Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je 24. sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Dvanaestog saziva za utorak, 30. mart, sa početkom u 9.00 časova.

What is a civilisational achievement for Pristina and who gave whom the oxygen? In the new episode of #CoupletChorusRebuttal listen in which atmosphere Parliamentary Questions passed?

A sitting at which MPs are supposed to perform a controlling role by directly asking questions to members of the Government is always a good indicator of the social climate. That is why we will not deal with the questions that the ruling majority addresses to the ministers in order to give them the opportunity to brag about their achievements without a time limit. We will have a look at the way they communicate. The head of the parliamentary group United Valley – Party of Democratic Action of Sandžak, Shaip Kamberi, a representative of the Albanian national minority in Serbia, asked about the continuation of the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština, and also asked the state to respond to hate speech against minorities. In this discussion, both the contents and the tone were not much of a surprise. The Prime Minister Ana Brnabić and the Minister of Health Zlatibor Lončar are replying to the MP.

“The EU has always called on all political actors to get involved in actions that create and advocate an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation. In spite of such demands coming from the EU, we are witnessing frequent and unnecessary provocations that risk bringing the entire negotiation process back to the starting point. In the earlier period, the man in charge of provocations was Marko Đurić, but since he left for America, his role has been unfortunately taken over by President Vučić.”

“I guess we were all supposed to get the impression that you and the European Union are two peas in a pod, that you… What, are you threatening us? I don’t understand. Are we supposed to be scared now? Let me remind you of the things of life from our recent past. When you didn’t have PCR tests, who gave them to you, the European Union or Belgrade? [Or] when you didn’t have oxygen… Has the European Union given you a single vaccine? Do you even know what you want?”

“You are talking about hate speech, so where is Priština [when we talk about] hate speech. Well, for Priština, hate speech is a civilisational achievement. You are still [in a civilisational phase of] torturing, kidnapping and killing.  Marko Đurić felt it best on his own skin. Do you want me to remind you of the scene when he was taken out and forced to parade through the streets of Prištin, dragged by a tie like a dog.”

The way that the executive speaks to MPs is not milder even when it comes to far less difficult topics such as the protection of Cyrillic alphabet. The independent MP Vladan Glišić and the Minister of Culture Maja Gojković.

“We must remember that the Declaration on the Protection of the Serbian People was announced in 2017, by the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party and the President of Serbia, and it was supposed to turn into the protection of the Serbian language and Cyrillic, however, it didn’t catch on. “

“One shouldn’t say the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party, but – the President of the Republic of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, or the President of the Serbian Progressive Party. And the malice in asking questions… leave it for someplace else.”  

In this convocation composed of 250 MPs, the opposition is represented by seven people.

For the Open Parliament, Mirjana Nikolić.

Šta je civilizacijsko dostignuće za Prištinu i ko je kome dao kiseonik? U novoj epizodi #StrofaRefrenReplika poslušajte u kakvoj atmosferi je proteklo postavljanje pitanja članovima Vlade.

Sednica na kojoj narodni poslanici treba da izvrše kontrolnu ulogu tako što direktno postavljaju pitanja članovima Vlade, uvek je dobar pokazatelj društvene atmosfere. Zato se nećemo baviti pitanjima koja vladajuća većina postavlja ministrima kako bi im dala mogućnost da se bez vremenskog ograničenja hvale svojim dostignućima. Osvrnućemo se na način komunikacije. Šef poslaničke grupe Ujedinjena dolina - SDA Sandžaka Šaip Kamberi, inače predstavnik albanske nacionalne manjine u Srbiji, pitao je o nastavku dijaloga Beograda i Prištine ali i tražio da država nešto preduzme protiv govora mržnje prema manjinama. U ovoj raspravi očekivan je i sadržaj, ali i ton. Poslaniku odgovaraju premijerka Ana Brnabić i ministar zdravlja Zlatibor Lončar.

„EU je uvek prizivala sve političke aktere da se uključe u akcije koje stvaraju, promovišu atmosferu pogodnu za pomirenje. I pored ovakvih zahteva koji dolaze od strane EU, svedoci smo čestih i nepotrebnih provokacija koje ceo proces pregovaranja rizikuju da vrate na polaznu tačku. U ranijem periodu čovek zadužen za provokacije bio je Marko Đurić, ali od kako je on otišao u Ameriku, nažalost njegovu ulogu je preuzeo predsednik Vučić.“

