Life in Kosovo debates the management of courts
Life in Kosovo broadcast a debate on the management of courts in Kosovo, in light of the release of a manual prescribing how they should be run.
Read more
Every Thursday starting from 20:30, Radio Television Kosovo, RTK, broadcasts the TV debate show "Life in Kosovo", a joint production of BIRN and RTK.
Read more
Life in Kosovo discusses energy strategy
08 April 2010 Life in Kosovo discussed Kosovo’s energy strategy for 2009-2018.
The questions covered included: Was the energy strategy approved last week by parliament the most favourable solution? What are the arguments for and against it? What are the real benefits for Kosovo? What will happen to the Kosovo B power plant? What is the future of Sibovci?
To discuss this and other issues related to this strategy, host Muhamet Hajrullahu was joined in the studio by the following guests:
Justina Shiroka-Pula – Kosovo’s minister of energy and mines
Myzejene Selmani - Head of the commission for trade, energy, and telecommunications
Luan Shllaku – Kosovar Foundation of Open Society
Visar Kelmendi – an expert in the energy sector
Also, as part of the show, an interview with Germany’s General Markus Bentler on the NATO Kosovo Force’s (KFOR’s) role in Kosovo and the future of the Kosovo Security Forces.
Energy debate
Asked about the content of the recent privatisation strategy approved by parliament, Justina Shiroka-Pula answered: “The [new] strategy is a review of the previous one, which according to the energy law is to be reviewed every three years.
After doing that, we compiled a new strategy for 2009-2018, containing all aspects of a strategy, such as vision, mission and others.
This strategy was drawn up using a template we received in 2009 from the United States and the World Bank.”
Further asked on whether Kosovo B and Sibovci are part of the energy strategy, the minister answered: “Sibovci is not in conflict with the developments of the New Kosovo [power plant] project,” she said.
“In line with the opinions of numerous advisors and international institutions, it was proposed that it is
more reasonable and logical for Kosovo B to be part of the package.”
She added that the inclusion or non-inclusion of Kosovo B would have both advantages and disadvantages, but that analysis has suggested that if Kosovo’s energy sector is restructured, and there are losses in distribution, it was deemed better to include Kosovo B in the plan.
Visar Kelmendi disagreed that including Kosovo B in the strategy was a good idea. According to him, investments over the past decade have reached a value of around 200 million euros.
The effects of this investment can be seen today, and Kosovo B supplies around 65-70 percent of Kosovo’s total electricity consumption, he claimed. “Kosovo’s power plants and mines are the pillars of the of the electricity system today,” he said.
Mr Kelmendi went on to discuss what he perceives as the problems caused by the Treaty of Athens, which he believes officials to be trying to fulfil through the new strategy.
“However, the Treaty of Athens doesn’t mention anything about property, or the loss and destruction of public property. On the contrary, it has around 7 articles discussing the value of preserving public property,” he added.
“The biggest problem is the decision we are taking to change [energy generation and distribution] from a public monopoly to a private monopoly.”
Asked whether he believes including Kosovo B in the package was the right decision, Luan Shllaku said: “Pressures from ‘phantom forces’ are becoming the main determinants in the development of energy policy in the country.
We don’t have decision-making institutions; instead we have puppets – a puppet parliament, a puppet prime minister and all the rest. This was shown by how parliament unanimously agreed that Kosovo B should be included in the package after the minister presented the strategy.”
To this, Ms Shiroka-Pula argued that “when we talk about the energy sector, we can’t only consider mining and generation, because the problem is distribution.
Distribution is what is destroying the energy sector and, if we don’t take steps as soon as possible to improve this, not only the energy sector will be destroyed but the whole economy.”
In support of this point, the minister claimed that Kosovo loses 82 million euros due to inefficient distribution.
The government would have to subsidise these losses, and so would have to take money out of the state budget.
Mr Kelmendi replied that while the government has tried to create the impression that privatisation is the only solution to the energy sector’s problem, it is not.
In reply, Ms Shiroka-Pula argued that “if we continue keeping [Kosovo] B as a state subsidised solution to cover losses, we risk not being able to find bidders interested in buying the plant after 2015 or 2016.
Secondly, if Kosovo B remains property of KEK and continues working as before, then there is the problem of finding people who will invest; we now have the conditions necessary to create a partnership.”
Mr Shllaku replied: “Including Kosovo B in the package, we can’t expect as large profits as we could have expected if it hadn’t been included, and we had instead prepared it for privatisation later…I think Kosovo B is healthy, has staff that have moved it forward for over 20 years.
It deserves more than being put into a package to create a monopoly which Europe will oppose. What has kept European economies going is competition.
Giving Kosovo B together with Kosovo C will create a monopoly that will kill any competition in Kosovo’s market. For 40 years, it will not be possible to buy electricity at a cheaper price.”
Asked how Kosovo will benefit from the privatisation plan, Ms Shiroka-Pula said that “Sibovci will be a separate corporation, and to begin with will be under the government.
