Stakeholders:
Furthermore, the BWP was facilitated by the interrelations amongst various stakeholders with the primary being joined by a public-private partnership forged by a joint-venture agreement between the Serbian government and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) investor, Eagle Hills. However, other key stakeholders such as the City of Belgrade, Urban Planning Institute and the Republic Agency for Spatial Planning, represented the planning professionals, and NGO’s like ‘Don’t let Belgrade d(rown)’ and the ‘Ministry of Space’ expressed the views of the civil sector. Each stakeholder has a different role and are bounded by law differently, the following demonstrates the function of each clearly:
Eagle Hills: Based on the agreement established with the Serbian Government, the Eagle hills was granted numerous subventions to invest in BWP, and the contractual arrangement also suggests that the “state is obliged to lease the land to the developer for 99 years”. Given this information it allows the UAE investor to conduct the latter excluding fees: (1) leasing land; (2) obtain the right of land ownership once the building asset is built;(3) transfer the right of land ownership to other interested actors.
Serbian Government: Responsible for approving the project along with the collaboration with the UAE government. Although, the power relations amongst both governments are considered imbalanced, as the law appoints the Serbian government the right to approve all changes to any legislative act in the manner benefitting the interests of the foreign investor, in this case the Eagle Hills. Some scholars argue that such legal inconsistencies allow for malpractice to occur infringing the public interest (Maruna, 2015; Peric et al. 2020)
Planning Professionals: The urban planning office of the City of Belgrade and the Urban planning institute conceived the Belgrade waterfront concept masterplan in 2014, however, the BW concept masterplan firmly conflicts with the masterplan for Belgrade (Zekovic et al, 2018). Thus, in order for the BW masterplan to be approved, ex post modifications were made to the Master Plan of Belgrade. The amendments to the Masterplan of Belgrade had to comply to the BW masterplan and the Republic Agency for Spatial Planning (RASP) was chosen, but unfortunately, the planning law from December 2014 nullified the RASP and selected the Serbian Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure as the responsible parties for conducting the changes to masterplan for future development, which was endorsed in 2015 under the name Belgrade Waterfront Spatial Plan (Bancroft, 2015).
Civil Sector: As previously mentioned two key NGO’s represented the civil sector, and organized several activities following the governmental announcements of the BWP. Over 3000 citizens objected the proposals for the Belgrade Waterfront, and more than 200 people actively participated in the public hearing denoting all kinds of flaws proposed in the BWP masterplan. However, as showcased in most closed, neo-liberal governments the public hearing was another tactic for manipulation, generating false beliefs that the citizens voice actually mattered, resulting in a rejection from the public insight in the decision making of the BWP masterplan, not long after the amendments to the masterplan were verified.
- Was value created and how?