„Pretpostavljam da smo svi trebali da steknemo utisak da vi i Evropska unija, da je to neki nokat i meso, da je to… Šta, jel’ nam pretite? Ne razumem. Jel’ treba da se uplašimo sad? Ja ću vas sad vratiti na životne stvari iz skore prošlosti. Kada niste imali PCR testove, jel’ vam dala Evropska unija ili Beograd? Kada niste imali kiseonik. Jel’ vam dala Evropska unija jednu vakcinu? Da l’ vi uopšte znate šta hoćete?“

„Vi pričate o jeziku mržnje, pa gde je Priština od jezika mržnje. Pa, jezik mržnje je za Prištinu civilizacijsko dostignuće. Vi ste još na mučenju, otmicama, ubijanju. Marko Đurić je to najbolje osetio na svojoj koži. Hoćete da vas podsetim slike kada su ga izveli i paradirali ulicama Prištine, vukući ga za kravatu kao psa.“

Način obraćanja izvršne vlasti poslanicima nije blaži ni kada je tema mnogo manje teška - zaštita ćiriličnog pisma. Samostalni poslanik Vladan Glišić i ministarka kulture Maja Gojković.

„Moramo se setiti i toga da je bila najavljena još 2017. godine, od vođe Srpske napredne stranke a predsednika Srbije, najavljena Deklaracija o zaštiti srpskog naroda, koja je trebala da se pretvori i u zaštitu srpskog jezika i ćirilice, međutim, u jednom trenutku je to nestalo“.

„Ne kaže se vođa Srpske napredne stranke, nego se kaže – predsednik Republike Srbije Aleksandar Vučić ili predsednik Srpske napredne stranke. A malicioznost u postavljanju pitanja, to ostavite za neka druga mesta.“  

U ovom sazivu od 250 narodnih poslanika, opoziciju predstavlja njih sedmoro.

Za Otvoreni parlament Mirjana Nikolić.

At the 24th sitting, the parliamentary Committee on Administrative, Budgetary, Mandate and Immunity issues considered, for the first time, complaints on breaches of the recently adopted MPs Code of Conduct. The Committee rejected all five complaints from the agenda as ungrounded. 

During the sitting, where all the MPs who spoke were from the SNS parliamentary group “Aleksandar Vucic - For Our Children”, the Committee rejected complaints for violations filed by activist from the Open Parliament and CRTA against Marko Atlagic, Nebojsa Bakarec, Vladimir Orlic and Aleksandar Martinovic, as well as one by Transparency Serbia, filed against the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Issues. 

During the discussion, these MPs not only denied the allegations against them, but they repeatedly stated that the complaints were malicious and filed in order to discredit them. 

In his address, MP Marko Atlagic said that CRTA should not “teach him, a proud Serb, how to speak Serbian in the Serbian Parliament”. He stated that he “did not violate the Code, nor use expressions offensive to MPs from the Shiptar national minority, by using the term Shiptar”, and as evidence - he quoted the vocabulary. 

MP Nebojsa Bakarec said he believes “mass” complaints by CRTA are aimed at “flooding the Assembly and intimidating MPs”, and that he has studied the complaints and determined they are unfounded. Bakarec sees no threat in his statement “Do you know how they solve this in Russia? Well, in Russia you’d be gone, that’s how they solve it”, but he does see satanization in “Djilas-like media”. He said he fears the Administrative Committee will be flooded by these complaints, and it will have to hold “24 hour” sittings. 

MP Vladimir Orlic said that this is a political confrontation, that he does not plan to refrain from using his vocabulary, which the Committee does not deem controversial. He added that this is an “organized hunt on MPs” and a “dirty propaganda campaign”.

Committee Chairman Aleksandar Martinovic who, per the Code of Conduct, should sanction himself, stated that the call to “hit the sack until it tears apart” was a metaphor, and that there are no grounds for breaches of the Code there. 

In the discussion that followed, MPs supported their partisan colleagues, repeated how it is not a good thing that any citizen can file a complaint, and some even suggested finding a way to sanction those whom the Committee deems have misused the Code by filing complaints.

Today, the Administrative Committee considered complaints on breaches to the Code of Conduct for the first time, and it clearly demonstrated that adopting the Code in this sort of convocation was a farce and a simulation of democracy. 

The reform of the social welfare system, is one of the topics of which has been discussed for years, especially in the part related to cash social benefits (cash social assistance, increased cash social assistance and one-time assistance, etc.) and other financial benefits that belong to the population policy sector (child allowance). Thus, the amendments to the Law on Social Welfare and the Law on Financial Support to Families with Children, stand out as necessary in order to adapt the social welfare system to the needs of the poorest.  

