LE PALAIS DE L’ELYSÉE, TGV AND THE MACEDONIAN WAGON

On May 6th 2007, the French will elect their new Président de la République replacing the Monsieur Jacques Chirac ruling the country for 12 years and paving the way for new and fresh flow of ideas in French and EU foreign affairs. The primary reason for the EU’s and candidate countries high tempered interest in French election is that its outcome will determine the future of the Union itself. Macedonia, as a candidate country sees its own interest in the French presidential election through the lenses of the enlargement process and the process of institutional reform without which it seems that the enlargement can not continue. Many EU representatives including the enlargement commissioner Mr. Olli Rehn repeat the guaranties given that all Western Balkan countries have a future in the EU. Even so, these statements were given with prudence: that the speed of enlargement must take in account the EU’s “absorption capacity”, later renamed into “integration capacity”1. Following elections in the Europe’s three largest economies— with Angela Merkel as German Chancellor, Gordon Brown as the most probable Britain’s next prime minister and the new French President—the long waited process of reforms in the Union can begin commence. It is expected that after the elections France will take its position as a leader and promoter of the European integration process (a foreign policy concept that its political elites have invented) on the arms of the revised text of the rejected EU constitution. This article briefly sketches the two presidential candidate’s political agendas from a standpoint of an EU candidate country. Which of the two candidates programs concerning EU is more suitable and appropriate for Macedonia?

The two candidates that will face each other in the second-round of the presidential run­off are the centre-right candidate Monsieur Nicolas Sarkozy, from the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), and Madame Ségolène Royal from the Socialist Party.

In the first-round of the election, Mr. Sarkozy garnered 31% of the vote, while Ms. Royal, bidding to be France's first female leader, took nearly 26%2. Although different in their views and ideas about the future of the EU, the enlargement process and the so-needed political reforms, both of the candidates remain pro-European oriented. They agree on one thing only, that resubmitting the existing EU constitutional text to the French electorate is not an option. However, the big challenge that lies ahead concerning the institutional reforms of the Union itself is how to push them forward following the French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution two years ago, while keeping in mind the voters concerns and belief about the document. The process of reforms was renewed under the German EU presidency, targeting at a new treaty in time for the 2009 election of the European Parliament. In this sense, the centre-right candidate, Mr. Sarkozy has proposed very reserved proposal, submitting new slim line constitutional treaty or traité simplifié which could be passed in the Assemblée nationale as a standard treaty revision, or put in a different way, simplified European treaty without a need of being submitted to a referendum. In effect he is revisiting some of the old Constitutional policies, such as creating a new position of EU Foreign Affairs Minister, increasing the budget for European Defense3 and implementing new rules in relation to majority voting as a voting procedure4. On the contrary, the centre-left candidate, Ms. Royal has proposed submitting some kind of new alternative, very imprecise new EU treaty with ‘social protocol’ for approval to national referenda5. With it, she wants to combat unemployment and relocation, and establish a minimum wage in each member state6, a high-risk tactic that may throw the EU yet again into a long period of uncertainty.
Which candidate is better for Macedonia? Sarko or Ségo? Which of the two candidates suits better Macedonia’s EU integration interests? To further the process of enlargement, the new EU treaty has to be reached by 2009. Without it, there should be no more expansion, as Mr. Rehn repeated couple of times this year. In this sense, Mr. Sarkozy proposal about traité simplifié is more appropriate for candidate countries like Macedonia. With this kind of procedure, the odds for reaching EU consensus on the new Treaty are significantly higher. It will considerably decrease the possibility of another failure and stagnation of the Union as the one two years ago. The EU oriented foreign policy of the son and grandson of immigrants (his father was Hungarian, his maternal grandfather a Jew from Salonika) is a better option for Macedonia.

Endnotes:
1 Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn assessment on the term ‘integration capacity’ is based on three components: Institutional, EU policy impact and EU budget
2 French contenders set for run-off, BBC News Europe, April 23, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6582479.stm
3 Tous les programmes des candidats à la présidentielle 2007, Le Monde, March 16, 2007 http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41­0@2-823448,49-822922@45-3054,0.html
4 Europe : le programme des candidats, Le Monde, March 13, 2007
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41­0@2-823448,49-895888@45-3371,0.html
5 Europe : le programme des candidats, Le Monde, March 13, 2007
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41­0@2-823448,49-895888,0.html
6 Tous les programmes des candidats à la présidentielle 2007, Le Monde, March 16, 2007 http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41­0@2-823448,49-822922@45-3053,0.html

More progress needed by the Republic of Macedonia

"We need to see a convincing track record of reforms on the ground", including police reforms and the fight against corruption and organised crime, said European Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn when he met Gabriela Konevska-Trajkovska, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of European Integration of the Republic of Macedonia in Brussels on April 16. The Commissioner described the talks as friendly and constructive, and he re-confirmed the EU perspective for the country.
"There is a need to improve the political climate in the country, and to demonstrate a clear commitment to the Ohrid framework agreement", said Rehn. He insisted that developing understanding and dialogue between the government and the opposition is essential to ensure the proper functioning and stability of key institutions. "I encourage all parties to make further efforts to find compromises, to walk the last mile, so that this political dialogue which has been intensified in last couple of days will lead to concrete results and facilitate speedy adoption of laws and reforms of the judiciary, police and public administration".
He added that the EU's Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance made provision for a qualitative and quantitative increase in support for the Republic of Macedonia, so it was important that the country implemented the appropriate national mechanisms correctly. Preparation had got off to a good start, but administrative capacity needed reinforcing to permit decentralised financial management, he said. It was important too that recent changes in the country's Secretariat for European Affairs should have "no negative ramifications".
Gabriela Konevska-Trajkovska confirmed that progress on the EU agenda was a high priority for her government, and the recently-agreed National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis envisaged full harmonisation with EU rules by 2010. She said there was wide national support for accession and for regional cooperation. The reorganisation of the Secretariat for European Affairs was aimed, said the Deputy Prime Minister, at "providing the best structure for the mid-term".

European Citizens´Consultations

Making your voice heard

Citizens’ Perspectives on the Future of Europe adopted in 27 EU member states


“Ever since the constitution was voted against in the Netherlands and France, we have gradually understood that the EU is a top-level-project. A project that is not supported by the citizens will not survive. That is why the European Citizens’ Consultation process is so important,” said Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, in a video conversation with the participants of the Swedish citizens’ consultation last weekend.

Parallel to the celebrations of 50 years of the Treaty of Rome, the weekend of 24-25 March saw the fourth and final round of the European Citizens’ Consultations with national consultations in 10 EU-Member States. Over the last two months about 1500 randomly selected citizens from all EU member states reflecting the diversity of the European population came together in 27 national consultations on the occasion of the first-ever European Citizens’ Consultations. They all dedicated a whole weekend to debating the future of Europe, thereby giving voice to their visions and expectations and exchanging views with their European fellow citizens gathered in similar consultations at the same time. Energy & environment, family & social welfare, the EU’s role in the world & immigration were at the heart of discussion. These topics were chosen in October 2006 by 200 randomly selected European citizens convened in an Agenda-Setting Event in Brussels.

National and European decision-makers, such as the EU-Commissioner for Health Markos Kyprianou, Dr. Michael Frendo (Maltese Minister of Foreign Affairs), Cecilia Malmström (Swedish Minister for EU Affairs), Barbara Prammer (President of the Austrian Parliament) and various Members of the European Parliament attended the final round of national consultations to collect fresh impressions from the vivid discussions and to be handed over the results of the deliberations. They welcomed the European Citizens’ Consultations as a successful model for an EU lending an ear to its citizens’ expectations. Minister Malmström stressed during the handing-over ceremony of the Swedish Perspectives on the Future of Europe: "We will read this with great interest, and hopefully discuss it further at the next meeting with all the EU-ministers in mid May. There are much more spirited ideas in this report than at most of the meetings I attend to." Citizens at the Cypriot consultations suggested to carry on with citizens consultations on EU issues. EU-Commissioner Markos Kyprianou promised that he will convey this request to Brussels.

Occasionally, citizens were at first sceptic whether their knowledge on European politics would be sufficient for debating such big questions as the EU's role in the world, but they soon lost their reserve and engaged in lively discussions. “In the beginning, when I was invited, I was quite sceptical about the event, but once here, I changed my opinion seeing that people around me were willing to exchange opinions and make changes,” confesses Mindaugas Lataitis, a 22-year-old Lithuanian working in advertising. For most of the participants, the citizens’ consultations were a unique experience. “Being here is a pleasure and a privilege: I feel part of an important project for our children and I believe this is a useful contribution towards their future,” said one participant from Italy. Through the interconnection of simultaneous national consultations, a truly European discussion across the borders of geography and language emerged. And Christos Michailidis, 45, from Pafos in Cyprus gave voice to what many participants wished: “This is something that will bring results and I wish to be taken into account because this concerns the future of us all. I hope we can live in a united Europe which will show in practice its interest in its citizens.”

But the work is not all done: On 9-10 May one participant from each of the 27 national consultations will come to Brussels and take the challenge to synthesize the results from the national consultations into the ‘European Citizens’ Perspectives on the Future of Europe’. These will in a solemn ceremony be handed over to representatives of the European institutions.