It will be given only the capacity and amount to fulfil the needs of plants A, B and a new plant.”
Myzejene Selmani said that no-one convinced deputies to include Kosovo B in the package. She herself has been against the idea of an energy monopoly throughout. “We have had many discussions, but the issue is with the government Cabinet,” she said.
“The issue has never been properly discussed in the government, which has not been transparent in this process.”
In addition, Ms Selmani expressed agreement with Mr Kelmendi’s dissatisfaction that this privatisation plan has been proposed without a law on privatisationfirst being established.
Asked whether Kosovo should keep property publicly-owned, Mr Kelmendi said “we need to keep in mind that the issue of privatisation will return,” he said.
“There are two main options for privatisation. The first was never considered, which is for the state to lead reformation of the public sector’s operations and management.”
Ms Shiroka-Pula replied saying: “Reconstruction, dividing public property into parts, raising their value and then entering partnerships or coordinating privatisation of small units will generate the most [revenue]. Both the previous and current governments have tried to lead reconstruction.”
Mr Shllaku concluded by saying that “when Sibovci and Kosovo B are offered for privatisation, with infrastructure included in the package, and we are well informed of what the plants will emit, and the CO2 credits they are worth, and the owners are guaranteed Kosovo’s market, [then] we will have created conditions for a horrible, anti-European monopoly.”
Interview with General Markus Bentler
Asked whether Kosovo is a safe place to live in eleven years since the NATO bombing campaign, General Bentler said that “Kosovo is a much safer place to live than eleven years ago, due to the hard work we have done together with the people and institutions of Kosovo, and NATO’s commitment, which has been really great ever since.”
Asked to comment on whether there is a difference between the Kosovo Security Forces (KSF) and the previous forces, Gen Bentler said: “KSF is a newly-built organisation, it’s not a continuation of the past, and is dealing with very specific set of missions, according to a mandate given by [NATO].
It’s basically a non-military force by law and by mandate. It is dealing with all types of humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and so on. I think it’s a very useful force and we are going to make great progress in developing this force into a very capable one serving the people of Kosovo.”
Asked to comment on the events of March 5, NATO’s frozen relationship with the KSF during a memorial ceremony for the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the contradictory statements given by Kosovo’s government and KFOR, Gen Bentler answered: “I can’t comment on press statement given by Kosovo’s institutions
since I did not release them.
The suspension of the relationship happened on [March] 5 and was all over by the afternoon of the 10th.
In between, we had some very intense discussions and consultations with relevant stakeholders to sort out the discrepancies on perceptions of the KSF shown on March 5, which we didn’t think was appropriate. But after Marc 10 this issue was concluded and we have continued our good relationship.”
Asked on what agreement was reached on this issue, Gen Bentler replied: “You can see in the press release from the President’s office on March 10 a clear statement subscribing to what the KSF’s mandate is all about.
It is not a military force, but deals with humanitarian intervention and disaster relief, and the ceremonial unit needs to be coordinated with KFOR, so that it presents itself appropriately. This ceremonial unit will not appear on March 5, but will at other events.
The ceremonial units will carry weapons we deem appropriate, but not for events connected to one community.
Asked about the political implications of KFOR’s duty, Gen Bentler said: “We have learned a lot over the last two decades.
What we call “NATO’s comprehensive approach” is something very important we have had to learn. It means that we can stabilise a region or place only if all the instruments of the state work together.
Especially in Kosovo, we cannot bring the region forward just using military instruments.
The military can never deliver the answer to all problems…Our core mission needs to properly fit the economic, political and social scenario. If you come to Kosovo and think just on military
terms, you will lose.”
Asked to comment on KFOR’s mandate based on UN Security Resolution 1244, the technical military agreement between NATO and Serbia, and related developments such as the ‘Ahtisaari Plan’ and Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Gen Bentler said” The 1244 mandate that has always been our mandate basically has two pillars: impartiality, because we serve all communities in Kosovo, and neutrality.
Those are the fundamentals of our mandate.
That is also the reason for our success because we are accepted, recognised, and appreciated by all the communities.”
He also said that KFOR’s relationship with Kosovo’s institutions is healthy. “We meet very often and exchange our views in a transparent and open manner,” he said.
Gen Bentler mentioned KFOR’s good relationship with Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro.
Asked to comment on the Serbian border, Bentler said “I’m still the owner of the Kumanova agreement, and it’s a boundary not a border. We cover it with our patrols, Kosovo’s border and boundary police and EULEX.”
Asked to comment on the March 13 attack on gate 31 at Zubin Potok, along the boundary with Serbia, Gen Bentler said “The basic mission of KFOR is to intervene.
However, we could only come after the event because we are not stationed there. We do not guard that gate, because that is the responsibility of EULEX officers together with Kosovo’s border and boundary police and customs.
We are, however, in the area, so if something happens than of course we will be there and our soldiers did immediately go there. This attack was not large scale, but happened in one minute. Anything can happen that quickly.”