Nonetheless, the adoption of the Law on Social Cards has been a key measure of the reform of the social welfare system for some time, as it would enable faster exchange of data between the competent state bodies that keep records of conditions important for exercising social welfare rights. As stated in the exposé for the new composition of the Government of the Republic of Serbia: “the priority reform in terms of better targeted social benefits is reflected in the work on social cards that represent a unified insight into data on current and potential beneficiaries.” At the same time, it is emphasised that “[social] cards will [enable] citizens who are in the most difficult economic situation to be more visible in the system, in order to exercise their rights to the necessary support in a timely and effective manner”. 

Today, the Assembly of Serbia will start the debate on the long-awaited Law on Social Cards. It seems that this Law has completely reformed the social welfare system and that all problems have been solved. At least it seems so to anyone who follows the news coming from the authorities in the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Policy. 

In this text, we will try to answer the question what is regulated by this brief Law and how all this will affect the procedure of exercising rights in the field of social welfare. 

Introductory provisions - matter regulated by law, aim and purpose of data processing

The Law defines that it regulates the establishment and maintenance of a single register called the Social Card, as well as the content of this register, the manner of access, processing and storage of data within this register. Furthermore, the aim of the Law is to establish a single and centralised record of the socio-economic status of individuals and persons related to them. This goal should enable the administrative bodies in charge for decision-making in the social welfare system to better perform data processing in order to determine the facts necessary for the exercise of rights and services from the social welfare system. All this is done for the sake of greater efficiency, fairer distribution of social benefits and proactivity of administrative bodies that decide on rights and services from the social welfare system. 

Indeed, when we know that over the years we have been talking about an increasing number of social assistance beneficiaries, that the Republic Institute for Social Welfare writes about in its annual reports, and about a decreasing number of employees in the social welfare system, it seems that faster data exchange in electronic form will increase efficiency and, ultimately, resolve requests for exercising the right to financial social benefits in less time.  

In accordance with the principles of personal data protection and obligations from the Law on Personal Data Protection, which is the umbrella law in this area, article 4 of the Law on Social Cards precisely defines the purpose of data processing. There are five different issues that determine the purpose of processing:  

determining the socio-economic status of the individual and persons related to him/her; 

automation of procedures and processes related to actions in the field of social welfare; 

creation of social policies through determining the socio-economic status of the individual and persons related to him/her and the wider community; 

prevention of poverty and elimination of the consequences of social exclusion, and 

conducting statistical and other research in the field of social welfare. 

Authority for establishing the Social Card, protection of personal data and other “technical” issues 

Article 5 of the Law on Social Cards prescribes that this single register shall be established and maintained by the ministry in charge of social issues, while technical support in establishing, maintaining and ensuring data security and safety shall be performed by the Office for Information Technologies and E-Government.

According to article 11 of the Law on Social Cards, users of data from the Social Card shall be centres for social work, local self-government units that perform entrusted tasks in the field of social welfare (such as the Secretariat for Social Welfare of the City of Belgrade or other bodies), the ministry in charge of social issues, the provincial secretariat in charge of social affairs, as well as other state administration bodies and institutions. 

The second paragraph of this article explicitly stipulates that, in the processing of personal data, users of data from the Social Card shall act in accordance with the umbrella law – the Law on Personal Data Protection. 

Moreover, according to this Law, the natural person to whom the data relate has the right to insight and the right emanating from the realised insight, through the e-Government Portal, in accordance with the law governing the protection of personal data. It should be noted here that the Law on Personal Data Protection, as the umbrella law, places the right of access to personal data in a much wider context than article 11, paragraph 3 of the Law on Social Cards. This is primarily perceivable in the part concerning the manner of exercising the “right to insight” and “the right emanating from the realised insight “. 

Thus, according to the umbrella law, this right, defined by the term “access to data”, can be exercised regardless of the fact whether it is implemented through the e-Government Portal or in any another way. Persons whose data are processed by the Law on Social Cards are beneficiaries of the rights and services of the social welfare system and potential beneficiaries of this system, that can correctly be assumed to be less able to use the e-Government Portal. Therefore, the right to insight and rights emanating from the realised insight referred to in article 11, paragraph 3 should be interpreted as an additional, special right, which, in addition to the one provided by the Law on Personal Data Protection, is regulated by the Law on Social Cards. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the Law on Personal Data Protection and would open a discussion on whether it is set in accordance with the principle of unity of the legal order from the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. 

The single register we are talking about – the Social Cards, has been established on the basis of data taken from the records in the field of social welfare kept by the relevant ministry, as well as the registers kept by other state bodies. These include: data from the Central Population Register, registers of the organisation for mandatory pension and disability insurance, registers of the Ministry of the Interior on vehicles, weapons, readmission, registers of the National Employment Service on payments of cash benefits and payments of temporary and special benefits. Furthermore, this article stipulates that data from the registers of the Tax Administration and the Republic Geodetic Authority be taken into the Social Cards.

