To assess current conditions and practical issues at municipal level, the UN in co-operation with the Standing Conference of Cities and Towns in Yugoslavia distributed in November 2000 a questionnaire to every municipality in FR Yugoslavia excluding Kosovo. The questionnaire comprises 153 questions, focusing primarily on short-term needs through the coming winter (specifically including utilities, public transport, plus health, education and social welfare services) but also seeking feedback on longer-term or development/recovery issues.

167 municipalities responded, representing 92% of the total number (see attached map). The high response rate from both Serbia and Montenegro, and across the political spectrum, is an impressive indication of the importance which municipal representatives attach to this initiative and to the issues raised in the survey. This report is based on questionnaire responses, backed up by the work of a UNICEF multi-sectoral survey team which visited 31 municipalities between May and September 2000 plus a number of related sector specific or technical surveys undertaken by various agencies.

The completed questionnaire responses from each municipality and statistical data on which this report is based are available (in Serbian language) on request from the offices of UNICEF and OCHA in Belgrade.

According to official statistics, there are 161 municipalities in Serbia (excluding Kosovo) with a total population of 7,822,795 and 21 municipalities in the Republic of Montenegro with 615,035 inhabitants. The survey indicates that agriculture is the main source of income in municipalities in both Serbia (70% of respondents) and Montenegro (55%). Secondary sources in Serbia are industry (35%) and trade (12%). For Montenegro, tourism is the second source (35%) followed by industry (28%).

Overall, agriculture is listed as a primary economic activity in 71% of municipalities. In terms of constraints to the farming sector, lack of fuel (for tilling, harvesting and production) is the principal concern in Serbia (69% of respondents) followed by lack of fertiliser (58%), functioning machinery (33%) and seeds (19%). In Montenegro fuel is more widely available. Problems raised there include lack of machinery (21%), food processing equipment (14%) and animal feed.

Lack of fuel is also the leading constraint on public transport systems in 80% of municipalities in Serbia. Other priority needs in this sector are road repair and extension or improvement, and shortage of vehicles for public transport. Roads conditions are identified as particularly poor in Babusnica, Barajevo, Crna Trava, Surdulica and Sjenica. In Montenegro, cleaning and maintenance of roads during the wintertime was stated as a major problem. In urban areas, the chaotic parking is one of the major obstacles for proper functioning of public transport.

Garbage collection and disposal are reported as adequate in 24% of municipalities in Serbia and 21% in Montenegro. Lack of vehicles, garbage containers and suitable disposal sites are identified as constraints.

The survey shows unemployment rates increasing in both republics. Officially there are 663,758 unemployed persons in Serbia. The higher share of unemployed in total population is in Bujanovac 62%, Varvarin 60%, Mionica 39.8%, Gadzin Han 35%, Nis 32%, Kragujevac and Kursumlija 28% each. In Montenegro, total number of unemployed is 57.634, with highest share in total population in Podgorica 47%, Herceg Novi 36%, Ulcinj 32,4% and Pluzine 28%.

Energy supply emerges consistently as the most urgent priority for humanitarian assistance, with particular focus on heating. It was raised as the primary concern (over 75% of respondents) for public central heating systems and in hospitals, schools, collective centres and other institutions through the winter. The issue affects both local and displaced people directly in their homes as well as the public utilities and social services on which they rely.

The energy sector in FRY consists of three large systems. These are electricity generation, oil and gas industry and district heating system. These systems are vertically integrated countrywide, republic or municipal monopolies. In one way or another, most of the population relies on this system for the provision of domestic heating, water and electricity.

Current consumption of electricity can be broken down as follows: the majority, about 70%, is consumed by private households, who rely on electricity for heating, cooking, hot water and food storage. The remaining 30% is used by service institutions including hospitals, schools, public transport and administration, and in industries such as food processing and pharmaceutical.

Insufficient supply of fuel and electricity is the most significant problem. The survey also identifies poorly functioning or broken equipment as a serious concern. Responses indicate that almost all municipalities experience disruptions in power supply and that current electricity supply meets less than 30% of needs in municipalities. Reported average duration of power cuts in Serbia is 8-12 hours per day (4 hours per day in Montengro)

Over 50% of households use electricity as their main source of heating, thus consuming almost 70% of the total amount of available electricity. Half of those households cannot switch to alternative heating sources in the short term. 27% of households are connected to district heating systems, the vast majority of which rely on gas. District heating systems also require electricity to operate the pumps in the network.

A large majority of schools and hospitals operate on independent heating systems (heating oil, coal). The survey again confirms (over 80% of responses) inadequate supplies of heating fuel and poorly functioning heating equipment as primary concerns.

About 70% of households are equipped with hot water boilers and deep freezers. Hot water boilers are the primary source of sanitary hot water.

About 85% of households are connected to central water supply systems. Except for the City of Novi Sad (for which the water supply line was bomb-damaged), the large water supply systems (Belgrade, Nis) covering a total population of some 2.1 million are adequate both in quantity and quality. These systems are classified as priorities and therefore have been relatively unaffected by power cuts.