For more information on the Final Event, the projects’ methodology and on the outcomes of the citizens’ consultations go to our website:
www.european-citizens-consultations.eu.

EDF & CEP-CMAF European Seminar on Social Economy and Equal Opportunities

The European Standing Conference of Co-operatives, Mutualities, Associations and Foundations (CEP-CMAF) and the European Disability Forum (EDF), with the support of the Social Economy Category of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), are organising a European Seminar on Social Economy and Equal Opportunities on April 17th 2007 from 10.00 to 17.00 at the Seminar on Social Economy and Equal Opportunities on April 17th 2007 from 10.00 to 17.00 at the EESC headquarters in Brussels. The seminar will explore the role of Social Economy in the areas of non-discrimination and equal opportunities with a particular focus on disability.

The seminar is being held within the context of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, which aims to give momentum to the fight against discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunities in the EU by stimulating the debate and exchange of good practice; raising public awareness of citizens’ rights in these areas; celebrating diversity as an asset for the EU; and promoting equal opportunities for all in economic, social, political and cultural life.
In this context, the seminar will convene representatives from Social Economy organisations, European institutions and other key public and private stakeholders to:

European institutions and other key public and private stakeholders to:

Discuss how Social Economy organisations and enterprises can contribute to the fight against discrimination, with special emphasis on disability;
Discuss with policy-makers how the Social Economy sector can contribute to maximising the impact of the European Year and its follow-up;
Learn about EU programmes and funds available;
Identify examples of best practices within the sector that can be replicated and improved further not only by Social Economy organisations but also by the wider non-profit sector as well as by for-profit entities; and
Establish a dialogue between all relevant stakeholders and identify possible synergies and partnerships.
The event will also be used to present a practical Guide on disability mainstreaming that the CEPCMAF Disability Working Group has jointly developed with the European Disability Forum (EDF) to mark the European Year. Based on the example of Social Economy, the Guide is aimed at demonstrating that all organisations, whether active in the disability field or not, can include people with disabilities and disability issues in their organisations and activities.

Simultaneous interpretation in English, French, German, Spanish and Polish, will be provided at the seminar. Registration is free of charge but places are limited; registrations will be accepted on a “first come, first served” basis.

If you are interested in taking part in this seminar, please register with the CEP-CMAF by April 1st 2007 by e-mail: info@cepcmaf.org or by fax: +32.2.512.3265.
Further details about the event will be made available shortly.

The Summer School for Young Professionals 2007

The Summer School for Young Professionals 2007– Introduction into Security Policy, with the topic GLOBAL SECURITY CHALLENGES OF TODAY as the main theme, takes place on 30 June – 8 July 2007 at the National Academy of Defence (NAD) in Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia. It is a weeklong forum that is focused on the current issues of the security policy - the structure of the teaching is aimed to provide the students with the basics of the security policy background, including main actors of the security policy in Europe, main security threats of today such as terrorism, proliferation of WMD, illegal migration and those regions of the world that are posing risks to the global security.
One of the main objectives of this international summer school is the preparation of young professionals – future leaders from below mentioned regions – to act in the foreign and security policy. Interactive discussions and lectures led by top speakers from various international and Slovak organizations will therefore focus on open exchange of ideas and interaction of participants from different backgrounds. There will be many side activities besides the classroom lectures and discussions – dynamic workshops, trip to nearby Tatra mountains and Liptovsky Mikulas and others. Summer school will finish with the simulation of UN Security Council crisis meeting, in which the participants will play the roles of international diplomats.
Summer school is intended for master and doctoral level students of political science and/or international relations who are interested in the foreign and security policy issues. Around 35 students will be from Central Europe, South Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
The teaching language of the summer school will be English. At the end of the school, students will receive certificate of course attendance issued by the NAD.
This is the second year that Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA), together with its partner NAD, with the financial support given by NATO PDD, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and in cooperation with the Lower Silesian Centre of Strategy Studies, the International Institute of Political Science of Masaryk University (IIPS) and the Szeged Centre for Security Policy is organizing this summer school in Slovakia. If you would like to find out more about the last year’s summer school go to the link SSYP 2006.
http://www.cenaa.org/index.php?w=2&y=2007&p1=26&s=BASIC%20INFO

ACADEMIC NETWORK FOR LEGAL STUDIES ON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM IN EUROPE

ACADEMIC NETWORK FOR LEGAL STUDIES ON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM IN EUROPE
A NETWORK FOUNDED WITH THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE ODYSSEUS PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
RESEAU ACADEMIQUE D’ETUDES JURIDIQUES SUR L’IMMIGRATION ET L’ASILE EN EUROPE
UN RESEAU FONDE AVEC LE SOUTIEN FINANCIER DU PROGRAMME ODYSSEUS DE LA COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
______________________________________
EUROPEAN SUMMER SCHOOL
7th EDITION
European Union Law and Policy on Immigration and Asylum
COURS D’ETE EUROPEEN
7ème EDITION
Droit et politique de l’immigration et de l’asile de l’Union européenne
______________________________________
2 - 13 JULY / JUILLET 2007
UNIVERSITE LIBRE DE BRUXELLES
______________________________________
A Network coordinated by the Institute for European Studies
Un Réseau coordonné par l'Institut d'Etudes européennes
of the / de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles
and composed of academics of the following institutions/
et composé d’académiques des institutions suivantes:
Université catholique de Louvain (B), Universidade Autonoma de Lisboa (P), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (P), Universität Salzburg (A), Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (NL), University of Bristol (UK), Universitaet Konstanz (D), Universitaet Göttingen (D), Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid (E), Università degli Studi di Milano (I), Université de Paris-Sud (F), Université de Pau et des pays de l’Adour (F), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), Aarhus Universitet (DK), Umeå Universitet(S), Lunds Universitet (S), Åbo Akademi (FIN), University of Turku (FIN), Eötvös Loránd University (HU), University of Silesia (PL), Mykolas Romeris University (LT), University of Ljubljana (SLO), University of Latvia (LV)

PRESENTATION
The aim of the Summer School is to provide its participants with a comprehensive understanding of the immigration and asylum policy of the European Union from a legal point of view. The programme is organised by the «Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration and Asylum in Europe», founded with the financial support of the Odysseus Programme of the European Commission and co-ordinated by the Institute for European Studies of the Université Libre de Bruxelles. The course provides both the opportunity to live in a unique European environment, as Brussels hosts numerous European and international organisations and offer diverse possibilities of contacts, and to take part in an intellectually stimulating experience in groups of several tens of participants specialised in the area of asylum and immigration from all over Europe. The classes are conducted by academics from the universities co-operating in the Network, which is represented in 21 Member States of the European Union and by high ranking officials from international organisations, particularly the European Commission. Each class is in principle given separately in French and in English.
L'objectif du cours d'été est de fournir aux participants une connaissance globale de la politique d'immigration et d'asile de l’Union européenne d’un point de vue juridique. Le programme est organisé par le « Réseau académique d'études juridiques sur l'immigration et l'asile en Europe » fondé avec le soutien financier du programme Odysseus de la Commission européenne et coordonné par l'Institut d'Etudes Européennes de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles. Les cours offrent à la fois l'opportunité d’évoluer dans un environnement européen unique, Bruxelles abritant de nombreuses organisations européennes et internationales offrant de multiples possibilités de contacts, et de vivre une expérience intellectuelle stimulante dans un groupe de plusieurs dizaines de personnes spécialisées dans le domaine de l’immigration ou de l’asile provenant de toute l’Union européenne. Les cours sont dispensés par les professeurs issus des universités participant au Réseau qui est représenté dans 21 Etats Membres de l’Union européenne ainsi que par des professionnels de haut niveau issus d'organisations internationales, en particulier la Commission européenne. Les cours sont en principe donnés séparément en anglais d’un côté et en français de l’autre.

