Trento, Italy 4th – 5th November 2005

If we consider the inclusion into the communitarian institutions of the South East European countries, the European enlargement proceeds inconsistently and in antithetic shoves. Should we believe that the prevailing aspect is the optimism aroused by the recent decision to start the negotiations for the integration of Turkey and Croatia? And further, the optimism generated by the decision to start the negotiations for the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia and Montenegro? Or, rather, was this decision necessary in order to avoid the European Union's ultimate disintegration after the deadlock brought about by the French and Dutch vote on the Constitution? Are we therefore witnessing that sort of underlying euro-scepticism, which represents such a powerful restraint for the European enlargement?

However we may answer, the mood of the 1st May 2004 - with the European squares celebrating the enlargement to 25 as a step towards a strengthened Europe - is certainly remote. There are manifold causes: among them, the effects of a global war that, in the name of a ‘clash of civilisation', has divided Europe and forced it to close itself off into its fortress. Thus, a significant part of the public opinion was induced to think that this closure was necessary in order to protect ‘old Europe' against the consequences of increasing international instability, as well as from the danger of losing its profound cultural identity. This path was followed without considering that the European absence from the international scene is exactly what may foster this lapse into barbarianism. At the same time, this way, Europe avoids dealing with the deep causes of an unjust and exclusive globalisation.

Above all, there is a real risk to call into question the type of integration towards which we are heading. Is the European Union still a political project? Is it able to guide the old continent on the base of its tradition of democratic values? Or is it merely a free trade zone and (partly) a monetary union where the nation states keep their full sovereignty and only seek agreements to favour freedom of business?

No rules, the essence of modernity

It is a fact that there has been a slowing down of the EU enlargement towards South East Europe. Let us consider among the possible reasons, the fact that during the last 10-15 years this area has represented a source of economic and financial opportunities for a part of the Western entrepreneurial system. The invasive dynamics of the internationalisation practices of Western companies found favourable conditions in the increasing deregulation of these countries: an immense offshore area in the heart of Europe, an area which is free from communitarian rules and standards representing the possibility of an intense and cheap exploitation of human, material and environmental resources. Moreover, in some cases, perverse forms of illegal or even criminal economy join in to link the Balkan area with the rest of Europe through transnational ties.

We may call it transition, but it is the sharpest form of globalisation, made possible - also through conditions of extreme deregulation, such as war – by oligarchic elites with quasi-feudal characteristics, lacking any counterbalance. A type of power which finds its roots in the structure of the old communist regimes and where the control over the economy, politics, information and the military power still lays in the same hands.

These dynamics are well known and tolerated in the name of developmental progress and of the transition to a market economy in its most liberalist form: a market economy characterised by the absence of social nets and internal redistribution. A shock-transition led by nationalistic elites which took place - even if not in the whole of South East Europe – during the war and caused a constant worsening of the living conditions of the lowest social layers – deprived of any social protection – as well as those of the middle class.

The end of production

Generally, the widespread internationalisation of foreign companies has only partially benefited local economies in South East Europe: labour conditions and wages are rather poor, while profits return to the investors' countries. Meanwhile, apart from these companies, the economic situation in the region can be defined – with the risk of sounding extreme – as the ‘end of production'. The big kombinats, result of the socialist industrialisation, are agonising or not operating. Many talk about small and medium-size enterprises but little signs of them are visible. Even the agricultural production is weak, backward and defenceless in front of the economic dumping of subsidised European goods. As a consequence, import is much larger than export.

On the other hand, the business of privatisations, the real estate market, the great commercial activities flourish, moving around significant amounts of money with scant effects on real economy. Incidentally, these are the typical tools to launder the profits coming from trafficking activities across the region: drugs, tobacco, human beings, weapons, etc.

In short, there is no production, but trade. A post-modern phenomenon that in South East Europe is far more extreme than elsewhere. Therefore, while car industry in former Yugoslavia practically stopped developing in the 80s, in Belgrade you can buy Ferraris.

Starting over from the local level

In such a difficult context, we witness important efforts to reverse this trend. ‘Local development' is a keyword, even if it can be intended in different ways. One of the options is that to consider ‘local development' as pouring external resources in the territory, on the grounds that it is necessary to ‘bring development'. Unfortunately, the effects of this developmental model are only apparent and unsustainable. Another option is that to interpret local development as the improvement of local resources – believing that every territory owns all necessary elements for its own growth, and may only need a first impulse and support to start out.

