnership between UNDP, the European Commission, and the Bosnia Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees has employed a co-financing model whereby funds for return are contributed from international and domestic sources (mostly the entities), based on the principle of additionality. Priority municipalities are selected according to quantitative indicators adopted by domestic authorities, and develop project proposals with strong community involvement. Such approaches constitute a logical step in the gradual shift from post-emergency recovery under international supervision towards development-oriented programming that is locally owned, with civil society participation. Sectoral activities—for example, in the return sector—must not only achieve their immediate objectives but simultaneously develop cross-cutting competencies on the part of local structures and promote the values of good governance, including transparency, accountability, responsiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Association believes that by conducting research into such understudied models, their applicability across the board (as well as in other instances) will become evident. The timeliness of this proposal is evident from the preceding sections; it is also becoming clear that its necessity is being recognised by the single most important international agency in Bosnia, the Office of the High Representative (OHR). Partners The Association has established close partnerships with a number of international agencies active in Bosnia. These include UNDP, the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, and the Austrian Development Agency, and, it is hoped, possibly SDC. The Association is actively liaising with a number of additional bodies, both international and local, to strengthen the impact of its activities in Bosnia. These partnerships go far beyond a simple funding relationship. All the agencies named above have been closely involved in shaping the research programmes of the Task Forces or activities they supported and have provided invaluable programmatic input and advice. In the first months of 2005, the Paul Schiller Stiftung, the Renner Institute, and Volkart also became partners of this project. Local stakeholders are also increasingly working along the same concept. Since 1999, in the framework of projects developed by the Forum for Democratic Alternatives, Association members have been continuously working on these issues in direct partnership with exclusively local stakeholders. Another key partnership is with the Institute for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics (LSE). This partnership, which began with a panel discussion at the LSE in early March 2 Sustainable Transfer to Return-Related Authorities.


5/13

2005, will help the Association in providing key policy advice to the European presidency (the U.K. in the second half of 2005 and Austria in the first half of 2006), together with the Renner Institute Vienna. At the political level, the Association has presented its approach to various embassies as well as Foreign Ministries in national capitals. It has met with considerable support and will continue to build on these relationships. The Association has also an excellent working relationship with the OHR in Sarajevo. 2.2. Goals and approaches The main goal of the Association is to assist the necessary process of social and political development and transfer of authority in Bosnia by providing solid analysis and strategic advice to both international and domestic stakeholders in government and civil society. The main vehicle for such analysis and advice will be an international conference on and for Bosnia, to be held 20-21 October 2005 in Geneva under the title “Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995-2005: Ten Years of Dayton and Beyond.” The conference is scheduled to mark the tenth anniversary of the GFAP. Additionally, a book will present the most innovative and thought-provoking research emerging from this project. Through its activities, the project will help overcome the contradictions and inadequacies that have marred international support policies from their very inception, many of them implicit in the Dayton accords. The Association’s founders, however, believe that the debate on a hypothetical “Dayton II” are of purely academic interest and will not contribute to an effective solution of the most pressing problems facing Bosnia today. In fact, they might divert attention from workable options to a discussion that would only raise the stakes and encourage political posturing. Instead, the Association wants to take up the challenge of overcoming Dayton’s shortcomings by implementing its provisions to the fullest extent possible wherever appropriate, and by providing longer-term options for effective political, social, and economic development within the considerable space provided by the GFAP, which would include, in the medium term, a debate on Bosnia’s constitution. This can only happen through a forward-looking analytical approach that deals resolutely and pragmatically with the conditions needed for the success of international support policies and with the challenges the state of Bosnia will face in the future. Such a targeted and strategic approach must be based on solid analytical work. The Association believes that sound scholarship is ultimately the most effective advocacy, and will therefore refrain from any direct involvement in politics. This also includes ongoing debates about the tenure of the current High Representative—especially in light of the fact that the OHR’s own Mission Implementation Plan and the recent shift in emphasis away from the OHR’s “Bonn powers” to dismiss elected officials and impose legislation towards the facilitating role of an EU Special Representative seem to suggest that the OHR recognises the need to adapt its approach to the new conditions in Bosnia. A related goal that will be achieved through the proposed project is to strengthen the policy-relevance of academic research in Bosnia and to link emerging young scholars with the global academic community. All too often, young researchers lack the means and opportunities to contribute to the development of their communities; often, they also lack an understanding of the mechanisms of influence in the policy process. By partnering with established international scholars and providing access to a network of analysts working on the same issues, the Association hopes to maximise the impact of the research undertaken in the framework of this project. In the formation of the Association’s Senior Advisory Board, special care was taken to include individuals who are in a position to assist this networking function, notably Mr Ramesh Thakur, the Vice-Rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo, and Sir Marrack Goulding, warden of St. Antony’s College in Oxford.