PROGRAMME
PART ONE / PREMIERE PARTIE
2nd – 6th July / 2 au 6 juillet
General Introduction - Introduction générale
OPENING LECTURE - LEÇON INAUGURALE
1. General introduction to Eu Policy on Immigration and Asylum
Introduction à la politique européenne de l’immigration et de l’asile
2. Future of Free Movement of EU Citizens
L’avenir de la libre circulation des citoyens de l’U.E.
3. Institutional Framework of the European Immigration and Asylum Policy
Le cadre institutionnel de la politique européenne d’immigration et d’asile
4. Control of the external Borders
Le contrôle des frontières extérieures
5. European Visa Policy
La politique européenne des visas
6. Enlargement of the EU and the European Immigration and Asylum Policy
L’élargissement de l’U.E. et la politique européenne d’immigration et d’asile
7. Implications of Human Rights for Immigration and Asylum
Implications des droits de l'homme pour l'immigration et l'asile

PART TWO – DEUXIEME PARTIE
9th – 13th July / 9 – 13 juillet
Specialised Lectures – Cours spécialisés
1. Immigration for purposes of work or studies
L’immigration aux fins d'emploi ou d'études
2. Family Reunification
Regroupement familial
3. Status of Third Country Nationals, Non-discrimination and Integration
Le statut des ressortissants de pays tiers, la non-discrimination et l'intégration
4. Regularisations of Illegal Immigrants
Régularisations des immigrants illégaux
5. Fighting Illegal Immigration
La lutte contre l'immigration illégale
6. Schengen Information System
Le Système d’Information Schengen
7. External Relations and Immigration and Asylum Policy
Relations extérieures et politique d'immigration et d'asile
8. Return and Readmission Policy
La politique de retour et de réadmission
9. The European definition of the Concepts of Refugee and of Subsidiary Protection
La définition européenne des notions de réfugié et de protection subsidiaire
10. Practical exercises – Exercices pratiques
11. Status of Asylum seekers and of protected persons
Statuts des demandeurs d’asile et des personnes protégées
12. Distribution of Refugees between Members States (Dublin, EURODAC, European Refugee Fund)
Répartition des réfugiés entre Etats Membres (Dublin, EURODAC et Fonds Européen des réfugiés)
13. Asylum Procedure
La procédure d'asile
14. The position of UNHCR on the European asylum policy
La position du UNHCR sur la politique européenne d'asile
EVALUATION
Students will have the opportunity to evaluate in writing the quality of the courses and practical exercises, as well as the organisation of the Summer School, at the end of each week. The organisers commit themselves to take into account these evaluations, and to pass them on to the lecturers concerned.
La qualité des cours et travaux pratiques ainsi que l’organisation du cours d’été seront évalués par écrit par les étudiants à la fin de chaque semaine. Les organisateurs s’engagent à tenir compte des résultats et à les transmettre aux enseignants

TEACHING STAFF - CORPS ENSEIGNANT
• Prof. Emmanuel AUBIN (Université de Poitiers, France)
• Prof. Ulrike BRANDL (Universität Salzburg, Austria/Autriche)
• Dr. Emmanuelle BRIBOSIA (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. Jean-Yves CARLIER (Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. Ryszard CHOLEWINSKI (IOM Geneva)
• Laurence DEBAUCHE, Université Libre de Bruxelles
• Prof. Philippe DE BRUYCKER (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. Bart DE SCHUTTER, (Vrij Universiteit Brussel, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. Constança DIAS URBANO DE SOUSA (Universidade Autonoma de Lisboa, Portugal)
• Prof. Kees GROENENDIJK (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands/Pays-Bas)
• Prof. Elspeth GUILD (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands/Pays-Bas)
• Prof. Kay HAILBRONNER (Universitaet Konstanz, Germany/Allemagne)
• John HANDOLL, (Avocat/Lawyer, Ireland/Irlande)
• Dr. Mariona ILLAMOLA DAUSA (Universidat de Girona, Spain/Espagne)
• Prof. Lyra JAKULEVICIENE (Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania/Lithuanie)
• Nathalie JOUANT (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. François JULIEN-LAFERRIERE (Université de Paris-Sud, France)
• Prof. Kristine KRUMA, (University of Latvia , Latvia, Lettonie)
• Prof. Henri LABAYLE (Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour, France)
• Prof. Barbara MIKOLAJCZYK (University of Silesia, Poland/Pologne)
• Prof. Boldizsar NAGY (Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary/Hongrie)
• Yves PASCOUAU (Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour, France)
• Prof. Steve PEERS (University of Essex, United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni)
• Prof. Nuno PICARRA, (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)
• Maitena POELEMANS (Université de Pau et des pays de l'Adour, France)
• Dr. Sylvie SAROLEA, (Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium/Belgique)
• Prof. Achilles SKORDAS (University of Bristol, UK/RU)
• Prof. Thomas SPIJKERBOER (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands/Pays-Bas)
• Prof. Jens VESTED-HANSEN, (Juridisk Institut Aarhus, Denmark/Danemark)
• Dr. Vigdis VEVSTAD, (Independent Consultant, Norway/Norvège)

With the collaboration of high ranking officials from the European Union and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Avec la collaboration de hauts fonctionnaires de l’Union européenne et du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Réfugiés.
Academic Coordination académique
General Coordinator – Coordination générale
Philippe DE BRUYCKER, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Groupe francophone: à attribuer
English speaking group: to be appointed
Administrative Coordination administrative
Nicole BOSMANS, Université Libre de Bruxelles

TIMETABLE AND SCHEDULE - CALENDRIER ET HORAIRES
Following the opening lecture, the programme of the first part covers 16 hours of lectures or practical exercices. The programme of the second part covers 28 hours. Each day comprises 4 hours of lectures or practical exercises, presented in modules of 2 hours, with a break of 30 minutes in between. In order to enable participants in full-time employment to attend the classes, these will mainly be held each day between 2.00 and 6.30 p.m.
La première partie comporte, outre la leçon inaugurale, un programme de 16 heures de cours ou d’exercices pratiques et la seconde partie un programme de 28 heures. Chaque jour comporte en principe 2 cours ou travaux pratiques de 2 heures avec une pause d’une demi-heure entre chaque séance. Afin de faciliter la participation de personnes déjà engagées dans la vie professionnelle intéressées par la possibilité de suivre les cours, ceux-ci se donnent principalement l’après-midi entre 14h00 et 18h30.

Participants arrive
Monday 2 July
Lundi 2 juillet
Arrivée des participants
Welcome
Summer School Presentation
Guided Tour of
the University
1st Lesson
Opening Lecture
Drinks
From/A partir de 9:30
11:30 – 12:30
12:30 – 13:00
15:00 – 17:00
17:30
19:00
Accueil
Présentation du cours d’été
Visite de l'Université
1èr cours
Leçon inaugurale
Cocktail
Course concludes
Friday 13 July
Vendredi 13 juillet
Fin des cours

Visit to EU Institutions - Visite d'Institutions de l'U.E.
In addition to the lectures, the programme includes a visit to the European Parliament and evening debates on the European Immigration and Asylum Policy from the point of view of evolutions in the world.
En plus des cours, le programme inclut une visite du Parlement européen et des soirées débat sur la politique européenne d'immigration et d'asile au regard des évolutions mondiales.
Teaching Orientation - Orientation des enseignements
The classes which are of legal character offer both theoretical and practical elements, and tackle the most recent developments in the field. The latest work by the European Commission, the Council and Parliament are integrated into the teaching, thanks in particular to the participation of European officials as lecturers at the summer school. Each participant will receive an extensive up-to-date documentation pack.
Les cours qui sont d’ordre juridique comprennent une dimension à la fois théorique et pratique. Ils sont en prise directe avec l’actualité la plus récente. Les plus récents travaux de la Commission européenne, du Conseil des ministres et du Parlement européen sont intégrés aux enseignements, notamment grâce à la participation de fonctionnaires européens comme conférenciers dans le cadre des cours. Une importante documentation mise à jour sera remise à chacun des participants.

Language – Langues
Applicants must be fluent in either English or French. The classes will generally be taught separately in English and in French, so that each of the participants may follow the programme in either of these two languages, in accordance with the choice originally indicated, with the exception of courses given by high ranking officials of the European Union which might be exclusively taught in English.
Les candidats doivent avoir une bonne compréhension de l’anglais ou du français. Les enseignements seront en principe dispensés séparément en français et en anglais de manière à permettre aux étudiants de suivre les cours dans une de ces deux langues selon le choix qu’ils auront indiqué au départ, sauf pour les cours dispensés par les hauts fonctionnaires de l’Union européenne qui peuvent éventuellement ne l’être qu’en anglais.
Facilities – Facilités
The participants will have access to the various University facilities (libraries, cafeterias, medical and sports facilities, etc.). Entertaining activities will be also organised during the weekend. Those participants requiring accommodation during their stay in Brussels should state this on their application form in order to receive further information. Accommodation in bedrooms for 2 people with breakfast can be provided to a limited number of participants at reasonable price (+/- 300€ by person).
Les participants auront accès aux différents services de l'Université (bibliothèques, restaurants universitaires, service médical, installations sportives,…). Des activités récréatives seront également organisées durant le week-end. Les participants qui ont besoin d'un logement lors de leur séjour sont priés de le signaler dans leur formulaire d'inscription et recevront les informations suivant les possibilités. Un nombre limité de logements en chambre de 2 personnes avec petit déjeuner sont disponibles à des prix raisonnable (+/-300 € par personne).
Certificate - Certificat
Participants who have followed the programme assiduously throughout the two weeks will receive a certificate of attendance specifying each of the courses followed. The programme will not demand any written work or exams, but some prior readings are recommended.
Les participants qui ont effectivement suivi l’ensemble des cours pendant les deux semaines recevront un certificat d'assiduité précisant le contenu des cours. Le programme n’impose ni travaux écrits, ni examens, mais certaines lectures préalables sont recommandées.
CONTACT
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Réseau ODYSSEUS Network
39, Roosevelt Avenue - C.P. 172
B -1050 Brussels - Belgium
Tél.: 00 32 (0)2 650 49 96 (afternoon/ après-midi)
Fax: 00 32 (0)2 650 25 11
Email: odysseus@ulb.ac.be
Website: http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/odysseus