However, water and sanitation systems suffer from a problem consistently identified by the survey across the range of public services: equipment is frequently aged, obsolete, poorly maintained and overused. Floods in March 2000 and subsequent extremely dry season (with the lowest recorded rainfalls in over 100 years) have made the situation even more critical, causing frequent water supply cuts in all municipalities.

Most water supply systems in the less developed municipalities are operating at various degrees below capacity and in many cases under critical conditions with no stand-by capacity and some on the verge of collapse. A recent survey covering over 5,000 households found that 33% of the households experience occasional interruptions during the whole year and an additional 13.7% suffer interruptions during the summer months. Loss through leakage in water supply systems ranked from 5% in Paracin and Novi Becej to 50% in Krupanj, Mionica, Barajevo, Tivat and Pljevlja.

Based on the test results from 101 water supply systems carried out in 1998 and 1999 by the Institute of Public Health, 66% do not meet the microbiological WHO/FRY standard for drinking water and 48% do not meet the chemical and physical standard of drinking water. Stocks of water purification supplies are on average at 2 – 4 weeks’ usage and are funded directly by municipalities in almost all cases. The survey identifies a serious risk to public health due to extensive use of asbestos-concrete water pipes. Investment in treatment facilities, equipment plus funds to purchase supplies is required regarding both supply and quality control systems.

Water supply to the areas of Kotor and Herceg Novi on the coast of Montenegro requires attention. Herceg Novi is supplied from a source in Republika Srpska through a pipeline which flows through Croatia to the town. Salt water is reported in the Kotor water system.

Some examples of typical problems at municipality level are as follows:

Barajevo: Water supply cuts are frequent (Belgrade network cuts last 3-4 days, whereas local wells may dry up for up to seven days consecutively).

Kraljevo: 90% of local residents use drinking water from the city network while the remainder are supplied from individual water supply networks. Although 24,000m³ of the daily water production should be sufficient for the population’s needs, due to the excessive losses in the network, only 65% of pumped water reaches beneficiaries.

Kursumlija: The city water supply system with a capacity of 2,070 m³ per day currently provides water to approximately 46% of the current city population. The main problems are an insufficient water source and old and worn-out distribution network (built in 1933).

Blace: The town water supply system with a capacity of 1,600 m³ supplies some 80% of the local population. The water fails to meet the quality control requirements and is not suitable for drinking. The main problems in supplying the population with quality water are environmental pollution caused by the exploitation of local forests (causing a reduction in the supply capacity of the local water source), and dilapidated filtering and disinfecting systems.

Bojnik: The local population is supplied with drinking water from individual wells and from a distribution network system which is still under construction (20 km of the network in the town area). The water is not treated or tested. Water supply cuts are frequent, and in the summer can last up to a few months.

Sjenica: The town water system was built in 1935 and presently records 75% losses of the total production of water due to the worn-out pipelines.

The total population of refugees and internally displaced persons is approximately 714,000. There are around 472,000 refugees in Serbia and just under 20,000 in Montenegro. UNHCR and the FRY Government have also recently completed a registration of internally displaced persons indicating 190,000 in Serbia and 32,000 in Montenegro. The number of refugees and displaced varies greatly by municipality, as does their percentage in relation to the size of the local population. Please refer to the attached map which shows relative concentration of displaced to host population by municipality.

Over 90% of the refugee/internally displaced population are temporarily accommodated with relatives, friends, or in rented accommodation. Less than 10% live in collective centres. The survey confirms that the conditions and priority needs of refugees and internally displaced people are very similar to those of the local population.

The most common problem is lack of income. Though it is difficult to obtain statistically valid data on this subject, particularly regarding activity in the grey economy, it appears that only a very small proportion can rely on regular income sufficient to meet basic needs; for example, two thirds of those living in collective centres have no income of any kind.

The vast majority have great difficulty paying for items such as medicine, electricity and heating fuel. According to the survey, the priority needs for displaced populations are energy including heating (90%), clothing and footwear (70%), food (67%) and medicines and hygiene items (30%). The refugee/internally-displaced populations also use (and place an extra burden on) health, education, social welfare and other public service and are therefore affected by conditions in these sectors.

Though the scenario for internally displaced persons is still unclear, many refugees are now assessing their option of return to place of origin or local integration. Relative prospects for making a living are a significant factor in making this choice.

In recent years Montenegro has received a greater volume per capita and range of assistance from the international community than Serbia. This is reflected in the responses: just 36% of municipalities in Serbia reported the quality and scale of humanitarian assistance in the health sector as satisfactory while the figure is 79% in Montenegro.

Buildings tend to be old (on average 18-25 years) and poorly maintained, requiring rehabilitation. Overall conditions in the sector are reported to have deteriorated over the past year in Serbia (58% of respondents) though in Montenegro this figure is just 28% with 43% reporting an improvement. Insulation, including repairs to roofs and windows are identified as priorities. Survey results indicate that water supply is a problem in health facilities in 50% of municipalities. As indicated above, heating supplies and rehabilitation of heating systems are the most urgent requirements in the winter.