In order to maintain and update the Social Cards, the Law stipulates the exchange of the data contained in the above-mentioned records and registers. However, there is a dilemma: if it is a data exchange – how can it be two-way, i.e. how is it ensured that the data from the Social Cards can be exchanged and disclosed by transferring or submitting to the operators of records and registers that exchange data with the Social Cards. The Law on Social Cards does not provide answers to these questions. 

In article 16, the Law envisages the creation of reports in the Social Cards, which can be pre-defined or defined at the request of the Social Cards’ beneficiaries. These reports serve to present “data relevant to determining the socio-economic status” of a beneficiary or a potential beneficiary of the social welfare system at the level of the wider community, i.e. city, municipality, administrative district of the province and the republic, and an overview of the rights that an individual used or still uses, as well as effects of social welfare measures. 

The second paragraph of this article stipulates that in this way the preparation of reports on beneficiaries who are at risk of natural and other disasters will be ensured. However, it remains unclear how these reports will be compiled and what they will be used for. No relevant provisions on this can be found in the legal text. 

A cuckoo in the nest of the Law on Social Cards – the procedure for creating and submitting notifications

In the part entitled “Procedure for creating and submitting notifications” referred to article 17 of the Law on Social Cards, we finally come to an explanation of the purpose of such a wide exchange of data established by the new Law. This article prescribes the procedure in cases where inconsistencies in data on the beneficiary or related persons are determined. Then a notification on data inconsistency is created (it may not be completely clear who creates the notification – whether it is automatically created within the Social Maps or by a ministry or by a third party) and contains instructions to the data beneficiary that it is necessary to check data by viewing and retrieving data from official records, documentation and public documents, that it is necessary to make a decision at the request of the party or that it is necessary to initiate proceedings ex officio because it has been found out about the facts of significant impact on the exercise, change or termination of social welfare rights. 

Article 17 of the Law on Social Cards prescribes the following: 

“If during the data processing there is a discrepancy of data on the beneficiary, i.e. related persons, a notification shall be created and sent to the records in the field of social welfare referred to in article 12, paragraph 1 of this Law.

The notification on non-compliance of data referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall also contain an instruction to the data beneficiary that it is necessary to: 

Perform data verification by inspecting and taking over data from official records, documentation and public documents; 

Make a decision at the request of the party; 

Initiate proceedings ex officio, because the facts of significant influence on the exercise, change or termination of social welfare rights have been found out.” 

That is why the process of forming and submitting notifications can be considered key to understanding what the Social Card actually is.

To answer this question, we must return to the basic concepts defined by the Law on Social Cards. Here, the term individual states that it is a person who is a beneficiary of rights and social welfare services and a person in the process of exercising rights. This is, hence, a person who has exercised the right to social assistance or a person who is trying to exercise the right to social assistance. 

To simplify everything, we will imagine two people with similar life circumstances. 

One is John, who lives in a common-law union with his partner and one child, has been unemployed for a long time, although he regularly reports to the clerk in the National Employment Service, has a tumbledown house in which he lives, does not own property of greater value. John has been a beneficiary of the social welfare system since 2009, when he fell into poverty that he is still struggling with. John is, as the Law on Social Card says – a beneficiary of rights and services from social welfare, i.e. an individual whose personal data is collected and processed. 

On the other hand, Jack has a wife and two children, lives in the basement of an abandoned building, is unemployed, poorly educated, without regular income, ill and due to his lack of information has not yet submitted a request for social assistance. According to the provisions of the Law on Social Welfare, Jack will not be an individual to whom the law applies until he submits a request for exercising the right to financial social benefit. 

Now that we have met John and Jack, let us return to the provision of article 17 of the Law on Social Cards. 

As seductive and beautiful as it may sound, initiating the procedure ex officio, which is provided for in article 17, paragraph 2, item 3 of the Law on Social Cards, is not possible in Jack’s case. The social card does not contain information about Jack, he is neither a beneficiary nor a person in the procedure for exercising the rights from social welfare. He is just a poor man who needs social benefit. 

On the other hand, the moment when John’s partner gets a job in a store, when he goes to Germany “as an asylum seeker”, or when he receives a gift of greater value, during the data processing there will be a discrepancy between the beneficiary, our John, and the provision of article 17, paragraph 2, item 3 will be activated by creating a notice of non-compliance which warns that John receives social benefit for two days, two weeks or a month longer than he is entitled to. 