Admissions Requirements - Conditions d’admission
In order to meet the legal prerequisites of the course, applicants must have some legal background. They must have either completed a University degree (BA or equivalent) in Law, Political Science or International Relations (graduates of other disciplines will be considered depending on the courses they have followed), or have professional experience in a relevant field, for example as a civil servant, NGO assistant,… Interested persons should complete the application form available on the internet. Should the Network be overwhelmed with applications, the forms will be submitted for advice to the Network member from the country of origin of the candidate. Successful candidates will have to submit either a copy of their University diploma, or acertificate, before the start of the programme.
Afin de pouvoir suivre des enseignements techniques au point de vue juridique, les candidats doivent avoir une certaine formation juridique. Pour être admissibles, les candidats doivent avoir un diplôme universitaire (Baccalauréat ou équivalent) en droit, sciences politiques ou relations internationales (d’autres disciplines seront prises en considération en fonction du programme d’enseignement suivi) ou une pratique professionnelle dans le domaine en tant que fonctionnaire, animateur d’une ONG,….. Les personnes intéressées sont priées de remplir le formulaire de candidature disponible sur le site Internet du réseau. Une sélection sur mérites sera effectuée en cas d’afflux de candidatures qui seront éventuellement soumises pour avis au membre du Réseau de l’Etat dont elles proviennent. Les candidats sélectionnés devront produire une copie de leur dernier diplôme ou une attestation avant le début des cours.
Subscription - Souscription
The applicants to the Summer school will pay in advance 100€ to hand in their file on the same bank account as the one mentioned for subscription fees. This sum will be lost if the applicant backs out or reimbursed if the applicant was not selected by the Network. Only applications with a payment of registration fee of 100€ will be considered.
Les candidats au cours d’été verseront à titre d’avance une somme de 100€ pour introduire leur dossier sur le même compte bancaire que celui mentionné pour les frais d’inscription. Cette somme sera perdue si le candidat se désiste ou remboursée si le candidat n'était pas sélectionné par le réseau. Seules les candidatures dont les frais de souscription de 100€ auront été payés seront prises en considération.
.

Registration - Inscription
The participants are kindly requested to subscribe by using the registration form available on the website of the Network (http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/odysseus ).
The programme does not receive any financial support, and thus finances itself through the course fees. The total tuition fees for the program are 600 € for students, 700€ for NGO's and PhDs and 800 € for those in full-time employment. This covers the classes, the document pack, the visits receptions and entertaining activities, excluding food and accommodation. The Network will not be able to provide any grants covering tuition fees. The closing date for applications has been set for 1st June 2007. Interested candidates are strongly advised to submit their applications as soon as possible, given in view of the limited number of places available. Late applications will be considered as far as possible, depending on the number of places left on the course and the availability of accommodation.
Les participants sont priés de s’inscrire en remplissant le formulaire disponible sur le site internet du Réseau (http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/odysseus ).
Le programme ne bénéficie d’aucune subvention et est auto-financé par les frais d’inscription des participants. Les frais d'inscription pour le programme s'élèvent au total à 600 € pour les étudiants, 700€ pour les ONGs et les doctorants et 800 € pour les professionnels. Cette somme couvre les cours, la documentation, les visites, les réceptions et les activités récréatives, à l’exception du logement et de la nourriture. Le Réseau ne peut octroyer aucune bourse couvrant les frais de participation au cours d’été. La date de clôture des inscriptions est fixée au 1er juin 2007. Il est vivement conseillé aux personnes intéressées de s’inscrire le plus rapidement possible en raison du nombre limité de places disponibles. Les demandes d'inscription postérieures à la date de clôture seront satisfaites dans la mesure du possible en fonction du nombre de participants déjà inscrits et des logements disponibles.
Participants are asked to pay by bank transfer to account number 001-2122389-08,
Fortis Bank, Pesage Branch, 16 Avenue du Pesage, 1050 Brussels, Belgium,
BIC code GEBABEBB
IBAN: BE63001212238908
clearly indicating reference "2007 Summer School" and "their name".
Proof of payment must be produced at the latest on arrival in Brussels. In exceptional cases payment in cash on arrival in Brussels will be accepted. The bank fees charged to the Network at payment of your course fees might be reclaimed from you in cash at arrival in Brussels.
Les participants sont priés de payer par virement bancaire sur le compte 001-2122389-08
de la Fortis Banque, Agence Pesage, 16, Avenue du Pesage, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgique,
Code BIC: GEBABEBB,
IBAN : BE63001212238908
avec comme référence « leur nom » et la mention "cours d'été 2007".
La preuve de paiement doit impérativement être produite au plus tard à l’arrivée à Bruxelles. Les paiements sur place en argent liquide seront acceptés à titre exceptionnel à l’arrivée à Bruxelles. Le remboursement des frais bancaires imputés au réseau lors du paiement de votre inscription pourra vous être réclamé en liquide à votre arrivée.

Master Programme in European Integration and Regionalism

The CORE TOPICS are:
- Module I: European Integration (2 residential weeks in September 2007, Bolzano, Italy)
- Module II: EU Law (2 residential weeks in November 2007, Luxembourg)
- Module III: Federalism and Regionalism (2 residential weeks in January 2008, Graz, Austria)
- Module IV:Regional and Social Cohesion (2 residential weeks in April 2008, Barcelona, Spain)
- Module V: Minorities and Diversity (2 residential weeks in June 2008, Bolzano, Italy)

Applications can be made either to the full Programme or to single modules. In the latter case attendance of a module will lead to the award of a certificate.

DEGREE
Successful participants of the Master Programme will be awarded by the University of Graz the academic degree of a "Master of European Studies" (M.E.S.).

TARGET GROUP
- Civil servants from local, regional or national administrations who are dealing with EU affairs and therefore require both theoretical and practical training in EU and regional issues;
- Lawyers, economists, social scientists and others in the employment of non-governmental organisations wishing to enhance inter-disciplinary skills and to specialise on different aspects of European integration, regionalism and diversity;
- Graduate students wishing to acquire a more in-depth understanding of EU and regional issues, beneficial for a future career in the academia or even practice-orientated work.

DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION
The deadline for application for the academic year 2007/2008 is 1 June 2007.

START OF THE PROGRAMME
The first module of the academic year 2007/2008 will start on 3 September 2007.

Further information about the Programme as well as the application forms can be found at http://www.eurac.edu/meir

We would appreciate if you would disseminate information about the Masters Programme to anyone who may be interested in participating.

CONTACT European Academy of Bolzano Minorities and AutonomiesDrususallee/Viale Druso 1 I-39100 Bozen/Bolzano, Italy Phone: +39 0471 055 223
Fax: +39 0471 055 299 email: meir@eurac.edu

Invest in Macedonia - New Business Heaven in Europe - campaign to promote Macedonian business potentials

Invest in Macedonia - New Business Heaven in Europe is the name of the campaign, which the Government launched on January 19 in order to promote Macedonian business potentials.
- The campaign for Macedonia's promotion as an investment destination will be implemented until March 1, by 50 leading newspapers in 35 countries, out of which 24 will be EU countries, in 24 languages. Total circulation of these printed media is over 9 million, whereas their readership surpasses 30 million, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski told journalist at Wednesday's news conference. Macedonia 's opportunities will be presented on 20 on-line editions of the aforementioned newspapers.
The printed media include Financial Times, New York Times, Economist, Wall Street Journal, Herald Tribune, Banker, Figaro, Die Presse, Australien, Sunday Telegraph, 24 Hours, Irish Times...
According to Gruevski, Macedonia offered investors the following advantages: lowest profit tax of 10%, lowest income tax of 10%, 0% tax of reinvested profit, prompt registration of companies within 3 days, 370 euros gross average salary, free access to large market of 650 million consumers, macroeconomic stability with 3,1% inflation, great infrastructure and EU and NATO membership candidate.
- Basicly, this is a pre-campaign, which is expected to encourage investors to think about investing in Macedonia , but it will have positive effect on county's overall image, said Gruevski.
The Government, added Gruevski, has no irrealistic exoectations. - We don't believe that an investment boom will happen over night, because the first tangible results will be occur after certain period of time. This is only the begining of a permanent campaign, which Macedonia need for a long time, he said.