6/13

3. Activities 3.1. Activities in 2004 As the Association is based on a implementing a process-oriented approach and strategy, it makes sense to briefly review the achieved results in 2004:

Overview of the achieved results

One international seminar in Sarajevo Four press conferences (in Geneva and Sarajevo) Press pack Seminar report (in English and Bosnian) Media coverage Book (in English and Bosnian) Establishment of ten Task Forces Public events in Geneva, Banja Luka, Sarajevo and Venice Organisational changes Preparation of the 2005 International Conference Presentation of the Road to Geneva Regularly updated Homepage

The Association adopted a process-oriented approach from the very beginning; preliminary debates and a seminar held in New York in December 2003 helped to prepare for the Association’s first large meeting, a two-day seminar in Sarajevo in May 2004.3 At the most basic level, seminar participants agreed that the GFAP has overburdened the country with too many levels of government. In consequence, public administration is largely ineffective. The Association agreed on the need to go beyond stating the obvious by developing concrete proposals for improvements to the current situation. The proceedings were very focused on overcoming the Dayton legacy of overbearing but ineffective government by articulating a vision for the country and mechanisms to implement it. These mechanisms will focus on two aspects: possible amendments to the BiH constitutions, above all the entity constitutions, and administrative reform to reduce, or make more effective, the many layers of government. Participants also agreed on the basic approaches of the Association: to engage in sound scholarship as a basis for effective policy advocacy; to systematically include a younger generation of scholars and professionals in all aspects of the Association’s work; and to focus on a set of concrete issues where policy change is most pressing and achievable. In light of this, the Association has now begun convening Task Forces (organised as “interest groups”) that will outline the main points that any reform program should address. The Task Forces will work in direct preparation for the 2005 conference by conducting original research into topics that are of critical importance for Bosnia’s future development. At the same time, the Association needs to be clear on the need to influence policy-making at the strategic and implementation levels while also paying attention to reform constituencies in society. While the nature of the Association’s concerns and approaches as well as its operational capacity preclude a grassroots approach in the strict sense, the Association’s members must not loose sight of the necessity to carry the reform message into their communities, and to feed community needs back into the analytical work of the Association.

3 A seminar report is available at www.bosnia2005.org


7/13

The organisation of events presenting the seminar proceedings, but also workshops and roundtables organised by the different Task Forces during 2004 and 2005 will contribute to this.

Task Forces Chair 2005.01 Economics Rajko Tomas, Banja Luka 2005.02 State-Building Vehid Sehic, Tuzla 2005.03 Culture and Education Jasmina Husanovic-Pehar, Tuzla 2005.04 Security and democracy Denisa Kostovicova, London 2005.05 Regional dimension Florian Bieber, Belgrade 2005.06 Beyond Lessons learnt (Thomas Carothers, Washington, D.C.)* 2005.07 Conditionality versus ownership Christophe Solioz, Geneva 2005.08 Scientific publication T.K. Vogel, Sarajevo 2005.09 Emerging voices Zehra Kacapor, Sarajevo 2005.10 Justice and reconciliation John B. Allcock, Bradford 2005.11 Politics for a future Wolfgang Petritsch, Geneva