This provision of the Law leaves us the opportunity only to conclude that the Law on Social Cards is passed not for the proclaimed better targeting of a larger number of people in poverty who will be entitled to cash social benefits, but for the abolition or suspension of benefits in cases in which the beneficiaries “skip” the threshold for exercising the right to financial social benefits due to a certain life situation. Nevertheless, it will be possible to achieve better targeting in cases that concern beneficiaries who have previously been denied a request for social assistance, but who subsequently met the conditions for exercising social welfare rights due to the new life circumstances. The percentage of these cases in the practice is still unknown. 

Furthermore, this provision will additionally strengthen the obligation stipulated in article 97 of the Law on Social Welfare obligating the beneficiaries to report changes, which could affect the right they exercise. This article of the Law on Social Welfare stipulates, inter alia, that the beneficiary of the right to financial social assistance is obliged to report to the Centre for Social Work any change relevant for the recognised right within 15 days from the day the change occurred. 

The key reason for passing this Law is to reduce abuse regardless of their quantity, which is clear from the explanation of the Law.  Incidentally, the Prime Minister once spoke about this abuse, mentioning cases where social assistance beneficiaries “come in an Audi to get social assistance” (not knowing or not caring that the amount of social assistance for an individual does not suffice to cover the cost of full tank of any Audi, even the smallest one). The explanation states that the adoption of the Law on the Social Cards will enable “a fairer distribution and reduction of abuses, efficiency in work and proactivity of public administration bodies.” It is further stated that abuses are prevented in the part concerning the exclusion of all those “who are ‘mistakenly’ included in the rights from the system”. 

When a new perspective of the provisions of the Law on Social Welfare is added to article 96 it is clear that the automatic review, i.e. the creation and submission of notifications under article 17 of the Law on Social Cards significantly “tightens” the conditions provided by the Law on Social Welfare. These provisions stipulate that the Centre for Social Work reviews the conditions for exercising the right to financial social assistance in May, based on the income of beneficiaries realised in the previous three months”, except for those beneficiaries who are able to work, who receive social assistance in Serbia nine months during the calendar year. This fact brings us back to the field of respecting the constitutional principle of unity of the legal order, because the law in the field of special processing of personal data in the social welfare system encroaches on the rights from the social welfare system itself, which are regulated by the Law on Social Welfare. 

At the very end – which personal data does the Law on Social Card collect and process?

Almost all of them. 

By roughly listing the data stored in the Social Cards, which are also referred to in articles 7 – 10 of the Law on Social Cards, we can find at least 135 different data! 

There are data ranging from general, such as personal number, place of residence, citizenship, occupation, marital status, place of marriage (it is unclear why this data is important), all the way to data on movable property, paid pensions and other cash benefits, social assistance payments, health status, number of household members, ethnicity, data on domestic violence, disability, etc. 

Data on “related persons” are collected, and according to the Law on Social Cards, they are all persons who “have a closer or distant kinship, i.e. property relationship, with an individual who is a beneficiary of the social welfare system, which has an impact on the exercise of rights”. More precisely – in addition to the circle of related persons and relatives already defined according to national regulations, a former partner is also included.

While after reading the new Law, the verses of the popular song “Be Careful Who You Love” occupy our mind as one’s partner’s income can cancel one’s social assistance, we can only hope that by the announced start of the application of the Law on Social Cards – March 1st, 2022, there will be enough time to create and submit a notice that the legal text is inconsistent with both laws the matter of which it touches – the Law on Social Welfare and the Law on Personal Data Protection. 

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je Petu sednicu Prvog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2021. godini, za utorak, 30. mart 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

Na 24. sednici Odbora za administrativno-budžetska i mandatno-imunitetska pitanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije po prvi put su razmatrane prijave podnete na osnovu nedavno usvojenog Kodeksa ponašanja narodnih poslanika za kršenje njegovih odredbi. Odbor je odbio kao neosnovane svih pet prijava koje su danas bile na dnevnom redu.

Na sednici Odbora na kojoj su govorili samo poslanici sa liste „Aleksandar Vučić - Za našu decu“ odbijene su prijave aktivista Otvorenog parlamenta i nevladine organizacije Crta protiv Marka Atlagića, Nebojše Bakareca, Vladimira Orlića i Aleksandra Martinovića, kao i prijava Transparentnosti Srbija protiv Odbora za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo.

Poslanici protiv kojih su podnete prijave ne samo da su demantovali navode iz prijava, već su ponavljali da su prijave zlonamerne i podnete sa ciljem da ih diskredituju.