The European Commission Progress Report on Republic of Macedonia handed over

The European Commission welcomes the reforms achieved in Macedonia in the last year, however it notes to the Government that it should speed up the judicial and internal affairs reforms and to reinforce the measures for fight against organised crime and corruption. This is indicated in the European Commission Progress Report on Republic of Macedonia in the EU accession process, which was published on 8 November 2006.
“Republic of Macedonia has continued to make progress over the past year – since the granting of candidate status a year ago – but at a slower pace”, the Enlargement Commissioner, Olli Rehn during today’s presentation of the EC Report. The report also states that the Parliamentary Elections might be one of the reasons for the slower implementation of the reforms.
The Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Macedonia, Erwan Fouéré has officially handed over the European Commission’s report to the Government of Republic of Macedonia.
“This Report gives the indication on what we should focus in future, what are the weaknesses that we should concentrate on, what we should do, and where we need to pay more attention. And that is what we are going to do”, outlined Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, after the handover of the Report. He also pointed out that Government will analyse the Report and subsequently express its position.
According to the Ambassador Fouéré the Report reflects the progress that has been achieved by Macedonia in the past 12 months. “This report is based on rigorous objective assessment of the progress achieved and also it is encouragement to the country to pursue the reform and to redouble its effort in order to bring the country further on the way towards EU accession”, Fouéré said.
“The Report gives a realistic reflection of the conditions, and it will provide the positive framework within which the Government will position its priorities for the upcoming period, so that in 2007 we can show results on the issues that have been raised in the Report”, the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for European Affairs, Gabriela Konevska Trajkovska said.
Konevska-Trajkovska referred to certain issues which have been raised in the Report. In the area of political criteria, she emphasised the fight against corruption, public administration, and the issues of political dialogue. In respect to the criteria for adoption of the acquis communautaire, a focus on the implementation of the strategic documents and law enforcement is needed. A special emphasis was given to the harmonisation in the area of electronic communications – liberalisation of telecommunications, which is also a priority in the implementation of the Stabilisation and association Agreement.
The documents are attached at the following links:
Progress report on the Republic of Macedonia [en]
EU Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006 – 2007[en]
Extract from the Conclusions of the EC's Report to the European Parliament and the Council - Startegy for Enlargement and main Chalenges 2006-2007 [mk]

MACEDONIA – EU RELATIONS

The integration of the Republic of Macedonia in the European Union represents a clear and categorically expressed strategic interest and a priority goal in the policy of the Macedonian Government. The bilateral Stabilization and Association Agreement signed in April 2001 is the last stadium before Macedonia’s admission to the family of developed European democracies. The agreement, as part of the stabilization and association process, initiated by the European Union, represents its major contribution to the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe. By the end of 2002, the agreement was ratified by the parliaments of Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. In 2003, the parliaments of France, Portugal, Greece and Luxembourg also ratified the agreement.
Macedonia is the first country in Southeastern Europe that successfully brought to an end the negotiations for signing of such an agreement. Another detail of this accord is interesting, and that is the fact that the Agreement was first ratified by the European Parliament before the separate EU members states did the same. The Stabilization and Association Agreement, as a complex and legally binding political act, places the Republic of Macedonia among the potential members of the EU and makes it a factor in creating a Europe of the future, a society with the highest democratic values, security for all its citizens and social justice.
From an economic point of view, the Agreement opened the doors to one of the largest, and financially one of the most powerful market in the world. The European family is the most significant partner of the Macedonian economy and within those frames, exports to the EU account for 50.7%, as imports account for 45.2% of Macedonia’s total foreign trade. Before the Stabilization and Association Agreement was signed, in 1997, Macedonia and the EU signed an agreement for cooperation, as well as textile, wine, and transport agreements. Macedonia’s most important trade partners in Europe are Germany, Italy, and Greece, and its most important export products are ready-made clothing, hot rolled and zinc-coated plates, non-alloyed zinc, wine, ferrosilicon, flexes, footwear, and cotton yarn. The export of these goods earns Macedonia an annual profit of around $400 million.
The Stabilization and Association Agreement between the Republic of Macedonia and the EU
has an asymmetrical model that regulates their bilateral trade relations. Under the SAA, the Macedonia-made goods imported in the EU will not be subject to customs and quantity restrictions, save for fish, sea products, veal and wine. Macedonian goods will be one-sidedly entitled to customs relieves in a ten years’ period of adjustment towards a future, limitless competition. The European Union is already allowing customs-free import of almost all the Macedonian products, and with the gradual trade liberalization on the Macedonian side, a free trade zone will be introduced over the next ten years. Within the framework of the SAA, special protocols regulate trade in, what are known as, sensitive sectors, such as textiles, and production of steel and steel products.
In March 1996, the Republic of Macedonia became a full member of the PHARE program and between 1996 and 1999, 100 million euros was granted to Macedonia in support of its reforms.
In January 2002, the European Commission adopted a five-year strategy for Macedonia for which
EUR 110.5 million was approved. The EU financial aid will be implemented through the CARDS program from 2002 to 2006 and will support the plan for stabilization and association of the West Balkan countries. Priority will be given to the democratic processes, the legal, economic and social development, ecology and other key matters in the process. An accent will be put on the promotion of the civic society and the inter-ethnic dialogue, and on reconciliation and prevention of any new conflicts. The money will also be used to support the process of creating effective market economy, promote trade, decrease unemployment, improve the judiciary system, reinforce border controls, protect natural environment and prevent money laundering. For the countries in the region
included in the process of stabilization and association - Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia and Montenegro - the European Commission committed a total of EUR 5.5 billion.
In the next ten years, the EU, as well as other international political and financial factors are expected to show greater interest in the political consolidation of Southeastern Europe. In this regard, Macedonia is considered one of the leaders that should use its positive influence to help the countries of the Western Balkans get out of the crisis as soon as possible.

EIDHR - European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, micro-projects, 2006 programme, call for proposals

The European Mission in Macedonia is seeking proposals for small-scale financial support for initiatives aimed at promoting and protecting human rights, as well as, democracy and governance strengthening with financial assistance from the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), micro-projects programme of the European Communities.

CALL FOR PROJECT PROPOSALS UNDER GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES REUNITING EUROPE FUND

The British Embassy in Skopje seeks proposals from government institutions and civil
society for projects to be funded under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s
“Global Opportunities Reuniting Europe” Fund in the financial year 2007/08.
The deadline for submission of project concepts is 6 November 2006. Only selected
projects will be required to submit full bids by the 21 January 2006 deadline.
Macedonia is eligible to bid for the Global Opportunities Fund Reuniting Europe
Fund. The objective of this programme is to bolster and extend the success of
enlargement by supporting countries through the EU integration process, particularly
in the field of improved governance and economic growth. The overall budget for
Macedonia is £550,000 for the financial year 2007/2008. Interested implementers are
encouraged to submit multiyear projects ranging from £80,000 - £100,000 per year.
The Project Appraisal Committee of the British Embassy Skopje will consider
proposals that meet at least one of the GOF Reuniting Europe objectives as set at
below:
-To increase political and economic transparency and accountability
-To build administrative capacity for EU integration
-To contribute to the creation of a pro-business environment
All interested potential implementers are invited to a briefing meeting on Monday, 30
October 2006 at 12:00 at the British Embassy, Salvador Aljende 73, IZIIS
building.
Due to a limit on numbers, we would be grateful if each organisation is represented by
one person only. Please confirm the details of your representative by Friday, 27
October 2006, on the following contact numbers: 02 3299 277 or 02 3299 244.

Тhe Draft Strategy for Public Information and Communication has been presented

On 25 October 2006, the new Draft-Strategy for Public Information and Communication in the Process of European Union Integration of the Republic of Macedonia 2006-2010 was presented. The presentation took place in the building of the Government of Republic of Macedonia.The event was opened by the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for European Affairs, Gabriela Konevska Trajkovska. She stressed that the EU membership is not a strategic priority of the government only, but also of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, which is confirmed by the support of 90 % for EU accession.“The goal of this Strategy is to raise the general level of knowledge abut the EU Integration Process. This Strategy will inform, educate, unite and mobilize towards the fulfilment of the EU idea. This approach is in line with the EU documents on public communication”, Konevska-Trajkovska outlined.“The government needs a clear strategy and a consistent message to convince the people at home that the short term pain of real reform is outweighed by the long term gain of real membership. And it needs a similar strategic approach to the external message that Macedonia is making the real changes needed to qualify for membership”, the Ambassador of Great Britain, Robert Chatterton Dickson said. “It is important every effort to be made from the earliest possible opportunity to prepare the public opinion of the challenges of becoming a member of the European family of nations. The support is enormous here, it is over 90%. But, we should keep it high and in order to do so, a lot of work has to be done. That is why this Strategy is very important”, the Head of the EU Mission to the Republic of Macedonia, Erwan Fouéré emphasised.Igor Ilievski, State Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is prepared to make active and complete contribution to the successful implementation of this Strategy. This is the right time to develop, conceptualise and implement a comprehensive Strategy for media presentation of the Republic of Macedonia in the EU Member States”.The participants included State Secretaries form the Ministries, persons responsible for public relations, ambassadors from EU Member States as well as representatives from other institutions involved in the EU Integration process.Some of the key projects envisaged by the strategy include:develop a number of “champions” – people well known to the public or specific sectors, and trusted by them - to support Ministers promoting EU messages, These to be selected from the entertainment and sports world, business leaders, academia, and to be provided with programmes of activity and the Briefing/Message sheets
set up an informal consortium – Friends of the EU Process for RM – coordinated by the President of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and SEA. The consortium members would include eminent individuals form the EU Member States and would held informal meetings in Macedonia.
establish a virtual library/data bank of visual (photographs and video/DVDs) and audio material on EU issues, and key documents. For media use.
establish and coordinate a network of municipal information officers, through the Association of Units of Local Self Government, as a means of communicating with local communities.
establishment of EU Communication Centre (pool) to conduct a campaign (round table discussions, debates, workshops in the units of local self-government. The Centre would be coordinated by the President of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia in cooperation with SEA, all ministries and the Association of Units of Local Self-Government.
SEA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Culture – establishment of EU Cultural Centre (pool) for promotion of Macedonia’s cultural and historical values in the country and abroad.
“We learn about the EU” – SEA and the Ministry of Education – a project aimed at organising regular educational presentations in primary, secondary and higher education institutions.
“EU and the Business” – SEA and the Ministry of economy – under coordination of the Deputy prime Minister responsible for Economic Affairs – a project aimed at organising promotional activities and debates about the economic standards, challenges and the expected results.
“The EU Agriculture and RM” – SEA and the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Water Supply – a project aimed at organising a campaign for approximation of the standards to the farmers, educational and promotional concept.

