Two meetings early in this week showed the frustrations that exist when preparing for long-term social programs in Serbia in particular.

The Donor Challenge
During the second UNDP General Meeting in a week that we have attended, Mr. Infante quickly gathered information on the current status of the major projects of each Cluster. I noticed that various Cluster leaders were eager to share more about their projects but given the time, were limited to describing the status of their projects as running smoothly or barred for various reasons. One of these reasons seems to be the lack of firm committment from donors, whether they may be the government or otherwise. The current position of Serbia and its efforts to enter the EU frustrate its ties with bilateral donors, which may no longer regard Serbia as a viable long-term partner and tend to pull their (often neccessary) finances before Serbia actually does make progress in its EU accession.
If it is not Serbia external ties that frustrate projects, it is the internal bureaucracy of Serbia itself. The Local Development Cluster's projects seem the most stalled by the government's inadequacy to present firm answers and funds for projects. This Cluster's work centers on aid from the bottom- up and seems an essential part of the empowerment of the poor.

Part of the government's inabilities to pass and act on new legislations aimed at social change and improvement seems to be the ever-changing political landscape of Serbia. This reality was one feared by the various stakeholders at the National Assembly meeting this last Tuesday.

Quickened Pace Wanted
The National Assembly open debate centred on human rights issues regarding refugees and internally displaced persons as well as a draft law that provided protection for these groups through housing placements.

It was very interesting and overwhelming to be at this meeting for several reasons. The first regarded the experience and expertise that permeated the panel which included Ms. Popovic, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Serbia; Mr. Kotsalainen, who head the UNHCR in Serbia; Mr. Kalin, the representative of the UN Secretary- General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons and finally Mr. Gnocchi of the European Commission to Serbia. Each discussed the nature of the problem of refugees and internally displaced persons, which given the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia has been a growing issue in Serbia. The government's efforts in alleviating this problem has been frustrated itself by military strife in the past decades to the point that a good proportion of these groups remain unregistered and socially, politically unprotected.

Once this problem was unpacked by the panel, the discussions that grew from the discussion period seemed to unearth a new frustration amongst the attendees. Their feelings can be described as a fear that while recognition of the problem is important, so much time has been spent on this matter that its solutions will need to be quickly implemented should the stakeholders want to have any realistic hope of their success.

This sentiment especially permeated the comments towards the 21 new articles of the Draft legislation aimed at improving the living arrangements of refugees and displaced persons. The attendees and stakeholders were adament that the Draft law needed to be passed quickly in order to have it be helpful at all to its intended beneficiaries. While the panel was more cautious and suggested patience in order for the Draft law to be refined, the attendees were more anxious that should more time be spent on tuning the law, it may not pass before a government change, in which case there is no guarantee for governmental support on the legislation.

This said, it was interesting that while the attendees were suggesting quickened passing of the law, they also wanted to make additions to it. This struck me as a very frustrating balance that seems to be embedded in the inistitutions here whether at the level of international organizations, NGOs, donors or otherwise and it revolves around the lack of predictability in the political realm of Serbia.

As such, projects seem to be frustrated by the actions of frustrated actors aiming to strike the balance that they believe from their perpective will be the most beneficial.

While this post may seem negative, there is a huge positive to be taken out and that is that against this environment, projects are initiated, continued and concluded which portrays the still overall hopeful sentiment in Serbia's institutions. These institutions remain confident that their continued efforts will eventually combine with timing to present more concrete results for Serbia.