*tentative Another contribution to public debate comes in the form of the Bosnian-language edition of a book that gathers key papers emanating from the May seminar. “Bosna i Hercegovina na putu ka modernoj državi? Perspektive i prepreke” was published in Sarajevo in November 2004 in partnership with the Heinrich Böll Foundation. The English version, “Dayton and Beyond: Perspectives on the Future of Bosnia and Herzegovina” was published by Nomos (Baden-Baden) in early November 2004. A number of events have taken place in Banja Luka (1 December 2004), Sarajevo (2 December 2004), Venice (3-4 December 2004), Vienna (20 January 2005), and London (4 March), and are planned in Brussels, New York and Zurich for 2005 to stimulate debate and promote the Association’s work. Also in 2004, organisational changes in the management of the Association were introduced. Two members from the Emerging Voices network joined the Executive Council and assumed key responsibilities, strengthening the Association’s Bosnian character. Jakob Finci was elected President in accordance with the statutes and has been serving as the Association’s public face in Bosnia. Additional members from Bosnia are expected to join the Executive Council in the near future, which would allow the international members to reduce their involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Association. 3.2. Planned actions in 2005 January 2005 marked the beginning of a process that will culminate in the October 2005 conference in Geneva and in the book to be published around the same time. In preparation for these two events, a research programme—consisting of various individual and joint research projects—will be developed during the second half of 2004 and 2005. Preparations for the conference and the book will proceed simultaneously, but the editorial standards for the selection of contributions to the book will be somewhat different (and, in an academic sense, stricter) than the selection standards for inclusion in the conference. The Association intends to publish only the very best, sound, and innovative papers to create a volume that will be useful to researchers and practitioners for years to come. At the same time, it is of the utmost importance to understand that while stringent procedures and standards of selection and validation will be applied to the research projects, the Association and its officers will in no way set any policy direction or interfere in the substance of research. The proposed project simply creates a framework that allows such research to become more relevant and visible, and to engage in an informed debate about the future of peace implementation in Bosnia. A main reason behind this approach is to allow a variety of viewpoints to emerge from a locally-driven process, especially also involving voices that may at present not be part of the debate on Bosnia’s future.


8/13

In that sense, the project’s key activities for 2005 flow directly from the specific character and aim of the planned conference and book. Key objectives are to gather a variety of approaches and outlooks to present a nuanced analysis of ten years of Dayton implementation, and to identify the conditions—including those created by international stakeholders—that will allow Bosnia to perform its functions as a fully sovereign state towards its citizens and the world community. In other words, research will be both descriptive and forward-looking. The transition from a post-conflict situation to a situation where international support and domestic governance are firmly aimed at the country’s longer-term development will entail policies to transfer authority from international to domestic bodies in accordance with a strategy of responsible disengagement. Such a strategy does not exist at present, though its contours and elements are certainly visible on the ground. The project aims to bring these elements into the open and to discuss the implications of various approaches. This could include, for example, an in-depth analysis of the impact of Bosnia’s extreme federalism on economic development, identifying openings for a strategic development policy. It could also include a discussion of scenarios for systems of social protection in Bosnia—e.g., a unified (but locally administered) social housing policy, for which some capacity may already exist at the State level. Any proposed solutions need to be realistic and relevant, as the project aims to be of direct utility to policy-makers in and on Bosnia. A first step in this direction is a review that will be undertaken starting November 2004 of the various reform programmes and reports by international monitors (EU, CoE, etc.) with a view to producing a synthesis of key findings. The officers of the Association are currently conducting negotiations with a number of organisations to establish partnerships that will enhance the programme’s impact. While such partnerships may also contribute funding (possibly in-kind), the focus is on their intellectual contribution to the project, for example by supporting one specific Task Force. Therefore, the Association has approached several research institutes and universities to explore the possibility of co-sponsorship and other forms of cooperation. The partners identified above – UNDP, the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, and the Austrian Development Agency – have been instrumental in supporting the Association’s work financially and programmatically. Levels of action The project intends not to create new institutional structures, but to strengthen the policy relevance and impact of existing research capacities of individual researchers – especially junior researchers – and the network established through the Task Forces. Partner organisations will also help increase the visibility and policy impact of this reform initiative through their own advocacy and outreach. Adoption and implementation of the Geneva platform by local and international bodies will be monitored through continuing capacities of the Association beyond 2005. The project is primarily micro and meso-level oriented. However, due to the symbolic nature of “ten years of Dayton” and the wide range and importance of the topics being addressed in research and advocacy, the initiative clearly also aims to have an impact at the macro level. Micro level: Impact on various local think tanks and individual researchers directly involved in the project,

especially through their participation in the work of the Task Forces. Meso level: Impact at a broader social level, notably through the media and other dissemination and

outreach channels, on civil society (CSOs/NGOs) and academic circles through seminars, public debates, publications, and the Geneva conference.

Macro level: Impact at the political level (political parties, parliamentarians, elected officials, civil servants

– both local and international), with the aim of achieving the adoption and implementation of new policies in the issue areas that are of interest to the Association.