Media Relations Manager for the Objective One Partnership of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Clare Morgan, Media Relations Manager for the Objective One Partnership of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are well known in the UK as a place for traditional bucket and spade holidays. British families have stayed in bed and breakfast accommodation and sunbathed on beaches.

This led to seasonal, low paid jobs and while the holiday image is known nationwide, the region as a place for successful business is a new message.

The message that the Objective One Partnership is tasked with getting across is that the region has a burgeoning knowledge-based economy as well as top quality food and drink producers.

The obstacles to relaying this message include distance; Cornwall is about five hours by road or train from London. National journalists will often not travel yet the best way to challenge preconceptions is by demonstrating the evidence.

Because the next generation of European funding is likely to be different the Partnership also wants to demonstrate that the region has handled its first round of Objective One investment wisely.

The theme is not only present successes but also the need for partnerships to work well in the future. We believe that Objective One has been used so effectively in our region because of the uniqueness of the Objective One Partnership.

The Objective One Partnership Office for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was created solely to work and speak for the Programme. It fulfils an essential role as the independent voice of the Programme, and has been crucial in ensuring common ownership across the region. It is the public face for the Programme.

This partly arose from the Objective 5b Programme, which ran until 1999. It was discovered that not enough communication had gone on and the people of the region did not feel involved and did not see investment benefits.

Partnership communication challenges include gaining high visibility regionally, nationally and across Europe. The partnership team needs to communicate to the media, programme partners and interested parties such as MEPs.

One of the main ways of doing this is by gathering and publicising evidence of successful projects ranging from the largest such as the Combined Universities in Cornwall to the smallest which can include buying a bicycle for someone out of work so they can get to a new job on time.

The Combined Universities in Cornwall is the region’s first and the Objective One flagship project. Because of this it has generated a lot of media interest. Publicity includes stories about its opening, about students working with businesses and about their achievements.

The main campus building is an iconic design and the Objective One Partnership hosted an architecture conference there in September. This was an excellent chance to demonstrate the concrete and visible difference O1 has been making. Speakers included Partnership Director Carleen Kelemen who could emphasise the people in the buildings who are working to increase the region’s knowledge and wealth.

Another great story opportunity to come from the university was Qemscan, a piece of machinery that analyses non-organic particles. The first to be installed in a university Qemscan is usually used by mining companies but, thanks to the imagination of professors at the CUC, its applications have expanded and several murderers have been convicted with the help of Qemscan forensic evidence analysis. The machinery is also being used on ancient archaeological remains and has spin out applications for many businesses. The fact that Qemscan is used in murder investigations immediately fascinated the media.

The CUC could be called a publicity dream because of its size and its intentions. The Hub is a purpose-built £50 million campus offering world-class facilities for up to 5,000 students. By 2010, the CUC will have created an additional 4,000 HE student places, producing 1,300 graduates a year and generating £32 million a year for Cornwall. It is expected to create an additional 1,000 jobs.

Its own team has been to Brussels to talk about the project. Even detractors of how Objective One money is being spent, particularly an economist who has long argued that the European money should not have gone to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has no disagreement with the CUC.

The Knowledge Spa, which houses a part of a new medical school as well as business incubation units built with O1 investment is also an easy publicity target. The Partnership team is writing case studies of every business to become a tenant and undertook the publicity for a conference in May.

A project which aims to introduce locally sourced food and drink to hospitals is based at the Knowledge Spa. To celebrate Organic Week, organic breakfasts were served at Cornwall’s largest hospital. The partnership and hospital organised a media event which resulted in good coverage as well as building good relations with the media by giving them a free breakfast.

The Eden Project is another easy publicity target. The Project has its own press team and attracts worldwide attention with events such as the African part of Live Eight held this summer.

O1 money has been invested in the new education centre as well as a project to encourage local food sourcing and the Partnership communication team works side by side with Eden PRs to make sure the O1 name is prominent.

Eden is a great example to show visitors as its twin biomes are unique. In April this year a delegation of Swedish and Danish representatives, including Maria Evertsson, came to Cornwall to study Partnership communications. Eden was one of the places they were taken as it is such a visual demonstration of success.

Projects less easy to publicise often involve training. Many projects concentrate on trying to introduce or reintroduce people to work. Many of these people do not want publicity and this makes it difficult for the communication team when the question is raised – what has Objective One done for communities? Instead the team has to point to statistics or visible community regenerators such as restoration of historic buildings. This is a challenge as it is the people that the press are interested in.

Other methods the Partnership team uses to communicate messages include:

· Answering media inquiries both good and bad.
· Highlighting heroes because the press likes people.
· Working with project partners. EG: Cornwall County Council has been a major partner in investment for many O1 projects. The partnership and the council’s communications teams share events and add to each other’s press releases.

A major opportunity about to open up is in the form of businessman David Brewer. In November he will become Lord Mayor of the City of London. He has strong ties with Cornwall and has said he wants to promote the region as much as possible during his busy year. This will include serving Cornish food at official banquets. The Partnership is working closely with Mr Brewer and he has agreed to write his own articles for us.

There are various channels the Partnership uses to send out its message. One is our own Quarterly review. Themes for this small booklet have included business, food and drink, university and environment.

Other channels include newspapers; radio; TV; magazines; websites and presentations.

Stories that have sparked interest include one about a clothing store that is branching into organic cotton. The store received Objective One investment via Business Link, a business support organisation. This was published nationally in Drapers, a fashion trade magazine which that week chose an eye-catching front cover.

The Partnership has its own website – www.objectiveone.com- and all press releases are uploaded and the site has information for media, partners and potential applicants.

Partnership Director, Carleen Kelemen, spreads the message by giving interviews to the media and presentations to others.

Sometimes partners come up with opportunities for publicity themselves. In June Cornwall Pure Business, a project encouraging businesses to move to Cornwall, organised Cornwall Business Week. This received coverage on national television, radio and newspapers. One reporter was so interested he spent two days in Cornwall to see the effects O1 investment had really had. To generate this interest in what is seen is as a distant rural area is quite a coup.

On top of the success stories which need to be communicated two new messages have arrived. Because so much investment has gone on since the Objective One Programme began in 2000 the four funds are now almost committed. This means some applicants will be disappointed. This is now being weaved into press releases.

This leads onto the second emerging message - Post 2006. While the region believes Objective One will be followed by some form of investment it doesn’t yet know what. The partnership is represented on a new group set up to keep abreast of news on Post 2006 convergence through the whole of the South West of England. That group is also deciding a communications strategy.

In taking forward the economic agenda the partnership is determined to maintain the territorial visibility of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly as an area with a positive appetite for regeneration and change and will continue to dream up new ways to get the message across.

Rough road through the way of public procurement after the EU accession

Rough road through the way of public procurement after the EU accession
László Velikovszky
Head of Unit
Hungarian Development Office – Unit for Procurement Coordination and Control
Deák F. u. 5.
1052 Budapest
Hungary
Phone: +36-30-2227428
Email: velikovszky.laszlo@cfcu.gov.hu
Web: www.cfcu.hu/ekke

The new Hungarian Act on Public Procurement entered into force on 1 May 2004, on the day of Hungary’s EU accession. But it’s important to emphasize that those parts of the new Act which regulate contract award procedures for public procurement with support from European Union structural funds and Cohesion Fund entered into force on 1 January 2004. The main purpose of the Act was to ensure the total harmonization of the Hungarian regulation to the Community Law. This purpose has come to fruition.
Furthermore the purpose was to provide for transparency and extensive public control in the reasonable use of public monies, ensure the fairness of public competition in the course of public procurement in accordance with our applicable international agreements and European Community legislation and hereby promote the reduction of risks of corruption. The principles of fairness and public nature of competition also predominate in the course of Hungarian contract award procedures. In the remedy proceedings regulated by the Act the application may be submitted only on an infringement of principles.
The Hungarian regulation of public procurement also wanted to assure the transparency of use of public monies through determination of thresholds of the public procurement. Although the Community directives on public procurement deal only with the public contracts of a value reaching or exceeding the Community thresholds, the Member States of the EU had the possibility to establish their national thresholds. Hungary has exploit this opportunity. Therefore our Act has determined three kinds of regimes on thresholds and procedures: public procurements reaching or exceeding Community thresholds, public procurements of a value reaching or exceeding the national thresholds but not reaching the Community thresholds and finally public procurements below the national value thresholds.
The Hungarian Act on Public Procurement determines the contracting authorities extensively: with respect to the contracting authorities the Act distinguishes two larger groups: one of them is called the classical contracting authorities and the other one is called the special contracting authorities. The fist group involves for example ministries, central budgetary authorities, public bodies, public foundations, those entities whose subsidy is granted by the State or the EU by more than 50 %. The second group involves entities operating in the water, energy, transportation and electronic telecommunication sectors. The system of the remedies in relation to public procurement also harmonizes with the Community Law. This system regulated by the Act ensures immediate and efficient remedies after the occurrence of the infringements. It imposes sanctions against breaking and evading the Act.