As with the buildings, much (over 60%) medical equipment is classified as old and poorly functioning or obsolete. Some respondents criticised humanitarian assistance programmes for not responding adequately to this problem.

Though staff numbers are generally adequate, the survey indicates that 90% of respondents identified the financial status of staff in health institutions as unsatisfactory: 84% in Serbia and 42% in Montenegro reported the status as bad.

Though there has been significant humanitarian assistance in drug supply, it is viewed as insufficient and sometimes inappropriate, particularly in Serbia (such as some drugs, which do not meet FRY/WHO standards pertaining to expiry dates and user instructions). Medications and sanitary materials available to the population from state pharmacies are reported to meet just 15% of needs. Shortages of sanitary materials within health centres are also almost universal (94% of responses).

Note however that in spite of these problems, 80% of responses indicate that health workers retain a strong commitment to their profession. This is partly reflected in responses, which show hygiene levels in 75% of health facilities as satisfactory or good.

With support from the Italian Government WHO and UNICEF, together with the Institute for Public Health in Serbia, have recently undertaken a survey of over 5,000 households across Serbia to determine baseline data in the health sector. Fieldwork is complete and a report will be produced shortly.

There are 1,383 schools in Serbia with 683,824 pupils and 125 schools with 54,252 pupils in Montenegro. Out of total number of pupils, 5.46% In Serbia, and 10.63% in Montenegro are IDPs/refugee children.

The problems that affect health facilities generally also apply to schools. Poor maintenance and overuse are reported: for example responses indicate that 100% of primary schools operate a shift system. Teaching aids and other furniture and equipment including school kitchens are also in poor condition due to age, lack of maintenance and overuse.

Municipalities reporting particularly severe constraints in this sector include Sremska Mitrovica, Stara Pazova, Apatin, Indjija, Ruma, Sid, Irig, Tutin in Serbia and Tivat, Berane, Podgorica, Budva, Bar, Herceg Novi in Montenegro. Note that this correlates closely with those municipalities hosting a relatively high number of refugees and IDPs (see attached map).

Together with the need for functioning teaching aids and school furniture, the rehabilitation of roofs, windows, heating systems are identified as priorities for assistance. Water supply and sanitary facilities are also highlighted – approximately half of schools are connected to the public water supply system and most have unsatisfactory sanitary facilities.

The problems identified above, plus low salary levels, are a major concern affecting teacher’s motivation levels. Strikes have regularly disrupted education in the recent past. The survey shows that 69% of municipalities in Serbia and 35% in Montenegro provide co-funding (with the Ministry of Education) for the operational costs of primary schools. This indicates that the municipalities place a high priority on primary education in applying scarce resources.

Over 155,000 children in Serbia and 8,400 in Montenegro are enrolled in pre-school education. 91% of these have a kitchen, but in Serbia kitchenware, cutlery and furniture are required. Two thirds of pre-schools in Serbia and one fifth in Montenegro do not have an appropriate playground. 100% report playing equipment as in need of repair or replacement.

Social institutions share the needs of health and educational facilities in terms of heating fuel and rehabilitation of buildings and equipment.

The service appears to be overwhelmed; while the reported number of social welfare beneficiaries (based on the official criteria) is 266,909 in Serbia and 7,880 in Montenegro, it is estimated that the actual number of people in need of social welfare assistance is ten times higher than the number of registered beneficiaries. Low or lack of income is a significant factor expanding the numbers in need; however many eligible people are thought not to register because they have no expectation of receiving assistance. A further indication that the system is struggling to cope with the scale of needs is that 90% of municipalities have identified additional caseloads over and above those identified through criteria established by the Ministry.

Social welfare allowances are considered insufficient to meet basic subsistence needs and conditions in social institutions are poor; many social cases rely on international humanitarian assistance even for basic food. This gives an indication that, for the most vulnerable, conditions is similar for the local population and refugee/IDP caseloads.

Most municipalities expressed the need for economic recovery and inward investment. (In Serbia 43% of municipalities identified the development of small business as a priority, 39% international co-operation, 13% agriculture, 12% infrastructure. In Montenegro 35% international co-operation, 21% private enterprise, 21% small business). The survey confirms the context of widespread unemployment and under-employment, as well as years of economic decay across the country. Responses expressed the urgent need to develop new opportunities for people to earn a livelihood.

Over 50 per cent of mayors responding highlighted the need for investment in private sector development and the promotion of entrepreneurship as well as reform to promote economic restructuring and privatisation.

The recently concluded UNDP mission on Good Governance for Human Development made a series of recommendations for institutional reforms, decentralisation and municipal management, social inclusion and poverty eradication. For the creation of local enabling and supportive environments, municipal public administration will have to be overhauled and adapted to the needs of a 21^st century information technology economy. Cities and towns also need better transport and communication services. Many municipalities pointed to serious environmental problems which affect public health, tourism, and investment. This will require partnerships at the local level to work in tandem on health, environmental and industrial rehabilitation.