Asked what he expects the role of KFOR to be in 5 years’ time, Gen Bentler answered: “It depends on progress. There are many doors to go through, including the ICG advisory opinion and the political process.
If we are lucky and everything goes well, KFOR could maintain just a residual presence, but we could also remain the same way and with the same numbers.
It depends on the situation and the decisions of my political and military masters.”
Asked the same question for the KSF he said he believes that the “KSF in 2015 will have reached full operative capacity. [KFOR] will revisit the issue of the KSF in 2013, as is stated in the law establishing the KSF law, and future decisions will be taken based on the situation at that time.”
Asked to comment on KFOR’s controversial commercials that have attracted a number of complaints, Gen Bentler said that he is, in one way, happy that the commercials are provoking comments and make people talk.
“There are good and better commercials, and there are people who don’t like them, which is a matter of choice,” he said. “But what we wanted them to convey is what KFOR is all about, that KFOR is a friendly force, is for the people and is always there."
Justice reports
During March, BIRN monitored 173 juridical hearings, with a negative trend in most changes observed.
In March, 20.8% of hearings were announced on bulletin boards, as compared to 31.7% in February.
In February, 36% of juridical hearings were held in courtrooms and 64% in judges’ offices. In March, only 31.2% were held in courtrooms and 68.8% in judges’ office.
A positive trend has been noticed in the reduction in the use of mobile phones during hearings. Compared to 11.5% of cases in February, in March only 8.7% of cases saw such behaviour.
Even though the leader of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to all of Kosovo’s courts, wearing uniform is still the exception rather than the rule for court officials.
Kadri Begolli, coordinator of the office of disciplinary prosecutor said her “office investigates improper behaviour among judges and prosecutors.
Our office is not a court and does not affect court decisions. Our mandate focuses on finding proof of inappropriate behaviour and reporting it to the disciplinary commission of Kosovo’s judicial council for a judgment.”
Asked about what happened in the case of Ymer Huruglica, the former head of the municipal court of Gjilan who previously admitted trying to influence the direction of the criminal trial of a relative, Mr Begolli answered that an official investigation has been started and a report containing evidence has been passed on to the disciplinary commission.
The head of the disciplinary commission, Mr Zhivojin Jokanoviq, said that the disciplinary commission has not decided anything yet. “A hearing has been arranged, to which [Mr Huruglica] has been called. Meanwhile, the Council, as the highest body, has accepted his resignation.”
Enver Peci, the head of the juridical council of Kosovo, said “without taking into consideration who a person is, they are expected to act according to the law.
Thus, they should not be allowed to resign without facing the law.”
He went on to say that the acceptance of Mr Huruglica’s resignation has badly affected the trust of Kosovo’s citizens in the country’s institutions.
Week’s Highlight
Journalist Edona Musa reported on Prishtina’s medical Emergency Centre, which is part of the University Clinic Center of Kosovo (UCCK), which she described as a good example for the whole health system of Kosovo.
Even though there are emergency clinics in every city in Kosovo, the 33 doctors and 79 technical staff in Prishtina’s centre provide services to the population of the whole country.
Basri Lenjani, the head of Prishtina’s Emergency Centre said “the centre has been recognised as the best department of the UCCK.
On December 25, the centre was praised by US ambassador Christopher Dell in a letter expressing special thanks for offering emergency assistance to a US citizen involved in a traffic accident.
From January to March, 9,638 cases have been treated in the emergency centre, of which some 83% were non-emergency cases.”
“The staff at the centre are happy to be on the front line offering health services, regardless of the difficulties they face…the centre is privileged in comparison with others regarding the supply of medications and equipment,” he said.
Life in Kosovo is a co-production between Kosovo Public Television, RTK and theBalkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN. It is broadcast every Thursday,starting at 20:20.
Climate Change
This December, representatives of around 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) to forge agreement on a Protocol determining how to collectively combat climate change. This will replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012, and hopefully correct its shortcomings.
Report on Kosovo`s Healthcare System
Monitoring report on all primary, secondary and tertiary (University Clinical Center of Kosovo, UCCK) healthcare institutions in Pristina, Prizren, Peja, Mitrovica, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Gjakova, Klina, Decan, Istog and Vushtrri.
BIRN Report on Monitoring the Education System
Report on monitoring the elementary and high schools in Prishtina: Mitrovica, Ferizaj, Peja and Gjilan
Analytical report of the situation and the problems in the University of Prishtina
REPORT: Monitoring the Courts
Monitoring the work and administration of courts in Prishtina, Peja, Mitrovica, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Vushtrri and Skenderaj
Read more
Download PDF
Buy DVD
Click here to buy a copy of 'Does Anyone Have a Plan?,' BIRN's feature-length documentary on Kosovo's final status.
"Life in Kosovo" debates also available on DVDs now!
Read more
Post Your Comments
Write your comment on BIRN debates and other activities.With the new web-site BIRN looks forward to receive direct opinions from our readers via comment section.
Read more
Balkan Investigative Reporting Network
The opinions expressed in Balkan Insight are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network.
Comments:
No comments have been posted.