Countries might converge, unlike provinces

Albert van der Horst
Researcher
CPB, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis
Van Stolkweg 14
2585 JR The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 703383402
Email: vanderhorst@cpb.nl
Web: www.cpb.nl/nl/general/org/homepages/avdh/


Countries might converge, unlike provinces

The European Union is one of the most prosperous parts of the world. Yet there are large regional disparities in productivity, wages, and employment, and they have only increased with the recent enlargement. Thus, there seems to be ample justification for helping lagging regions to catch up, both at the national and the European level. Unfortunately, regional policy appears to be ineffective. Well known are the fruitless attempts of Italy to bridge the gap between the Mezzogiorno and the North, of Germany to bridge the gap between the Neue Länder and the West, and of the European Commission to reduce regional disparities in general.

This study validates one explanation of the ineffectiveness of regional policy. We set off from the New Economic Geography (NEG), a relatively new branch of economics that incorporates agglomeration advantages and location choice in a formal general equilibrium framework. By estimating the key parameters of NEG models with European regional data, we are able to underpin the conclusion that dogged attempts to make lagging regions catch up are often doomed to fail. Lagging regions do not stand alone, but pertain to local core-periphery systems. Economic activity lured to the periphery by subsidies will in the long run end up
in the core. This is because the periphery lacks the critical economic mass.

Regional policy demands a theory that explains the location of production and consumption. Since the early nineties economists have such a theory at their disposal: the NEG unites within a consistent general equilibrium framework older insights from international trade theory and spatial economics.

Firms and workers are subject to centripetal and centrifugal market forces. The owner of a firm must choose a location for his plant. If he chooses a core region, i.e. a region with a large market, then he saves on trade costs. Less goods will have to `exported' to other regions. Therefore, he can set a lower price, and thus capture a larger share of the market. If he chooses a peripheral region, i.e. a region with a small market, then he faces less competition from other local firms. Moreover, he evades urban costs such as congestion and high land prices. Similarly, a worker must choose a location where to live and work. If he chooses a core region, then he gets a higher real wage. If he chooses a peripheral region, he evades urban costs.

The list of centripetal and centrifugal forces working on firms and workers can be extended, and differs between NEG models. The common denominator of the models is, however, that location decisions depend on the balance of these forces, which in their turn depend on trade costs. A range of trade costs supports an even distribution of economic activity. We call this state the `dispersion equilibrium'. A complementary range supports an uneven distribution of economic activity, in which one region hosts a disproportionate amount. We call this state the `agglomeration equilibrium'.

The agglomeration equilibrium is characterised by a spatial wage structure: agglomeration advantages materialise as higher wages in core regions. Moreover, the causality of location choice underlying the equilibrium is circular: firms and workers prefer the core since it has the largest market; the core has the largest market since it host many firms and workers. Thus, if agglomeration equilibria are the rule, regional disparities are difficult to counter with regional policy.

What does the European economic geography look like? A satellite picture of Europe reveals banana shaped beam of light running from London to Milan that indicates a large cluster of economic activity. Zooming in reveals, moreover, that similar core-periphery structures repeat themselves at lower levels of aggregation. Agglomeration is ubiquitous.

Descriptive statistics confirm the eyeball analysis of the satellite picture. It indicates that
agglomeration is especially pronounced at a (sub) provincial level of regional aggregation. Moreover, the little movement in the location of economic activity that can be discerned is attributable to the increasing importance of services as compared to agriculture and manufacturing. Agglomeration is local and stable.

The observation that agglomeration is global is confirmed by the econometric analysis of the spatial wage structure in European regions. We show that wages are relatively high, not only in, but also in the neighbourhood of agglomerated regions. The estimates imply a strong agglomeration advantage that quickly peters out over distance.

It is unsurprising that regional policy often fails to reduce regional disparities in productivity and income. Core regions tend to be better off than their surrounding peripheries. And core-periphery structures are hard to upset since agglomeration advantages pull economic activity to the cores.

In this light the recent shift in thinking on regional policy makes sense. Policy makers seem more willing to recognise that disparities between provinces, and between regions within provinces are persistent. They increasingly target the available funds on regional growth poles.

There is, however, an equity-efficiency trade off. Agglomeration is positively related to overall productivity and growth, but negatively to wage equality. Moreover, improving the market access of peripheral regions with infrastructure - or any other initiative that promotes economic integration - may in fact increase regional disparities. It increases the incentive to locate in the core once the peripheral market can be supplied from here with
more ease. If one is to improve the fate of lagging regions, then a focus on large regions that contain their own core periphery structures, as well as a focus on labour - the least mobile production factor - is desirable.

The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme

By Johannes Flensted-Jensen, County Mayor of Aarhus and Chairman of the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme

e-mail: jfj@ag.aaa.dk www.aaa.dk and www.jylland-fyn.dk

The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme

The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme was set up in 1998 by the 8 counties and 173 municipalities in the region, along with the Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs. Just over 50% of the Danish population live within the Jutland–Fyn region.
Long before 1998, these Danish counties and municipalities had observed that Greater Copenhagen was developing at a much faster rate than their own region. They also noticed that this rate of development was intensifying over time. A significant reason for this was that state funds were being spent to a greater degree in Greater Copenhagen than in the rest of Denmark. Until 1998, the individual counties and municipalities competed for investments from both the state and private sectors. This meant that it became much too easy for the state to play the local and regional authorities off against each other. Something had to be done to alter this state of affairs.
That “something” was the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme, headed by a political steering group with very good decision-making powers. This group consisted of the 8 county mayors and 8 mayors representing all the municipalities in each of the individual counties. The Danish state was also represented.
The venture was set up after realising that wide-reaching cooperation was necessary right across the board, cutting through administrative boundaries and both the public and private sectors – to ensure good conditions as a basic framework for the business community throughout the region.
The first task for this venture was to analyse precisely where any imbalance occurred. The results confirmed the feeling that most people already had – namely that, compared with Greater Copenhagen, the Jutland–Fyn region had a considerably lower level of education and training; a higher rate of unemployment; lower income levels and basis of taxation; lower incidence of setting up new companies; less use of IT in business; and considerably less expenditure on research and innovation.
With this information in hand, it was much easier to reach agreement on what the problem was and which issues should be focused on as part of the business cooperation scheme.
The venture currently has four main focus areas that should also be considered in the light of increasing globalisation:

· Education, training and expertise
· Entrepreneurship
· Innovation and research
· IT

The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme has led to a number of projects that have provided additional benefits in terms of the emergence of a network culture that transcends the normal boundaries between the business community, the education and research institutions and the public authorities. This has provided a solid, forward-looking basis for collaboration focusing on growth and innovation in the Danish business community – and it is this environment that provides the foundation for the comprehensive activities that are constantly being developed as part of this business cooperation scheme.
The venture also aims to exert an influence on the overall regional-political agenda in Denmark. One measure currently under way is a conference to be held in Copenhagen on 7 October 2005 to help persuade the Danish parliament to decide on greater decentralisation of state jobs.

What has the venture achieved in these focus areas?

IT

The Jutland–Fyn IT effort really took off in 2002, when a broad political agreement was reached in the Danish parliament regarding the allocation of DKK 175 million to the Jutland–Fyn region over a period of 4 years. This sum was doubled by an allocation from members of the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme and the business community. Our focus on IT will strengthen the key IT skills and widen the use of IT in the entire Jutland–Fyn region – especially in those areas that are not located close to the IT knowledge centres. The IT effort is built up via close collaboration between the knowledge and education institutions and the business community. The aim is to create synergy between the business community and the world of research as regards knowledge about IT. Half of the funds have been allocated to 4 specialist IT centres in the Jutland–Fyn region. The other half have been used for specific collaborative projects between the knowledge centres and the business community. So far, this has involved more than 80 projects, ranging from IT in toys to digital scenography and computer models of building components. Two knowledge-sharing conferences have also been held.

Innovation and research

Expenditure on innovation and research has also been sharply increased in both the private and public sectors. However, cooperation between private companies and public research institutions is lagging behind. The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme has therefore financed and set up a scheme called “Research Contact”, which draws on DKK 28 million (EUR 4 million) to provide subsidies to collaborative projects between knowledge institutions and private companies in the Jutland–Fyn region. In addition, the venture has initiated several projects aimed at enabling students to gain practical experience in private companies, especially those located outside the major urban areas. The aim of this is twofold – partly to get the students to see the job opportunities that exist in smaller private companies, and partly to provide these companies with the latest research knowledge.
Within this area, the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme also held a camp that focused on commercialising a larger proportion of the inventions and research results that stem from the public health sector.