If considering this second approach, it can be interesting for us to analyse the instruments and the experiences of territorial qualification, to identify the strong points and the uniqueness of local productions (selection of local products, quality marks…), to think about the territorial settings (production districts, partnership agreements…), about ways of collecting financial resources (local and national fiscality, but also emigrants' remittances to support the processes of local economic re-qualification).

Another issue that deserves attention is the multi-layered dimension of the concept: by which we mean to avoid interpreting development exclusively in economical terms (thinking only of resources to be poured in, as above) and rather taking into account social and political aspects. Thus, it is important to analyse the characteristics of local governments, how the community organises itself and which areas of autonomy it can obtain / it is granted by the centre. The outcome of any developmental effort is in fact, indissolubly linked to the degree of social cohesion and self-government. In the case of South East Europe, this is even more important given the low levels of social responsibility and the debase of the public sphere, all factors that jeopardise any attempt to control social dynamics. Therefore, it is necessary to start from the local level in order to prevent this drift. The need to strengthen local governments is crucial to support institutions that will be otherwise unable to undertake the challenge of the EU integration.

The path of territorial partnerships

The diplomacy of Cities and Regions, which has lately established relationships among different territories, is of major importance. Through it, many territorial partnerships have been established to connect European areas to South East Europe. There are various possible sectors: agriculture, tourism, wood production and processing, small and medium enterprises, micro-credit, social economy, etc. The fundamental principle is (should be) the reciprocity or the co-developmental effort in which the traditional approach - knowledge transfer - is replaced by a common search for answers in order to address the different challenges posed by globalisation all over the planet.
Needless to say, these territorial partnerships have different characteristics. The Western governments, both at national and at regional level, have distributed their efforts between the internationalisation of their local companies on one hand, and the support to socio-economic self sustainability of South East Europe on the other. Unfortunately, they have not always been efficient in reconciling these two aspects: at times, there have been inefficiency and cases where different institutions have promoted similar actions in the same areas; in other cases, there have been real incoherencies, when ‘solidarity' has been used as a mean to soften the social impact caused by the internationalisation policy of Western companies.

However, issues such as sustainability and reproducibility of local development processes have been addressed when the relations between territories were more solid and far-seeing. The sustainability and reproducibility of local development processes which can be achieved through the quality and uniqueness of products, forms of public participation and territorial revitalisation, interaction opportunities, support to social cohesion and responsibility (e.g. redesigning communitarian welfare on the ashes of the state social systems).

A need has emerged to define tailored policies addressing the issues of economic development and self-government, where territorial partnerships may become an instrument to strengthen local identities and, at the same time, to promote multilateral dialogue among regions. This may be the only way to avoid being overwhelmed by globalised economy.

Good practices on the way towards integration

During the Conference we will talk about various good practices, comparing different approaches and operative instruments experienced by the protagonists of Italian decentralised cooperation. The project ‘Balcani Cooperazione' – which aims at observing and analysing Italian decentralised cooperation activities in South East Europe – is designed to create this kind of framework. First of all, the project's objective is to provide information about where, how and which are the subjects who promote territorial partnerships between Italy and South East Europe. Furthermore, the project analyses the limits of this form of development cooperation, but also emphasises positive experiences and fosters horizontal links among potential partners.

The point here is to set up a system of relations aiming to create the conditions for a sustainable integration of South East Europe in the EU institutions. This was, and still is, the only perspective offering a way out to the present state of permanent uncertainty of the South East European countries that have not obtained, as yet, the status of EU candidate. This is a fundamental perspective for South East Europe in order to equip it with rules which can favour a legal and social culture; to improve its economic and social potentials; to favour relations at regional level; to move away from a political agenda dominated by nationalism. Finally, this process is necessary to provide Europe itself with the kind of compelling strength that it needs in the international arena, which is otherwise marked by Atlantic unilateralism.

The Europe of Regions

Permanent and articulated partnerships among territories are re-launching and redefining the idea of ‘a Europe of regions' able to accompany, strengthen and add value to the integration process. A process which, as we saw, risks discontinuity under the pressure of wars and terrorism, raising antique fears as well as new selfishness.

The Europe of regions (regions that are open and in dialogue with one another) is needed as an antidote to nationalistic waves. Wishing that Europe will show determination to proceed towards its reunification process; aware that such a process is a political wager that needs to be favoured rather than hindered by unreachable standards. In short, more not less politics. And this is, we think, what Europe ‘in between' needs. And with it, the whole of Europe.