Tako je poslanik Marko Atlagić poručio Crti da „njega kao ponosnog Srbina ne uči u srpskom parlamentu kako će govoriti". Poslanik je istakao da "nije povredio Kodeks niti koristio izraze koji vređaju narodne poslanike šiptarske nacionalne manjine koristeći izraz šiptar“, a kao dokaz čitao je citate iz rečnika.

Nebojša Bakarec smatra da „masovne“ prijave iz Crte imaju za cilj da „zatrpaju skupštinu i da zastraše poslanike“, a da je on proučio i ocenio da za prijave nema osnova. U rečenici „Znate kako se to rešava u Rusiji, tako što te više nema“, Bakarec ne vidi pretnju, ali vidi satanizaciju u „đilasovskim medijima“. On je izrazio strah da će Administrativni odbor biti zatrpan ovakvim prijavama te da će „morati da zaseda 24 sata“.

Vladimir Orlić je rekao da je ovde reč o političkom obračunu, a da ne planira da odstupi od svog rečnika, koji za Odbor nije sporan. Orlić je dodao i da je posredi „organizovana hajka na poslanike“ i „prljava propagandna kampanja!“.

Predsednik Odbora Aleksandar Martinović, koji bi po Kodeksu trebalo sam sebe da kazni, takođe je rekao da je poziv za „udaranje po vreći dok se ne pocepa“ metafora i da ni tu osnove za kršenje Kodeksa nema.

U naknadnoj raspravi, poslanici su podržali svoje stranačke kolege, ponavljali da nije dobro što svaki građanin ima pravo da podnese prijavu, a neki su predlagali i da se iznađe način kažnjavanja onih za koje Odbor utvrdi da su zloupotrebili Kodeks.

Administrativni odbor danas je prvi put razmatrao prijave i jasno pokazao da je donošenje Kodeksa pri ovakvom sastavu skupštine bilo farsa i simulacija demokratije. 

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je 23. sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Dvanaestog saziva za utorak, 23. mart, sa početkom u 9.00 časova.

Labelling, insults, covert and open threats to NGO activists, accusations of planning a coup and conspiracy against the President Vučić, counting squares metres of apartments, presenting personal data with an oddball invitation to citizens to inquire where those who criticise the Government’s moves live and work – all this was heard in the Assembly of Serbia this week, too.

Frequent violations of the Code of Conduct for MPs, through insults at the expense of dissidents and the absence of reaction from the Speakers – marked this sitting of the Assembly. Although on the first day of the debate on the Law on Climate Change, it seemed that the MPs would really talk about the agenda, it did not last for long. The head of the parliamentary group of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party, Aleksandar Martinović, opened the season with a series of accusations and untruths against the non-governmental organisation CRTA and the KRIK portal.

“Go find out, my dear fellow MPs and, you, Serbian citizens, where the headquarters of this CRTA [organisation] are. Do you know where their headquarters are? In Dedinje. The villa in which they are located, can hardly be compared, I think, to the facilities in which the embassies of the most powerful countries in the world are situated. Apartments in which heads of non-governmental organisations, opponents of the hated, despotic Vučić’s regime live have each 150, 200 or who knows how many square metres.”

After his performance, everything seemed to be allowed. However, the focus of this specific hate speech shifted the next day to one of the leaders of the opposition, Dragan Đilas, and the alleged evidence that he was hiding money in Mauritius.

“About the amendments, MP Nebojša Bakarec”.

“I will talk about these amendments and they are really a valuable help in improving this law. I’ve read all three carefully, they are really great. And I would say that the public space climate pollution that originates from Dragan Đilas is becoming more and more unbearable. Đilas emits more methane than all emitters combined, and I really must point out to the representatives of the ministry that Đilas creates a terrible climate.”

“When someone insults Dragan Đilas he whines, cries, sues, wins verdicts through his people in court, but that’s another topic, I don’t want to take much of the time now, we’ll talk about this next week.”

“My colleague Bakarec was completely right. The biggest polluter of the environment, something that is more dangerous than nuclear waste, is Dragan Đilas. A criminal, a motivator for mobsters and murderers, for those who would like to see the severed head of the Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić. That biggest fraudster and thief also attacked women here.”

“He has money not only in Mauritius and Switzerland, but who knows in which other destinations around the world. That is why the attacks on President Vučić under the control of Dragan Đilas are increasingly intense as they’re combined with tycoon-mafia-political groups.”

After each address, the deputy Speaker Elvira Kovač simply thanked the MPs.

For the Open Parliament Mirjana Nikolić.