9/13

4. Deliverables

Overview

One international Conference in Geneva One seminar in Vienna focusing on EU Balkan policy

Events in Bosnia and in selected European cities Media campaign in Bosnia

Publication of working papers

Other scientific publications

Publication of comprehensive, academic book reviewing ten years of Dayton

Follow up-structure focusing on implementation of policy recommendations

Outputs and outcomes specific to each Task Force

The main deliverables of this project are the Geneva conference and the book, both planned to roughly coincide with the tenth anniversary of the Dayton accords. Additional outputs, of more instrumental value, will be the publishing of a series of working papers presented at the conference in the framework of focused workshops. Both the book and the conference will be a major contribution to our understanding of post-conflict recovery in Bosnia, with implications beyond this particular case—in fact, the conference will include several sessions that address the applicability of certain models to other peace missions. What distinguishes this initiative from past and planned endeavours is that it aims to provide a solid intellectual and analytical foundation for pragmatic and concrete approaches to the process of transferring authority. In that sense, the planned book may become a manual for state-builders, for the numerous men and women who are dispatched to foreign countries to implement peace agreements; but more immediately, it should enhance our understanding of this last phase of international intervention in Bosnia and contribute to better policies to guide it, as well as to better policies by domestic authorities to meet the challenges of full statehood. But equally important in this process are the mechanisms the Association has developed to follow up and monitor the path that the Task Force recommendations take in society and politics. The Task Forces will present findings to stakeholders and closely follow policymaking and implementation. This ensures an element of sustainability of the Association’s work, and continuity of focus on the issues raised by the Task Forces. Logical framework (next page)


10/13

Intervention logic Indicators External factors Overall objectives Implementation of reform policies in Bosnia in key issue areas

Reform policies based on Association recommendations are taken up and pursued by local and international policymakers

Political resistance to reform; cumbersome administrative obstacles to passing reform package; willingness of local and international policymakers to accept outside advice

Project purpose a. Strengthen policy research capacities of a network of local analysts b. Improve the advocacy role of local analysts based on solid research c. Provide a platform for concrete reform programme

a. Improved quality and policy relevance of research undertaken by network of local analysts (Task Forces); post-Geneva, enhanced capacity to monitor implementation of policy recommendations b. Task Forces are proactive in presenting research findings to policymakers and in preparing the Geneva reform platform c. Geneva conference increases understanding of need for reform and of concrete reform directions in Bosnia with local and international policymakers

a. Limited financial and human resources b. Willingness of international and local policymakers to accept outside advice c. Other, similar conferences to mark 10 years of Dayton may diminish the impact and visibility of each

Expected results a. Publications summarising key findings from research programme b. Ongoing advocacy/outreach on key reform areas c. Fully articulated reform programme

a. One English-language book containing around 15 papers by internationally recognised experts; one economic development compendium submitted to UNDP; around 10 journal articles by Task Force members following international academic standards b. Substantial media coverage of Association events and presentations to policymakers; tangible commitment by policymakers to pursue Association reform agenda c. Geneva conference provides framework to develop &advocate for reform platform

a. Limited financial resources for publication b. Limited human resources (no PR position); limited awareness by local journalists of longer-term reform needs; willingness of policymakers to accept outside advice

Activities a. Conduct research b. Conduct research-based advocacy/outreach c. Organise Geneva conference

a. 11 Task Forces undertake and publicise research in line with the Association’s guidelines b. On the basis of research, topic-focused seminars and debates are held and research findings presented to policymakers/sta-keholders. These include the November seminar in Vienna and similar events. c. Geneva conference is held according to the programme as a platform to launch new policy directions at internat. & local level

a. Underdeveloped policy research environment b. Willingness of policymakers in Bosnia to accept outside advice Diminishing interest of governments outside Bosnia c. Other, similar conferences to mark 10 years of Dayton may diminish the impact and visibility of each