Education, training and expertise

Education and training are mainly financed by the state in Denmark, and the venture’s opportunities therefore mostly consist of exerting an influence on the national decision-makers to increase education and training efforts and to make it easier to get credit for skills already acquired. We are by no means passive. We held a camp attended by all the most important education and training representatives to obtain as many ideas as possible for raising the level of education and training in the region. This resulted in a suggestion for building up business courses based on modules to make further education and training more flexible. Members of the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme were willing to jointly finance such a proposal for state courses, but the Danish state has so far refused to contribute to implementing the suggestion.
Another project that arose at the camp is “Developing skills at the workplace”, which enables employees to improve their skills during working hours.

Entrepreneurship

All the counties and municipalities in Denmark try to provide consultancy services to increase the rate of entrepreneurship and improve the ability of entrepreneurs to survive. The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme held a camp to boost entrepreneurship in the region. This led to the building of a Jutland–Fyn entrepreneur high school, which is currently under construction. This school will provide tuition for both entrepreneurs and their families in what it actually means to be an entrepreneur and an entrepreneur family. The school is financed by the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme, participating counties and the European Social Fund (ESF).

The Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme in an EU perspective

Collaborating with other regions in Europe has not been part of the agenda to date – in terms of the EU. This is not because we are reluctant to cooperate, but because the venture has concentrated up to now on managing to set up interdisciplinary partnership across administrative boundaries in West Denmark. However, cooperating with other European regions is one of our aims. Based on the preliminary statements regarding the new programme period, the Jutland–Fyn Business Cooperation Scheme can see opportunities for entering into new partnerships with other regions in Europe.
Individual members of the Jutland–Fyn partnership have independently participated in a number of EU-related activities and programmes, such as political-administrative collaborative projects in CPMR (Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe), including the North Sea Commission. Other projects include the EU Commission’s network of Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE), as well as research projects and regional development projects.
In the new programme period for 2007, we see far more opportunities for entering into partnerships with other regions in Europe. This could include regional development with a focus on research and innovation, business development, tourism and rural districts. We see significant advantages in being part of the solid Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) network.

I can also see opportunities for Jutland–Fyn participating in
· Entrepreneurs: Seeking financing through business matching
· InvestorNet: Investors
· Technology Incubator Managers: Incubator forum for technology and management
· Academia Network: Academia in entrepreneurship, innovation and finance
· Service Centre: Innovative companies seeking expert service providers
· ProTon Europe: Transferring knowledge between research centres and companies, institutions, etc., including the setting up of Knowledge Transfer Offices between education and training at a high level of knowledge.
This opens up considerable opportunities for developing cooperation and regional partnership within the region between knowledge centres, companies and public institutions, as well as expanding geographically to include European regions and European collaboration with the EU.

Planning regional development of „lagging regions“- example from Slovakia

Planning regional development of „lagging regions“-
example from Slovakia

Andrej Steiner, PhD.
Carpathian Development Institute, Slovak Republic
steiner@kri.sk; www.kri.sk

It is generally acknowledged that there has been a steady trend towards an increase in spatial and regional disparities within the EU. The European Commission has long recognized that the process of economic integration championed by the EC through the construction of the Single European market and the EMU could and does sharpen regional inequalities in the EU. This could ultimately undermine the cohesion of the EU and the political viability of (and support for) the project of European economic and political integration.
An active EU policy to address above-mentioned challenges has been reflected mainly in creation of the “European Regional Development Fund” to assist the development of the lagging or declining regions of the European Community. However, it has often been highlighted that there are strong tensions and incompatibilities between the objectives of economic competitiveness through economic integration and liberalisation on the one hand and 'economic and social cohesion' on the other.
Currently Slovakia, as one of the EU newcomers, is taken by EC as the region lagging deeply behind of the EU GDP average. The Slovak government has based so far its development policy on the National Development Plan and central management of EU funds. The Slovak economy as whole (NUTS I level) is at present improving (mainly in macro-economic indicators) but the economies (and quality of life) of its four NUTS II regions differ a lot. The greatest difference (in negative sense) one can find between the Slovakia–East region (Kosice and Presov self-governing NUTS III regions) and Slovakia as such. This gap in growth rates is damaging and could even more damage the national economy, as it means that these regions are not fulfilling their potential. It also results in reduced life chances for people in the poorer regions where not only low productivity but also unemployment and ill health are concentrated.
The Government has not so far acknowledge fully the scale and persistence of this gap and we are concerned that not enough has yet been done to ensure that policies and funds distribution are in place to allow to reduce the intra-national development gaps.
We are confident the Government needs to take tough decision about priorities including:
Recognising the differences between regions and prioritising the least prosperous ones, rather than current approach of developing policies for the benefit of all regions.
Acknowledging that measures needed to tackle unemployment need to be different in areas where are a lots of jobs and in place where job opportunities are few and far between
Ensuring that the fundamentals for growth – infrastructure, research and development investment are put in place now in less prosperous regions
Giving adequate power and resources to elected regional assemblies
Reviewing and revising the allocation of public resources between regions of Slovakia

Furthermore the major indicator for the measurement of performance – regional Gross Domestic Product per head, does not represent the real situation in the region and we recommend instead the use of basket of measures including productivity, employment and unemployment rates, household income, span of GDP in different districts within the region, quality of life etc.
Various EU countries have started to pay attention to decentralized development management, which creates a favorable environment for local/regional economic development planning. However, a number of basic problems in Slovakia hinder the effective functioning of such a system. One of the most important obstacles constitutes a general lack of reliable planning relevant information at that level. The shortcomings especially pertain to the peripheral regions. This observation implies that particularly in those contexts where a planning decision support basis is needed most urgently, data and information on the availability and use of resources and the potentials and constraints for local/regional economic development are highly deficient. Especially socio-economic profile data, including baseline figures, dynamics and trends, are either unavailable, or invalid/outdated. Moreover, planning relevant information on spatial aspects, such as socio-economic distribution patterns and their dynamics, is largely absent. Ensuing, a framework for public action in the three principal development policy areas of promoting opportunity, facilitating empowerment and enhancing human resources, respectively, is difficult to construct. It is vital, particularly in remote peripheral regions, to build capacity for regional participatory planning and management decision support bases by gaining insight in the availability and use of indigenous resources, and to assess the regional potentials and constraints concerning sustainable regional development within the context of national and EU development philosophy.
The underlying assumption is often that the problems of ‘lagging regions’ can be solved by copying more successful regions, which is not always the case. A more nuanced approach, tailored to individual regions, is strongly recommended. For example, in relation to rural and peripheral regions, a critical factor for successful regional development tends to be the need for branches of local/regional state and self-governing governments to work together, also so they can better attract investments and support the regional private sector. Such areas do not always have the opportunity or resources to develop strong PPPs or establish local industrial clusters. Networking, both within and external to the region should, however, be a key component of all regions’ knowledge economy development strategies. Introducing the new regional policy model i.e. shifting from regional government to regional governance (from public sector as direct deliverer of services and policy maker to just one player and at best the strategic enabler), apart from the democratic assets in this approach, is often appropriate in peripheral regions. There is also a tendency, at both national and sometimes European level, to underplay the role of the regional authorities and their responsibility for development of the area under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the role of regional government is vitally important and does not seem to be being squeezed to insignificance between the jaws of a new global dichotomy as some would have it.
Regional policies and regional development programs in peripheral lagging regions should be appropriate to practical needs. For example, the importance of business concentration highlights policy interventions that focus on improving regional/local factor conditions as a means of enhancing competitive advantage. Most of those factor conditions depend often on regional or proximate markets for factor inputs such as local demand and supply, industrial and other interdependencies, accessibility and the governance structure.
Policy initiatives can play an important role in improving these conditions. At a regional level, major efforts can be devoted to improving tailored education, training, public research and infrastructure. Exchange of information can be stimulated and common approaches can be developed to improve synergies between businesses, and between public and private agents. Barriers to market entry or growth can be reduced, particularly for small firms, by improving access to ‘business supports’, for example through provision of information, advice and improved access to venture capital.
As it was already mentioned, the self-governing regions of Košice and Prešov belong among the least developed territories in the Slovak Republic and among ten least developed regions of the European Union. This is a consequence of the difficult transformation process in the region, insufficiently developed transport, technological, and civic infrastructure, but also influence of the peripheral position of the region within Slovakia (not merely from the geographical distance viewpoint but also from partially organizational and institutional separation).
Today’s approach of the Slovak central government in setting up development priorities and mechanism for decision-making process of EU financial assistance distribution has only marginally contributed towards reducing intra-national regional disparities. The process of development of the genuine Regional Development Plan (RDP) for the Slovakia East - NUTS II region (consisting of two administratively independent NUTS III regions) has been initiated by regional authorities in 2004 and should lead to
- reinforcement of the Slovakia-East regional priorities in the National Strategic Reference Framework - based on deep knowledge of regional/local needs and potential
- empowerment of regional structures enabling their active role in decision-making process
- more responsibility in the sphere of EU funds management to the region

We believe that the most important components in the development and maintenance of planning system – shared values and integrated approach are stronger developed at the regional/local level, so the planning process for the given disadvantaged region, including partial or full implementation, should stay there. It is obvious that appropriate managerial mechanism/system, capacity and skills, public support and interconnectedness with national plans should be in place.
Less centralized approach will be a significant key to regional growth, with less bureaucracy, more coherent regional policy, and better quality of programmes and projects, as well as it will win stronger public support.