“The Law on Climate Change has been poorly written, the legislation of the European Union has been only partially transposed, and the essence is that it actually protects the biggest polluter in the country – the Electric Power of Serbia (EPS)”, said Mirko Popović, programme director of the Renewables and Environmental Regulatory Institute (RERI). In an interview with the Open Parliament, he analysed the basic provisions of the Law, which should be passed by the Serbian Parliament by the end of the week.

OP:  The Law on Climate Change is the first item on the agenda of the new sitting of the Serbian Parliament. Since we have not had such laws so far, isn’t that good news?

MP: This is essentially a new systemic law that regulates certain issues that have not been regulated so far, but it mostly regulates what has already been done and should have been put in the Law a long time ago. I will remind you that there was a public debate on this Law at the beginning of 2018. I think that there is no good news in Serbia, but we can say that there are certain elements for which it is good that they will finally be legally regulated. It can be said that this is a step forward, but it comes 20 years too late. We pass laws late, when our political rulers go to Brussels and someone there “twists their arms”, and then they say they will “do something”. It’s like when you pressure a child because he has three bad marks, then he gets a better grade in one subject, and decides to tackle the other two later. We are awfully bad students.

OP: The Bill seems to have been written rather imprecisely, especially for those who are not very knowledgeable in this area. The introduction states that it “regulates the system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and for adapting to changed climatic conditions.” What does that actually mean?

MP: These are two essential areas of action when it comes to combating climate change. A system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the so-called mitigation, which means reducing emissions primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2), and then of other gases. These are direct measures that contribute to the reduction of emissions at their source and refer to emissions caused by human activity. This adjusting to changed climatic conditions is called adaptation, and means: long-term adaptation to a different reality in which we now live. Unlike mitigation, which should involve short-term cuts, adaptation is a longer-term process of aligning with what is our reality.

OP: Will this be another one of those laws that is claimed to be well written, but where there are doubts whether it will ever be implemented?

MP: This Law is terribly poorly written and it will not be possible to implement it without the adoption of at least twenty by-laws, so I doubt that it will be implemented at all. Unlike the usual story that we put things in words well, but that we are poorly implementing the regulations, we are talking here about the transfer of one important element of the European Union regulations. The regulation refers to key instruments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. to CO2 emissions trading, reporting, monitoring and verification. With this Law, we have not transferred the provisions related to the greenhouse gas emissions trading, which was the idea at first. This Law has been drafted for years, initially it was called the Law on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which was a more appropriate name for it. To call something the Law on Climate Change – it looks like playing God, and the only thing that has to do with God and this Law is that Serbia is behaving like the [proverbial] unfortunate person who was late when God was handing out smarts. The previous name was better, because the name Law on Climate Change has no meaning. Climate change is a natural phenomenon and cannot be regulated not even by a “powerful and most successful country in Europe such as Serbia”. It emanates from the meaningless name that the Proponent does not intend to create a system of emissions trading, which is the basic tool for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the EU.

OP: Could you, please, explain to us what emissions trading means?

MP: This means that CO2 emitting operators pay for each tonne of gas emitted. 

OP: Does that mean that a polluter can emit as much CO2 as he wants if he pays?

MP: No, this Law did not regulate that. This Law creates the basic elements – a strategic and planning framework that is incomplete, a system for operators to report on emissions, the method of monitoring and verification process. It is only one segment of the overall system. We have partially transposed the EU legislation tendentiously, so that the biggest polluter and the biggest emitter of CO2 in the country remains protected and that its pitiful and slack business would not even accidentally be jeopardised. The EPS is the key brakeman when it comes to the adoption of this Law. In fact, the EPS, is like someone who doesn’t expresses any will, does not exist, who has long been captured by the private interests of the ruling elites. The idea of this Law is not to introduce a system of emissions trading in Serbia. But I don’t want to be malicious. It’s good that at least in this way permits for greenhouse gas emissions are introduced, as well as a system of monitoring and verification. That is the only positive change.

OP: If we know that this is an otherwise complicated topic and that a good part of the citizens do not understand how much pollution affects our everyday life and health, and if we know that we are otherwise quite uninterested in environmental issues, at first glance passing such a law sounds like something is actually moving from a standstill?

MP: Unfortunately, this is not the case. This Law should have been passed at the beginning of the century, because the intention of the Proponent is to be gentle towards large emitters of gas. They should first be taught how the system functions and then entered to the emissions trading system. It’s too late for that, way too late. The Law should have been passed in 2003, so that emitters would learn the rules by now and we would have entered the emissions trading system a long time ago. Croatia, for example, has done a lot in the field of energy efficiency and the introduction of renewable energy sources in households by using the funds collected from the CO2 tax.