11/13

5. Organisation As mentioned above, on the road to the Geneva Conference (20-21 October 2005), the Association established in the summer and autumn of 2004 a set of country- and topic-focused Task Forces aiming to: Outline the main points that any reform programme for Bosnia and Herzegovina should address; Formulate theses and recommendations to influence policy-making at the strategic and

implementation levels; Carry the reform message into different networks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Task Forces are organised as interest groups and aim to prepare the various workshops, panels, and plenary sessions of the 2005 conference in Geneva (20-21 October). They will carry preliminary findings into the ongoing domestic debate on reform and publish electronic working papers (coordinated by the publication project) that summarize and disseminate preliminary findings from their research. The Task Forces will focus on the need to influence policy-making at the strategic and implementation levels. Despite an abundance of academic and policy papers, reports, and books, there still exists a need for substantial and more focused studies on the development challenges Bosnia and Herzegovina faces. The second challenge is that these studies must have a pragmatic orientation towards solving real-life problems. Therefore, the Task Forces will involve not only experts with impeccable academic credentials but also experts with field experience as well as some of the “emerging voices” of Bosnian society. The executive council will organize monthly coordination meetings with the chairs of the Task Forces in Sarajevo. This will take advantage of the internal dynamics of each Task Force while also ensuring a coherence of approach. All Executive Council members’ as well as Task Forces’ chairs and co-chairs have substantial academic and/or project management experience in Bosnia and the South-East region. The following table summarises ther key qualifications of the Executive Council:

Name/citizenship Present position Position in the Association

Key qualifications

Christophe Solioz Director of the Forum for Democratic Alternatives [isn] (Geneva)

Executive director

More than 15 years experience in the Balkans: project leader of various initiatives in the field of Civil Society development; coordinator of various conferences and seminars on former Yugoslavia; currently leading the project “The Next Step” focusing on ownership-oriented strategies in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia.

Dr Svebor Dizdarevic

Director of studies, Institute for Human Rights, Catholic University of Lyon

Advisor Consultant for NGOs; teacher in international relations, international law, and geopolitics; director of the Master’s degree program on international organisations and the protection of human rights.

Dr Jasmina Husanovic-Pehar

Lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Tuzla

Research analyst

Extensive research experience in the field of international relations, political philosophy, sociology and cultural studies, especially concerning the question of emancipatory politics universally and in the specific context of Bosnia and the Balkans; 12 years of professional and voluntary experience (consultant, researcher, programme manager, etc.) in various civil society initiatives and NGOs in Bosnia and wider region.


12/13

Zehra Kacapor

Programme Manager UNDP/UNV Integrated Youth Programme

Deputy director Five years work experience in project/programme leadership and consultancy in development programming, with special focus on youth empowerment, public policies, advocacy and various initiatives focusing on good governance. Master’s degree in Human Rights and Democracy from University of Bologna and Sarajevo.

T. K. Vogel

Research associate, International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship (New York)

Senior editor Six years of work experience in Bosnia, three of which as Design/Monitoring/Evaluation Coordinator with International Rescue Committee (IRC). Previously with IRC and Open Society Institute in New York. Master’s degrees from University of Zurich and New School for Social Research. PhD candidate and Mellon Foundation Fellow in Security and Humanitarian Action.

Network From the very beginning, the Association proved to be able to quickly build a very strong and extensive network not only in Bosnia but also abroad, bringing together experts who typically work in their own organization. This approach is based on past experience going back to activities by the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly (hCa) and the Forum for Democratic Alternatives (FDA). The Association’s membership (around 100 individuals) and partner organizations are an indication of the wide network built up within a very short period of time. Many of the best-known experts on Bosnia, the broader region, issues of constitutional design, post-conflict reconstruction, minority rights, etc. are members of the ExCom; they come from London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Bologna, Vienna, Brussels, Warsaw, New York and Washington DC, and the entire Western Balkans. Over the last few months, the Association has begun working with a number of new partners, including the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Paul Schiller Stiftung, the Austrian Development Agency, the Renner Institute and Volkart. The Association has also entered a partnership with the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics. The first concrete result of that partnership was an event in London on 4 March, where a distinguished panel discussed key issues facing the country today. The second will be a closed seminar to be organised in Vienna on 18 November 2005 focusing on the EU’s Balkan policy in regional perspective. 6. Monitoring and evaluation The International Executive Council will be responsible for ongoing monitoring of project activities and for annual evaluation. This will be an internal evaluation; however, funding permitting, the Association will commission an external evaluation as well. The International Executive Council may request, at any time, written reports from the Association’s executive officers on any aspect of the Association’s operations. The Association’s accounts will be audited by an independent auditor (Partner SA Geneva) accredited with the Republic and Canton of Geneva. Both the annual and financial report will be available beginning of 2006. Nevertheless, as in the past, we are frequently sending updates and available for formal and informal briefings – an approach we also have with the Swiss Embassy in Sarajevo as well as with other partners-donors.

Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005

Documents

Transcript of Association Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005