By Sandra Pekic

There`s no doubt that centralised Serbia cannot find a place within the European Union, but it also seems that political elite has difficulties in reaching an agreement on how our country should be territorially organised. Considering bitter experiences of all partitions on Balkans, the antagonism toward regionalisation comes from a fear that any decentralisation might launch a new wave of separation.

Regionalism opponents often stress that not a single EU member-state has become immune to separatistic aspirations, naming France as one of the most outstanding examples: Corsica demands independent legislation, Brittany assembly, and Alsace higher tax autonomy.

On the other hand, regionalism proponents believe that this process inevitably modernises our society, adding that Serbia faces with the situation similar to the one that Italy or Spain faced after the breakdown of the authoritarian regimes, the regions of which were given a higher autonomy. More than 20 European countries have adopted one of a regionalisation solution.

In case of Serbia, the political analysts point out that historical, cultural and ethnic specificities have shaped an autonomy and particular identity of regions like Vojvodina, or Kosovo and Metohija (the decentralisation of last mentioned region is considered only in theory).

Other parts of Serbia certainly have their own particularities and legitimate interests for their regional organisations, although their political and legal aspect within the state distinct from aspects of provinces.

Accidentally or not, Minister of Economy and Regional Development Mladjan Dinkic has initiated the promotion of regional development draft at the same time when the discussion over the Vojvodina Statute has reached peak. This draft predicts that the territory of Serbia should be parcelled in seven "euroregions": Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western, Eastern, Central, Southern, Kosovo and Metohija.

Dinkic has then mentioned that this regulation would provide the participation in distribution of all sorts of funds to other regions, which was the privileged of Vojvodina, since this province is the only administrative region in Serbia. But insisting on term "euroregion" by minister Dinkic was something the Serbian public was confused about. As it was explained in Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, it concerns "regions", not "euroregions" which imply transborder cooperation between neighbouring countries.

Regional Development Law regulates statistic zonings, with the respect of population, industrial structure, geopolitical position, natural potentials and cultural-historical heritage. State Secretary for Regional Development Dejan Jovanovic says that EU countries as well as countries-candidates have the obligation to commit statistic regionalisation respecting European NUTS (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics) common standards.

"According to that criterion, NUTS 2 regions include territories inhabited with 800.000 to three million people. The Regional Development Law proposal assumes that Serbia should consist of seven regions, all of which will be subdivided into NUTS 3 developed regions - a smaller territories inhabited with 150.000 up to 800.000 residents," explains Jovanovic.

Brussels insists on NUTS 3 partition as requested condition for structural funds accession. European Commission has stressed that NUTS 3 units should be elected directly, and that certain legal and financial autonomy is required.

It is thus obvious that EU`s regional policy relies on the partnership with regional, national and local bodies, as well as on subsidiarity principles which intends to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.

NUTS 1 corresponds with federal units; NUTS 2 with Italian or Spanish regions; NUTS 3 represents various sorts of local self-governmental associations, alike counties in Sweden, departments in France or the association of municipalities in Portugal.

Regionalisation is one of the required conditions which enables the access to certain European funds, but Serbia may count on that money only as an EU member. It is planned that for the 2007-2013 period one third of European budget (213 billion euros) should be directed toward the reduction of economic and social disparities between and within regions and cities of the European Union.

Structural funds (European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, and Cohesion Fund) represent 90 percent out of it, which help stimulate economic development in least propitious regions of the EU, the gross domestic product of which is bellow 75 percent that is European average. Before EU`s enlargement on 2004, the least prosperous member-countries were the most frequent fund users: Spain, Greece, Portugal, as well as Eastern part of Germany and Southern Italy.

So far, Serbia is granted the pre-accession funds assistance, and once it gains the candidate status, Serbia will be granted the regional development funds assistance.

A country`s obligation to stipulate the indicators of local development (paying attention to the salaries and pensions, local profits, unemployment, educational level and so on) refers as a particular item in European regional policy, which will help in their classification.

The Vice-President of the Government Mladjan Dinkic has recently mentioned that Serbia is the country with the highest level of regional disparities in Europe.

"According to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, disparities between regions and cities equal seven to one, and that hiatus increases each day. It relates to the negative demographic tendencies, because population from southern and eastern Serbian municipalities choose to migrate to Belgrade in search for better living standards," says Dinkic.

It is doubtless that Serbian Government intends to define Regional Development Law proposal in the course of next month, after which it will be put before parliamentarians to vote. But while political party leaders seem to be restrained, local self-government representatives don`t spare critics regarding this draft.

The major objection concerns the fact that regionalisation will not change current situation significantly - regions will be organised as functional instead of administrative units, without neither legal subjectivity, nor authority or financial autonomy.

Representatives of southern municipalities fear that their regions might suffer the development depression, because they believe that the decisions where and how will finances be directed will be in hands of one centre, and that centre is the National Development Agency.

Thus, regionalisation does not indicate any political separation, but statistic and planning purposes, in order to specify the development of Serbia more accurately. The encouraging news is that subdivisions inside state borders, even though it concerns creating economic regions, represents an impulse for cooperation between municipalities, regional and cross-border cooperation, which aims to attract foreign capital in times of financial crisis.

However, one has to bear in mind that making each step forward in European integration process brings another political debate whether Serbia needs not only statistical, but administrative regions as well.