OP: In the field of ecology, we are also worst rated when it comes to negotiations with the EU, which have already slowed down completely?

MP: The government signed the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans in November and committed to climate neutrality by 2050, because they probably had not read what they signed or did not care. We have joined the achievement of the EU’s goals when it comes to the fight against climate change, and the EU has been asking us to do that for years. We committed ourselves to that by signing the Paris Agreement, and the first step made by the Republic of Serbia was to use trickery to deceive the UN and plant a false document about the intended contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by including emissions from Kosovo, and then excluding them later in the output calculation, and show how we reduced the emission. It’s pure trickery.

OP: There is a Green Parliamentary Group in the Assembly, which met a few days ago, and announced that it would submit amendments, although it was not announced what they will refer to. Civil society also formally participated. Does that sound like a step forward to you?

MP: First of all, I don’t believe that the current Assembly, which has truncated legitimacy, has the capacity to pass this Law at all. You said that the citizens didn’t understand what it was about, do you think that the MPs understand? That initiative of the Green Parliamentary Group also made sense when there were some people sitting in the Parliament who knew something about this topic, such as Gordana Čomić or Sonja Pavlović. Now I don’t believe that these people have the capacity or intention to read this Law. 

OP: One provision states that a National Climate Change Council will be established, which will consist of the Government and non-governmental sector representatives and experts.

MP: It has already been established, it already exists, just like the Anti-Corruption Agency. It’s been around since 2014, but doesn’t do a thing.

OP: What are your main objections, which parts of the Law will not work?

MP: This Law establishes a strategic and planning framework, but it does also regulate the adoption of a low-carbon development strategy. That document has already been drafted. It has not been adopted and I would like it to never be adopted, but it was at a public hearing, the Bill was made. The strategy was made for the period from 2030 to 2050, so the Law regulates an issue that will be on the agenda in two or three decades. So when will a new one be made? Second, this Law does not recognise the National Energy Climate Plan as a planning document in the field of climate change. It’s like saying you have a car, everything works great, it just doesn’t have an engine. The National Energy Climate Plan is a document which is a key public policy tool in the EU for achieving climate neutrality, it is a key document. This toothless strategy of so-called low-carbon development is nothing, they actually knocked out the teeth of that strategy by saying that it serves to identify the recommended directions of low-carbon development. Well, the strategy should set goals, define how much CO2 emissions will be reduced by 2030 or 2050, and not just identify the recommended directions. Such a strategy is doomed not to be implemented. And if the National Energy Climate Plan is not included in this law, this strategic framework will be meaningless, as it does not recognise the national contribution to reducing gas emissions, which Serbia is obliged to submit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change this year, before the next climate summit in Glasgow.

When it comes to emission permits for larger facilities, this is also unspecified. The Law talks about permits before putting plants into service, and it is not clear what will happen to the old facilities. The same system is being introduced for air traffic operators as major polluters, with the postponement of implementation until 2023, if the law is valid at all then, if someone does not put it out of force.

A system of monitoring how much each operator emits and a verification system are being introduced, these are key innovations that still mean that we will not go backwards after that. We will take small steps forward until someone says: from tomorrow on you can no longer burn coal. Think what you’ll do then. We’ll live in a kind of a 19th century romance, as electricity restrictions will be imposed and we’ll have power cuts. That is the most realistic scenario that can happen to us.

OP: There is no doubt that the Law on Climate Change will be passed, although no serious discussion on it is expected. The procedure is being followed, there was a public debate, the civil sector was involved. Several public hearings were organised in this convocation of the Assembly. It seems that this very Assembly is rectifying what the EU reproached?

MP: We have signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU and it contains the obligations of the signatory parties. We cannot shift the responsibility to the EU. The European Parliament made numerous remarks in its report, but we can ask them why they support “bad students”. The EU must do more, launch a mechanism to determine responsibility for why Serbia is wasting millions of EU taxpayers’ money. Is anyone asking them what they are spending the money on? We elected this Government, the citizens voted for these people, and they will vote again, so it is our responsibility.

OP: You said that you didn’t expect much from this composition of the Parliament, but do you expect another law to be passed in the area you are dealing with?

MP: There is a package of laws that should have been adopted a long time ago. These are primarily laws related to environmental impact assessment and their harmonisation with the EU directives. We were supposed to fulfil that by January 2019. I expect the percentage of sulphur in liquid fuels to be regulated, harmonisation with the directive on criminal offenses and on liability for environmental damage. I also expect the Government to adopt a decree on public participation in the adoption of plans and programmes relating to the environment, because that document was prepared a year ago.